14 of 16 people found the following review helpful
How to make fact from fiction,
This review is from: JFK  [DVD] (DVD)
This is one fantastically made film, Stone mixes his own fictional footage with genuine historical footage until you don't know which one is the truth, this powerful movie bombards you with information and will not stop. Throughout the film, Garrison (Costner) and his team put foreward every conspiracy theory known to man (aside from Elvis at the Grassy-Knoll) before deciding on their prefered option and hammering it home in a riveting final court-room scene.
I for one don't believe that Lyndon Johnson was waiting for a call from Clay Shaw saying "Kennedy's been killed and I want my money". Oliver Stone is not a historian and this is not history, as Stone said, this film is merely a counter-myth to the myth that is the Warren Report and that is what it does. One only has to watch the trial scene to realise that the Warren Report was fiction and although Garrison's proposition of a government-planned conspiracy is a little off, it does make you think and that is what a good film should do.
The supporting cast is excellent with Tommy-Lee Jones earning a Best Supporting-Actor Oscar, the music is superb and powerfully atmospheric.
A good buy for anyone who likes to think and an ideal subject for discussion
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-5 of 5 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 25 Sep 2011 17:04:41 BDT
The court room scene was fiction too. Garrison did not make that speech. Clay Shaw was innocent and did not spend the whole trial sitting there with "You won't get me" written in his facial expression. The Magic bullet scene would have been laughable if not about such a serious subject.
Posted on 2 Nov 2011 09:41:01 GMT
M. Rossiter says:
it does not matter whether or not Garrison made that speech, it was oliver stones artistic license that encouraged it. what is more important is the fact that although clay shaw was proved innocent by the supreme court it is important to understand why. garrisons book 'on the trail of the assassins' has all the detailed answers to this question.
In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jan 2012 16:01:36 GMT
Last edited by the author on 17 Jan 2012 16:05:33 GMT
J. P. Ryder says:
Shaw wasn't '..proved innocent by the Supreme Court'.
He was cleared by the jury in New Orleans!
Why? Garrison had no case. He had no case because he had no evidence.
In reply to an earlier post on 23 May 2012 21:25:42 BDT
Amazon Customer says:
There is an interview with judge who presided over the Shaw trial and said he felt that Shaw was guilty, although he was acquitted by the jury.
In reply to an earlier post on 25 May 2012 07:29:16 BDT
Last edited by the author on 25 May 2012 07:29:35 BDT
J. P. Ryder says:
Haggerty did, indeed, give an interview (in 1992), but at no point did he say that he, "..felt Shaw was guilty". You are wrong to suggest that he did.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›