JFK - Director's Cut (1991)

Inaccurate bull****

The real shame of a movie like this is that so many viewers think it has some relationship to reality.

Don't get me wrong. I happen to be one of those people who believes that the Warren Commission version of the Kennedy assassination is full of holes. It's probable that Oswald was part of a large conspiracy, and that, in his own words, he was "a patsy."

That does not mean, however, that Oliver Stone's paranoid fantasies have any basis in reality.

Jim Garrison, the character played by Kevin Costner, is a real person. He was really the DA of New Orleans. He really indicted prominent homosexual businessman Clay Shaw for conspiracy to murder John F. Kennedy. After a legal persecution that lasted for about two years, culminating in a trial that took weeks, a jury of sensible adults acquitted Clay Shaw of all the charges against him. They took less than an hour to review the paltry evidence before deciding in Shaw's favor.

In the years since the trial ended, gay rights organizations in New Orleans have erected plaques in various parts of the city commemorating Shaw's contribution to the city's economic growth. He was a victim, pure and simple. There was almost no evidence against him at all.

Garrison's entire career as DA might be looked at as one long publicity stunt. Right after he got elected, he indicted his predecessor for malfeasance, but the case was dismissed for lack of evidence. He staged a big crackdown on crime in the French Quarter, but got almost no convictions. When he accused a bunch of judges of conspiring against him, they charged him with criminal defamation and won. He accused the state parole board of accepting bribes, but couldn't even get an indictment. Garrison was great at holding press conferences, but not so great at proving his numerous accusations.

In my own mind, there are two ways to view Jim Garrison. One is that he was a glory-seeking opportunist. The other is that he was a glory-seeking nutcase. It is a travesty that any movie should be made about Garrison that features him as a hero. In fact, he was a paranoid manipulator of the legal system who victimized an innocent man. In the hands of an actor better than Costner, with a script that didn't sugar-coat the facts, this story about the wild ravings of a glory hound could have been a great comedy. May 28, 2008

Engrossing drama, superb performances - and brilliant cinematography

The brilliance in this film's production is that, by the artful interweaving of historical footage with the dramatic scenes, the finished product seems like an insightful, revisionist documentary. This is the film's strength and weakness, because it is primarily historical fiction in that Jim Garrison's point of view is presented as incontrovertible fact. I would caution those viewing the film, who may have no familiarity with the Kennedy assasination, that its plot not only presents Jim Garrison (of whom I'd never heard before seeing "JFK") in quite a different light than any Google search would reveal, but even distorts actual individuals with whom the real Garrison had dealings.

If one can detach oneself from the slanted version of the facts, it is a totally rivetting film. Kevin Costner heads a sterling cast - the acting is superb, and so believable that, despite the many familiar faces of fine actors whom one has seen in many roles, one nearly has the impression of having an inside look at 'real people' revealing secret dimensions to the evidence. For example, Ed Asner shows a shocking side to the attitudes towards the assasination which some in Dallas may have held (seeing the murderer as hero, where I'd always thought of Kennedy as an esteemed, well loved president), with a rough but convincing demeanour which is both deep and chilling. Joe Pesci gives a multi dimensional picture, both moving and puzzling, of the bizarre David Ferry.

I've rarely seen a lengthy film (and one in which I recognised significant innacuracy in relation to history) which so totally held my interest. March 2, 2008

Not historically accurate, not factual, but entertaining and well directed.

Oliver Stone, a brilliant liberal film director with a skewed anti-American political agenda, is mildly entertaining at best but usually offensive to reason, truth, and fact. The old saying of 'never letting the facts get in the way of a good story' is certainly applicable here with the JFK film. Costner is great (as usual), but one can't stop thinking that possibly the supporting cast (all leftists by design) have an agenda similar to that of Stone. If you really want the facts and the factual history about the assasination of JFK, do some literary research on your own. Start with Posner's 'Case Closed'. After you've assimilated that, read the Warren Commision Report. The bottom line is this: Lee Oswald was the only shooter; he also killed Ofcr. Tippet; Oswald was a leftist, Lenninist, Marxist communist. The Left simply refuses to believe or consider that one of their own (Oswald) could possibly have commited such a heinous crime. It must have been a Right-wing conspiracy! (sound familiar?)
Anyway, as far as FICITIONAL entertainment goes, this film JFK is every bit as good as 'Wayne's World', 'Animal House', or 'Cabin Boy'. Just don't confuse this film with the truth. January 26, 2008

Now I Know Why the "17 Minutes" Got Left Out.

Of the theatrical release, that is. It looks like a lot of it was from the windy, overwrought closing arguments Jim Garrison made in the Clay Shaw trial. They bordered on Shakesperean soliloquy, suppressed tears and all. I found myself waiting for a bailiff or court reporter or someone to come out and offer Garrison a box of kleenex. I can't help but notice that Costner outgrew this type of overacting in later efforts. Still, this cri-de-coeur struck me on reflection as possibly being as much of an opportunity to rant for the pretentiously iconoclastic Oliver Stone as it was Garrison's words. Elsewhere in the story, I found myself wondering at the way Garrison "took his job home with him" by constantly ruminating out loud about the case around his family, or was it just another use of the hackneyed movie cliche about the resentment of cop/ doctor/ whatever spouses at their spouses' tendency to be consumed or endangered by the job. I guess this film had to be this long to tell the story, but it also serves to remind us of who Michael Moore's "daddy" was. January 19, 2008

talky but gutsy

Once Donald Sutherland starts talking he goes on and on. And the first hour of the movie could use a little more action. But the cast is great and the main points are convincingly made. If you choose to believe Oswald acted alone, then the question is why? Just the incoherent act of a madman? Whatever. The bigger question is what happened to the age of assasination? It was over relatively quickly. Could it be because the people responsible finally got the kind of country they wanted? A country where no one gets elected without the backing of big corporate money and Washington acts at the behest of big corporate money or it doesn't act at all. December 11, 2007

More reviews at Amazon.com ...