JFK [1992]

…..and the U.S.President John F Kennedy assassination.A shock to the American people, and the world. This story examines the conspiracy theories, the perpetrators, the motives.Kevin Costner, his acting (as always) skillful, depicting the character he plays.In my view, this film is another classic.

JOHN F KENNEDY (May 29, 1917 – November 22, 1963)Said to be so by those that were of age to remember, I myself can honestly saythat I remember where I was when told of JFK's assassination.I myself, as this movie suggests believing/ that the fatal shot was fired from aposition such as the grassy-knoll having seen the footage of the shooting onseveral occasions down the years, New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison.(Kevin Costner) re-opens the investigationinto the killing of JFK in 1966 after noticing irregularities in the earlier Warren Report.Garrison and his team centre their attention initially on prime suspect Lee HarveyOswald and begin to have concerns about how events had been recorded.Their investigation leads them to re-interview witnesses and so-called associates orthose that had socialized with OzwaldSo many including Clay Shaw / Clay Bertrand self-proclaimed businessmaninconsistencies would be uncovered, and so many conspiracy theories looked into.JFK had made many enemies among organizations in government business andindeed, the criminal elements, the plot thickenedIn the end prosecution would be brought against Clay Shaw a self-proclaimed business-man who Garrison believes had involvement in JFK's assassination planning.An intense movie, sometimes with the feel of being a documentary, a film that raisesmore questions than answers.With several archive clips of JFK including the shooting, the film is blessed with a#Stellar cast list including - Sissy Spacek as Garrisons wife, Kevin Bacon as Willie O'Keefe,, Tommy Lee Jones as Clay Shaw / Clay Bertrand,Gary Oldman as Lee Harvey Oswald , and Donald Sutherland as Mr. X, to name buta few.Footnote - The official report or and truth of the killing will not be published until 203875 years on...makes you wonder - WHY ?

Fair go to Kevin Costner. The acting in the court room was spot on. As regards the shooting of JFK, I find it hard to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the killer or that there was only one assassin. Come to think of it, I don't know anyone else who believes it either. The "official" verdict as more holes in it than Swiss cheese and it calls into question the competence of those who conducted the investigation as well as those who wheeled power in the USA.

This is a review of the two-disc `Special Edition Director's Cut'. It has seventeen added minutes and comes with a commentary by Oliver Stone in which he argues his case in detail, whilst also commenting on the ins and outs of the making of the film. There is, unfortunately, a subtle sycophancy in Stone's obeisance to the Kennedy myth. He argues that "Kennedy seemed to be a man too far ahead of his time and was killed for it." But, credit where credit's due, for Stone also admits he does not have all the answers and claims his film is "a summation of possibilities".One other point in his favour is that, in his commentary, Stone does point out places where he has taken liberties with the case put forward by Jim Garrison and Jim Marrs in their respective books. As for the strength of the case itself, Stone admits that their cases are speculation, but it seemed to me that if so many people were involved in the conspiracy, how come no one has broken ranks to confirm its major hypotheses. But the main premise - that there must have been more than one assassin - seems unassailable.Of course, I cannot really comment on the veracity of the issues raised, for I only studied the Kennedy assassination as part of a wide-ranging A-level history course on twentieth-century USA many years ago; I can only comment on the film as a film, which I found compelling to watch. (The same can be said for my watching of Stone's film `Nixon'.) That's why I have now bought the DVD specifically with the commentary so that I can watch it at my leisure, assessing the arguments in my own time - Stone says there should have been an intermission so that the audience can take it all in - and to take on board what Stone has to say about his work. (The commentary seems to have been recorded in 2000, so Stone is able to admit some errors in the case that have since come to light such as the integrity of the three tramps seen near the scene).I first saw `JFK' on television and, as well as being intrigued by the narrative's twists and turns - Stone refers to the Alice in Wonderland nature of the whole Kennedy assassination - I was hooked by the director's method of amalgamating traditional cinematic values with using contemporary photographs and amateur film, all expertly edited together. The downside of this is that one is often unaware as to whether one is watching the real thing or a reconstruction. As a dramatic work, the film is a tour de force, and it is amazing that it was only shot in seventy-two days. Its only blot is the length of Kevin Costner's speech in the courtroom. Whether word-perfect true or not, it comes over as an embarrassing rant, and one wonders what proof there ever was to link the defendant Clay Shaw to the conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy.The other extras on this version are almost an hour of twelve deleted or extended scenes (with commentary), and forty minutes of what are described as two multimedia essays: the first by Fletcher Prouty (the Mr X of the film); the second an `Assassination Update' by James DiEugenio that looks at the new documents released since the film first appeared in 1991.