5 of 18 people found the following review helpful
History in the eyes of Hollywood,
This review is from: JFK  [DVD] (DVD)
When I first saw this film a couple of years back it seemed like one of the greatest things I had ever seen. JFK surely must have been murdered by the government/CIA...or did he?
One thing that I am thankful for is that this film inspired me to go off and find out for myself the facts about that day. And here is where the film goes dreadfully wrong, it plays on some horrendous innaccuracies to paint a very distorted vision. Here are just 3 that will explain...
1) The positions of JFK and Governor Connally in connection with Garrison's magic bullet theory. They were not seated directly in front of each other but rather at different angles. Kennedy leaning with his arm outwards onto the car exterior and Connally slightly inset AND sitting approximately a foot below Kennedy on a booster seat. The bullet therefore continued as it should- through Kennedy's back/throat and into Governor Connally.
2) Kennedy's head does roll back after the fatal shot but only after it goes forward first. Look closely, many videos to reference for this - some even slowing it down to show he goes forward THEN back. Hence, he was shot from the back- no other gunman.
3) The belief that Oswald was no good at wielding a rifle...blatant lie! Records documented from Oswald's military past reveal that not only was he competent rifleman, but an exceptional one. Not quite sure where Stone got that info from.
What is laughable is that Stone implores so many different angles for what could have happened that day yet in reality this happened one way only. I urge you to not watch this film and instead watch a documentary entitled JFK: Beyond Conspiracy, this offers a far more reasonable explanation of events and even goes to some lengths to debunk the half-truths provided in this film. Shame on Oliver Stone for further clouding people's judgement on an event which has reached ludicrous levels of conspiracy nonsense.
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-5 of 5 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 12 Oct 2011 00:43:47 BDT
M. Rossiter says:
the information regarding Oswald being a bad shot comes from the book 'On the trail of the assassins'. in the book, Garrison states that he had interviewed the people that trained with Oswald when he would go to the range and they said he was a terrible shot. from what the book leads us to believe, Oswald was part of a large anti-communist group linked closely to the intelligence community (cia, fbi, etc) and following facts from many interviews Garrison had with key players in this affair he uncovered a large conspiracy of murder and corruption at the very top of american politics. Garrison himself appears very honest, with a noble family history of professionals and patriots. he himself was a politician and there is little reason why he would have fabricated such a 'conspiracy theory' without more than enough reason. in regards to Stone, he is an honest and intelligent film-maker who goes above and beyond the call of duty to research and analyse before he makes his films, JFK is no exception.
In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jan 2012 10:33:27 GMT
Last edited by the author on 16 Jan 2012 10:34:36 GMT
Barry Ryder says:
1) Oswald's shooting ability.
You've chosen to believe Garrison & Stone. They obtained their 'information' from un-sworn individuals whom they paid. Had you examined Oswald's actual Marine scorecards and read the sworn testimony of those who trained and tested him, you'd know that Oswald was more than competent with a bolt-action rifle. His rapid-fire scores are especially revealing.
By civilian standards, Oswald was an extremely good shot.
2) Garrison never `..uncovered a large conspiracy of murder and corruption at the very top of american politics`. He imagined one. He had nothing and that's why he lost his case against Shaw.
3) `Garrison himself appears very honest`
Stone - via Costner - does manage to create that impression, I agree. But it's a false one. The real Jim Garrison was nowhere near as wonderful as Stone's sanctified version.
Read `The Garrison Case' by Milton Brener, `American Grotesque' by James Kirkwood, `Plot Or Politics' by James & Wardlaw, 'Counterplot' by Edward Epstein and 'Scandals, Scamps and Scoundrels' by James Phelan. All of these writers knew and met Garrison. They all regarded him as dishonest
Here's a link to just some of the many. Provable lies that he wrote in his book, 'On The Trail Of The Assassins'.
4) `..there is little reason why he would have fabricated such a 'conspiracy theory'
There are plenty of reasons `why' he would have. Leaving aside his political ambitions, he was mentally ill.
In 1952, Jim Garrison was relieved of duty in the National Guard. Doctors at the Brooke Army Hospital in Texas diagnosed him as suffering from a "severe and disabling psychoneurosis" which "interfered with his social and professional adjustment to a marked degree." The evaluation further said that Garrison "is considered totally incapacitated from the standpoint of military duty and moderately incapacitated in civilian adaptability," and recommended long-term psychotherapy. See Case Closed, p. 423.
5) `in regards to Stone, he is an honest and intelligent film-maker..'
Intelligent, yes, honest, no.
The deliberate lies and crucial omissions from the film have been tabulated and here is a link to an abbreviated version of it.
In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jul 2012 15:31:59 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 Jul 2012 15:33:39 BDT
Hair Bear says:
Hi Barry. While your points of view are well argued, my beef - if we can call it that - with your review is that you open it by saying "When I first saw this film a couple of years back it seemed like one of the greatest things I had ever seen" ...and yet give it only one star. Being young at the time of its release, and foreign, I didn't know much about JFK when the film came out, and like yourself I bought it hook, line and sinker. It made me then look into the facts about JFK - which I WOULDN'T have done had it not been for the film. More to the point, that the film was so very persuasive is testimony to how superbly made it is, and for this reason alone it doesn't warrant only one star. Bump it down for straying from the facts by all means, but don't wax lyrical about it being one of the greatest things you've ever seen and then not reward this aspect; that's too unfair.
In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jul 2012 19:46:34 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 Jul 2012 19:49:15 BDT
Barry Ryder says:
Hi, Sugar Ray,
You've addressed your comment to me but I think that you are referring to Craig Moore's review.
In reply to an earlier post on 31 Dec 2012 14:37:54 GMT
Last edited by the author on 31 Dec 2012 14:42:33 GMT
Mr. C. R. Moore says:
You've actually raised a really valid point there and put it across in a sensible manner. I do apologise for that comment, it wasn't the best opener I could have come up with - this film certainly did spark my interest in the assassination and for that I give it major credit :)
‹ Previous 1 Next ›