JFK (1991)

How sad is this?

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

I see quite a few reviews here handing out 1 out of 10s dismissing the JFK narrative as "conspiracy nut theories". The film actually raises a lot of valid questions, even though there are also factual errors. It should not be entirely regarded as a documentary when its also made to entertain and to exagerate and create fiction to make a point.In general people are not easily persuaded to believe their government would be capable of such horrific acts and consequently are then dismissed as nut cases. That's of course exactly the point to label anyone questioning the official narrative when you have something to hide. I think JFK succeeds in displaying that particular side of the JFK narrative, regardless if the facts presented are actually factual.Anyone should be well aware when your government tries to shut down a narrative, that means someone is on to something that is an inconvenience.Well done movie and definitely worth a watch!

I truly admire Oliver Stone gifted filmmaking, his service to our country, and insight into many issues. However, i believe he has simply lost his freaking mind with this movie. None of the portrayals represent the whole truth, because we do not know the truth. That is fine, whatever Oliver. But pandering to the lowest common denominator, i.e.,conspiracy theorists (I use that term loosely) that believe LBJ, the CIA, Castro and little green men from Mars were all behind the assassination. Costner's portrayal of Garrison 's emotion run the usual gamut from A to B. Would it kill the guy to maybe not look like he is always constipated? However, i took delight in the film's portrayal of that insane, evil, closet case J. Edgar Hoover. He looked positively ravishing in this film! So beautiful! Hoover, you entered the wrong profession - you could give RuPaul a run for his money!! sly old dog Hoover

Few events in American history stand out quite so heavily as the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Besides the shocking nature of the event with the American president being gunned down in broad daylight in a major city came the psychic scars caused by unanswered questions due to an alleged assassin gunned down before he could ever be tried and an official investigation that was at best botched and, at worst, a whitewash. Perhaps no single film or work of fiction has done more to raise questions about the event than Oliver Stone's 1991 JFK with its exploration of events through the perspective of Jim Garrison, the New Orleans District Attorney who brought to trial of the one alleged conspirators.Stone, along with his co-screenwriter Zachary Sklar, craft a peculiar film around the biggest unsolved mystery in American history. Indeed, JFK as a film owes much both to political thriller films such as Z (which also focuses on the assassination of a government official with multiple versions of the same events seen from the perspective of witnesses brought forth by a determined investigator) and the murder mystery genre. The only difference is that this is a murder with far more scope, far more suspects, and far more consequences than your garden variety murder mystery. It's a tale that takes in a large portion of still recent history and an era in time before distrust in government would reach its zenith (and perhaps has never truly subsided) and when terrible things very likely lurked in the shadows. Incidentally, anyone convinced that Stone's vision is overly paranoid should seek out the published script book for the film with dozens (if not hundreds) of annotations. The film's vision, while leaning perhaps a bit far in cases, turns out to be far plausible a vision than it's often given credit for. The result is at nightmarish with its implications, so perhaps it's no surprise that the film led to an act of Congress to release more of the classified files related to the assassination which is still being released even as I type these words.To bring the story to life, Stone assembled a first-rate team both in front of and behind the camera. Borrowing another trope from some of the better-filmed murder mysteries, the film has an all-star cast of actors in roles both big and small. Leading it is Kevin Costner as Jim Garrison, the New Orleans District Attorney who becomes both investigator and the audience's guide into the twisty world surrounding the assassination. Costner, though quite different from the real Garrison who was taller and more built, was nevertheless a perfect piece of casting as the intelligent everyman armed with a large amount of dignity and a determination to get to the truth no matter where it leads. Costner's performance plays up all of these elements and even the dark side of Garrison's obsession while also creating someone the audience is willing to follow for the three-plus hours the film runs for. The rest of the film's cast is equally as strong. The Garrison investigation turns up a number of fascinating characters, any of whom could very well the protagonist of their own film, ranging from Tommy Lee Jones' quietly menace as Clay Shaw, Joe Pesci's eccentric David Ferrie, John Candy as the ever-shifting lawyer Dean Andrews, and Kevin Bacon as Willie O'Keefe (a composite character, one of several the film uses) among many others. There is also Gary Oldman's Lee Harvey Oswald is not only uncanny in his resemblance but a fascinating portrait in its own right, presenting many different versions of one of modern history's most enigmatic figures. The film also has its fair share of strong female performances from Laurie Metcalf as an assistant DA to Sissy Spacek as Garrison's wife torn between supporting her husband and being drawn into the world he's uncovering. That's without mentioning the effective cameo appearances from the likes of Edward Asner, Jack Lemmon, and Walter Matthau or the scene-stealing monologue delivered by Donald Sutherland as the mysterious insider known as X. Few films can claim to have perfect casts but, for my money, JFK is one of them. Those behind the camera are the other half of the equation. Stone's team includes superb costume and set designs from Marlene Stewart and Victor Kempster which gives the film its sense of time and place. Yet as cerebral as the film is, a thinking person's thriller in many ways, it's also an immensely visual work with Stone often relying on the editing of Joe Hutshing and Pietro Scalia as well as the stunning cinematography of Robert Richardson. The three of them together weave in footage both archive and newly shot together into a tapestry that captures the viewer's eye as well as their brain. Underpinning it all is John Williams' score, perhaps one of his most underrated, that plays up not only the sense of unease but also the sense of what was lost all in the space of the film's opening titles and haunting themes elsewhere in the film. It's a remarkable tapestry all around.Indeed, that is a nice summary of the film as a whole. Stone's JFK is, in essence, a murder mystery. One whose stakes have a firm basis in reality and based on a crime whose particulars are still hotly debated decades after the fact. With his cast and crew, he created a fascinating piece of film-making that crosses genres and time, presenting an incredible and paranoid vision of an earth-shattering event. Except that, if what's in the film is even half true, has deeply disturbing implications. That thought and the fact that the film led to documents being released speaks to the power of film-making and JFK as a film in particular.

Greetings from Lithuania.Wheter or not do you believe the things shown in this movie are true (or at least mostly) - "JFK" (1991) is a one great movie. First time seen just now in 2016, it kinda blew my away because i didn't expected that director's cut which i've seen, that runs almost 3 h 20 min will be THIS entertaining, involving and provoking at the same time. Cast is probably one of the very best (if not the best) i've ever seen, and while some of them played a bit over the top (J.Pesci), there isn't a weak performance here - that is because of a great director working in his best form. Now i do believe that this Oliver Stone's (who's movies are a bit uneven sometimes but ALWAYS interesting to watch) movie is probably his most ambitious ever, as much as i love "Platoon" and "Born on the Fourth of July" and highly admire almost every other (well except for the poor "Alexander"). Script of "JFK" is brilliant. Many times watching this movie i asked my self a question - did this really happen or this is a pure fiction? I do not ask these questions in my life often (almost never), as i do not believe in big conspiracies overall (fake moon landing and fantasies of haters in that spirit), but this movie is so superbly written that during the movie and closer by the end i started to have my doubts. I do not honestly know many facts about the killing himself, just as much as probably everyone else, therefore seeing things in "JFK" made me think otherwise to official story and a theory that was presented by the end by Jim Garrison sounded very, very convincing to me. So who actually killed Mr. Kennedy? Lets leave it to the history.Overall, "JFK. The Director's Cut" is a superb drama in all directions. At running time 3 h and 20 min (!) it is, hear this - never boring or uninvolving for a second! The pacing (amazing editing), writing and directing are one of the kind and with a cast witch involves almost every well known face in a Hollywood this is a must see movie whether you like conspiracies or not. Great movie.