Interview with the Assassin

Blair Witch Project meets Oliver Stone's JFK and puts both to shame. Nasty, brutish, and short (85 minutes) and true to life in every other way too. Highly sophisticated and intelligent, it cuts right to our most primal fears while presenting itself in a deceptively primitive fashion. Explores the shadows in our recent history and national psyche with acute, paranoiac vision.

This film is amazing. 100% amazing. Everything about it is so real, all the little touches lead to it looking like a true documentary, and yet there are some great filmmaking techniques that are "happy accidents" that advance it as a dramatic story as well.

The lead actor is frighteningly good, as is the mostly off-camera actor playing Ron... very impressive and just downright astonishing.

Recommended easily, and its very rewatchable too. Hell, even some real documentaries don't hold up to repeated viewings like this mock-one does.

This film had a really good premise - the presentation of a fictitious (to some of the viewers out there : yes, FICTITIOUS!) story within a factual-like packaging. This is something that Michael Crichton has done in his books in the past in titles such as "Eaters of the Dead" and "The Great Train Robbery". When done well, as Mr Crichton did, this technique can make an otherwise ordinary or even boring story great. I thought that this was what "Interview with the Assassin" was going to do.

The film started out well and the performances were good - Raymond J. Barry was particularly well-suited to his role. Later, though, it began meandering and in the end, became little more than just another Hollywood mass-produced flick. I wished that the director would have been a little bit more consistent in his vision. What did he want the movie to be? A documentary (albeit a fictitious one) or just a standard thriller? In the end, unfortunately, he took the latter route.

Documentaries which examine things in real life usually do not have a beginning, middle, and end - life is just not this tidy. This movie, however, does have a beginning, middle, and then a neat little resolution of things in the end. Movie goers can then dust the pop-corn off of their chests and return once more into the grind.

In short, "Interview with the Assassin" was a movie which could have been something new and exciting but instead ended up being something old and mediocre. As a documentary, it is not very believable (at least to me it wasn't.....), and, as a thriller, it is not very good.

Why aren't there more comments and viewers for this disturbing little gem? The best conspiracy movie(JFK, PI or otherwise) in may a year hits all the right notes technically and plot wise. Filmmed digitally (SONY PD-150) with such skill that you'll be checking your TV/DVD resolution in the first five minutes, the filmmakers use every advantage and disadvatage of the digital format to their benefit. The camera work begins static, rigid local TV news style then slowly takes on a subtle impressionistic style that blurs the line between docudrama and fiction. Viewers not interested in film as a meta-(self referential) text need not apply. After starting with the formal aspects of the JFK mystery, camera angles, do pictures lie, tampered

evidence and conflicting witnesses the film then seems to turn on the viewer so that we are put in the position of one of those unlucky witnesses who were

bribed, intimidated, bullied, framed or killed for seeing just a little too much. The performances are uniformly great, starting with the ballistics man who plays his part so straight I had to mentally check and remind myself this wasn't a

documentary. The ex-wife was brilliant. All the actors were just realistic to the point of surrealism. I'm now babbling, SEE THIS MOVIE

Although it seems strange that the film (apparently coincidentally) opens on the day of the 39th anniversary of JFK's assassination, it thankfully stands on its own as an intriguing look at the possibility of the "grassy knoll gunman" theory. While it is by no means a conspiracy or propaganda film, it is, in fact, a "fake documentary" a la Blair Witch, that seems often very real thanks to Raymond J. Barry's amazing performance as a nut (or is he?) who claims to be the second shooter in the President Kennedy's assassination. His commanding presence adds a sense of danger and seriousness that makes the film such an impressive and challenging piece of work.

First time writer/director Neil Burger brings you in to the story and keeps you wrapped up in it in a way that most great feature films do, while still having that gritty documentary feel. Dylan Haggerty plays the cameraman who is "lucky" enough to become involved in such a dangerous story that he cannot decide if his subject is for real or not until he goes over the edge.

It's a fascinating concept, really. Imagine someone with information of that magnitude coming forth with his story only because he has a few months left to live. Would anyone really let that happen? As closely guarded as the true evidence is, you can bet that it wouldn't, which is also examined here in a fantastically twisted web of paranoia, obsession, and fantasy.

For anyone that's ever had a fascination or interest in the JFK assassination, this is a must see. Art house folks will probably eat this one up as well, as it is challenging and thoughtful, and completely free of any Hollywood gloss - what a combination! This one is definitely worth catching in the theater.