JFK: Does Oliver Stone's Conspiracy Classic Hold Up?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 тра 2024
- It's a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma.
So says Joe Pesci’s David Ferrie during a key scene in Oliver Stone’s JFK, a movie that’s being revisited for a few key reasons. One is that Shout Factory just put out a 4K restoration that reissues both the director’s cut and theatrical cuts of these films, but also due to the fact director Oliver Stone, more than thirty years after the film’s release is still utterly beguiled by the assassination. His recent documentary, JFK: Through the Looking Glass, served as a bookend to the film, while another documentary, Citizen Stone, is in production and examines how the film, in some ways, served as his undoing. We take a look back at a movie that remains one of the most controversial ever made.
For more MOVIE NEWS, visit: www.joblo.com
SUBSCRIBE for more of all the LATEST JoBlo Videos here: goo.gl/R9U81J
#JFK #OliverStone #KevinCostner - Розваги
It’s funny, considering how play-it-safe studios are now, that for about a 3-year stretch at Warner Brothers, you had big budgets, all-star casts, and full creative freedom given to Oliver Stone to make JFK and Spike Lee to make a 3 and a half hour movie about Malcolm X.
The 1990's was the last great decade for mainstream American movies.
This movie is one of my favorites of all time. The court scene is absolutely incredible.
Watched it on 4K AFTER SO LONG. JUST BRILLIANT.
Pity it's full of demonstrable lies and sits there taking dumps on an innocent man whose life was ruined by a crackpot "case" that fell apart within minutes of reaching the jury.
Jo Blo mentions an episode of the dismally rated sci-fi Quantum Leap TV series in the same vid as JFK! Let's be kind and state the obvious, our host is not the most reliable narrator.
This movie still holds up. The Donald Sutherland 20 minute exposition scene is still beautifully written
Masterful
"Call me X"
and Sutherland's acting in that scene is just great.
If you have not seen the deleted scenes, it was originally two scenes The second one at the end after Garrison lost the trial. Stone was right to put it all in the middle but watching the original plan is interesting.
except none of its is even remotely true. total falsehoods. Lee Harvey got lucky and in many ways so did kennedy.
When my wife and i saw it in the theater in 1991. It was so great that those 3 hours went fast.
JFK is the best edited movie of all time
I 100% agree.
And, other than _V for Vendetta_ , is the most powerful movie of all time.
Very Best Regards,
Tom Scott
Author ● Speaker ● World's Leading Expert on the Corrupt U.S. Legal System
_Our American Injustice System_
_Stack the Legal Odds in Your Favor_
John Candy and Donald Sutherland really stood out in this film.
When this movie came out the assassination had happened less than 30 years earlier. Now it’s been more than 30 years since the film.
Speaking of Kevin Costner, an under appreciated film he’s in, also set around the Kennedy era, more people should see is Thirteen Days. It’s historically inaccurate, but still a good movie
It was a good movie, save Costner's attempt at a Bostonian accent. 😂
Bruce Greenwood was solid as Kennedy. I always hoped he would have done more work.
@@Clonetrooper1139 Greenwood has played presidents (not historical ones but generally) quite a few times. Seems he is made for that role.
It's far closer to reality than JFK is, don't get me wrong as a movie fan I really like JFK, it's well written, well acted and directed and everything else you need to have a great movie like the cinematography, editing, sound, all of it, but when it comes time historical accuracy it just completely goes off the rails, it's actually fiction and not anywhere close to the true events that actually happened, like the scene with Donald Sutherland's character, it never happened, and there wasn't a newspaper that printed a story about JFK's assassination before it actually happened because of confusion over the GMT dateline, that doesn't make any sense anyway, for it to be true the assassination story would have had to be planted before he was actually killed no matter where your at and what the date is, the "magic bullet" wasn't magic and it didn't make 90° turns in the air, the seating positions are all incorrect in the movie and had someone presented them like that in a courtroom the attorneys on the other side would have made a meal out of it, that's all made up conspiracy malarkey, the fact is if you put Kennedy and Connolly in their correct positions the bullet holes do indeed line up.
Stone did quite a bit more than play fast and loose with the facts when he made JFK, he just down right fabricated thing's that never even happened to create his conspiracy plot.
But as I said as far as movie's go it's an excellent movie, but it certainly isn't a history lesson because it's more fiction than fact, far more.
@@dukecraig2402 - THANK YOU. the way that Oliver Stone heroicized Jim Garrison's persecution of Clay Shaw made me ill.
@@Clonetrooper1139
You mean not as convincing as his Robin Hood accent? 😁
I need to mention that the scene in JFK where the trajectory of the bullet has Wayne Knight as the dude sitting down......was lampooned in Seinfeld.....with Wayne Knight also. Briliiant.
That’s right! In JFK, “Numa”. In Seinfeld, “Newman”.
😁
"There was a second spitter"
The magic loogie
Kevin Costner at the end of the movie breaks the 4th wall and says "its up to you"
Which is particularly funny since he just appeared in a movie where his character tells dozens of demonstrable lies.
@@aaronz7056 LOL! As IF you think that Jim Garrison was a "fictional character," played by Kevin Costner, when in fact it was based on both Garrison and his book, "On The Trail of the Assassins," one of two books that were the basis of Oliver Stone's film. The other was "Crossfire" by Jim Marrs.
@@robertpolanco1973 I didn't say one word about Garrison being a fictional character. The VERSION portrayed was hugely fictional. As for your books...
Garrison lies about the parade route being changed, about the tramps not being ID'd and cleared, about Oswald being in the Depository doorway, etc.
Jim Marrs' record:
- spent years giving his middle finger and one great big "F-word You" to the family of a decorated police officer who lost his life in the cause of his duty as he accused the man without evidence of being a conspirator so long as it suited his despicable and crackpot "theories..."
- made up a bogus "mysterious deaths list of witnesses" where everybody on it either had little or no connection to the case or else he misreported their causes of death to sound more "sinister..."
- gave us the "multiple Oswald clones running around Dallas" idiocy
- proved flying saucers are real...
The CIA was behind the murder of JFK. Tucker Carlson confirmed it and not ONE reputable Journalist or organization argued with his assessment.
@@aaronz7056 Well, I find your assessment to be very pathetic and negative as ever! It is such a pity that people like you have alternative facts as "truth" when it came the 1963 Kennedy assassination indeed!
Love this movie. Saw it in the theaters when it first came out
I watched the first half of this recently. Way ahead of its time in terms of structure. And the cast he gets just for tiny roles?! Amazing.
Perhaps this is not what the channel is about, but a mention of the magnificent cinematography (its lighting especially) and editing would have been warranted. Both these disciplines won Academy Awards.
This film is essential viewing.
A slanderous movie packed with more than 80 demonstrable "essential viewing?"
@@aaronz7056 You are so amusing and pathetic because people like you must have been among those who had campaigned against Oliver Stone's "JFK" like the way certain elements of both the U.S. media and some reactionary historians have done it in more than thirty years ago! I guess they have NO respect for what people like Mr. Stone had set out to do at the time.
They dont make them like that anymore this is so true for this movie , one of greatest
"That . . . is one magic loogie."
“I’m hit!”
When you're parodied on Seinfeld, you've made it.
I own it and rewatched it last month and yes it's still great.
It absolutely still holds up and I think always will. It's a superb piece of technical filmmaking. The editing in the movie is some of the best ever. And it's run time flys by. It is not completely historically accurate, but that doesn't diminish the quality of the direction, writing and acting. It's a wonderful film and always will be.
"Not completely historically accurate..." It lets Kennedy's murderer off the hook, falsely paints a lot of innocent people as traitors and murderers with B.S. "evidence," turns that lunatic Jim Garrison into a hero, and tells more than 80 (!) demonstrable and relevant lies over its narrative.
Lol
Totally inaccurate fits better
@@bill-fk7tl "It's a superb piece of technical filmmaking..." So was Triumph of the Will...
JFK remains Oliver Stone's finest film.
It's a technically accomplished piece of bravura filmmaking and it takes a real and quite frankly doomed investigation waged by New Orleans DA Jim Garrison and makes it the dramatic and narrative thrust of the film.
Actually JFK is not "talky" per see. It's a highly stylized and visually fast paced movie that admittedly throws a lot of information at its audience .
Also the film was financially successful. It wasnt touted as a box office megalith but It certainly made back it's $40 million dollar investment back both domestically and primarily in overseas markets .
it was a hit.
This financial success is important to note because what isn't noted in the video was the considerable attack campaign -including theft of a script and hit pieces -waged against this movie by sectors of the major media and press at the time.
So it wasn't simply that JFK was a controversial film, it was considered contemptible by certain sectors of the country.
Movie is packed with more than 80 highly relevant lies and Jim Garrison was an equally demonstrable lunatic who bears no particular resemblance to the goody-two-shoes crusader portrayed in the film.
JFK’s one of those movies which is really long (the version I’ve seen is about 3 and a half hours) but manages to be really engaging to the point when I kind of wish it was longer.
This movie was Oppenheimer for the 90s and it also has one of the best casts of all time, most of whom aren’t even in the movie enough to be credited in the opening.
It also looks great (thanks to great Robert Richardson) and has brilliant music (again, thanks to the great John Williams.)
Also, funnily enough, Joe Pesci (who played David Ferrie) eventually acted in the film “The Irishman” which featured a short cameo from Ferrie played by Louis Vanaria.
Except that OPPENHEIMER was an establishment version of its story; JFK decidedly wasn't.
@@cedarabbey!!!!!!
Incredible movie - so complicated and so well edited.
The movie is fun. However the logical leaps it takes to tie everything together would make even the Ancient Aliens guy lose his mind.
A quip, smug and foolish.
As a film, absolutely it holds up. This was Oliver Stone at his most deliberate and focused. He even shot his 2 prior movies (Talk Radio and about half of Born on the Fourth of July) in Dallas just to curry favors with the film community and civic leaders with the eventual goal of shooting in Dealey Plaza. The performances, the photography, the editing, etc. were all the culmination of an extremely talented filmmaker at the peak of his abilities.
Stone is deliberate all right: knowingly and falsely paints a lot of innocent people as traitors and conspirators with B.S. "evidence," to hell with them or the feelings of their families as he does so so long as he can profit off of it.
Pick up a copy of JFK: The Annotated Screenplay. it contains the full shooting script and highly detailed notes and references indicating where Stone found the information he used in the script and also admits to mistakes he made or changes for the narrative. He did not just pull things out of thin air, but put a lot of effort into this.
He tells more than 80 demonstrable lies and had the nerve to insist we should be "applauding" that fruitcake Jim Garrison for ruining an innocent man's life with a crackpot case (which Stone didn't even dare portray accurately) that fell apart within minutes of reaching his hand-picked jury. To this day he still parrots the "back and to the left" idiocy so the idea he "admits he made mistakes" is a bit rich.
Don't forget the 1-derful John Williams score, adding an eerie 60s atmosphere !!!
I got this on Blu Ray for Christmas and the Digital restoration is amazing!
One of the greatest political thrillers ever made!
The greatest and most informative film of the 90s.
Most informative...? The thing is full of demonstrable lies, over 80 of them, all of them highly relevant. It also despicably paints a lot of innocent people as traitors with B.S. "evidence."
It's good that you are saying how you watch the film now. It would be cool to know if you watch, on dvd, bluray, digital etc. I am slowly edging towards having physical media again.
Thank you. I didn't realize this was out and that I needed it this much!
I love this movie and the last time I saw it was when it was 2 VHS tapes in cases taped together if you know what I mean.
"Back, and to the left." Definitely an amazing cinematic accomplishment.
Yep - shooters behind the grassy knoll - LHO didn’t shoot anything.
I have to say that I am a BIG FAN of Oliver Stone and some of his films that have been great aside from the ones that were NOT successful. I will look forward to purchasing the new "JFK" on Blu-ray/4K disc restoration someday.
Just be aware Stone tells more than 80 demonstrable lies in it.
@@aaronz7056 80 lies? Like why did you have to believe such an assumption about Oliver Stone's "JFK" anyway? Like are you some kind of believer and defender of the Warren Commission's verdict on the 1963 Kennedy assassination where Lee Harvey Oswald was the "lone assassin" and that there was "no conspiracy" as well? Besides, I really DO NOT accept what you stated and what happened with the assassination is no longer a "conspiracy theory" but a conspiracy FACT! After all, I have a DVD/Blu-ray collection of some documentaries on the JFK assassination and they had featured Oliver Stone among some individuals that he interviewed in them. So DON'T try to tell me otherwise!
A watershed moment in getting closer to the truth of the real assassination, JFK's penultimate courtroom sequence ranks among the finest things ever done in American cinema with Costner's "do not forget your dying king" moment, a heart-wrenching tour de force.
Movie tells more than 80 demonstrable lies, it is a work of complete fiction.
This is one of my favorite movies of all time.
On a side note. I absolutely LOVE Platoon. It is in my top 5 movies of all time.
I'm glad it's out. We need more movies like this. Please make more.
We need more lie-packed movies that knowingly paint lots of innocent people as conspirators and traitors with B.S. "evidence?"
Only this time make them accurate and true.
Very astute summation. Great performances. Prevailing theories writ large, and as you say - very compelling even if you believe Oswald acted alone.
I even think if you know the real story about Jim Garrison, and if you know how he tried to force things in his JFK trail, you can see the movie in a total different light too. ( that he slightly is loosing his marbles )
And yes, this is in fact a very very good movie, even if it plays with facts :)
That thumbnail was the scene where Costner tells John Candy “Ima put your fat behind in jail” 😂
I have the ultimate Oliver Stone collection on DVD & his memoir
Chasing the light
My favorite Oliver Stone film is the doors
The movie Alexander (by Stone): stars on the cover of Entertainment magazine at the time; Jolie, Farrel, Kilmer... JFK.
I remember watching a Discovery documentary that debunked the conspiracy theories. One interesting explanation they gave was the seating arrangement and seating height of the Lincoln Continental car. According to them, the rear seats were raised in comparison to the front seats..and the front seats were positioned slightly inwards compared to the rear (so shorter in length). These seating positions therefore explained the single bullet theory of both Kennedy and Conelly being hit. I’ve never actually looked into this further..
Stone knew full well the victims were not seated bolt upright at the same height and facing forward; he thinks everyone is a gullible idiot.
Victims' reactions in Zapruder's film clearly demonstrate they are hit by the same bullet, and ergo, from behind.
Victims' wounds demonstrably line up on a perfect trajectory and track straight back to the sixth floor window.
View of the entry wound on Connally's back would have been demonstrably blocked by Kennedy's body, the same bullet has to have gone through both of them.
Bullet recovered from the stretcher is in a condition perfectly consistent with going through Kennedy without hitting bone, slowing and tumbling on leaving him, then broadsiding its way through Connally's ribs, as medical and forensic evidence clearly demonstrate: badly crushed at the nose and flattened down one side.
That bullet was matched to Oswald's rifle.
Hilariously, Stone never bothers explaining how the hell anybody planting a bogus bullet at the hospital within one hour of the assassination could possibly have known a bullet needed planting at all or that he wasn't simply planting one bullet too many into evidence and blowing the whole plot. Again, he has nothing but contempt for our intelligence.
I saw the documentary you’re speaking of, too.
I know people love a good real life conspiracy/mystery, and if people disagree with me, I respect their right to do so, but the actual evidences for the JFK assassination conspiracy theories that have been presented are EXTREMELY flimsy. Emotions aside, it is very likely that Oswald acted alone.
@@patrickc3419 yes, the only thing that makes me doubt the single shooter theory was the History Channel series in late 80s “the men who killed Kennedy”. There appeared to be evidence of man behind the fence on the grassy hill. Also some of the wounds on the president and irregularities around the autopsy notes. Weren’t they supposed to release all the documents that was in a time lock?
That is true about the seats. The governor's seat was a jump seat. It was lower than Kennedy's seat and 6 to 8 inches inboard of where Kennedy was sitting. Also the 3 degree declination of Elm Street helped make the one bullet pass straight through both men at the angle it did, as the car was actually heading downhill itself.
@@franclin0Another thing people miss is that the 6.5 Carcano round was designed to go through a man or barrier and still be lethal. Unlike hunting ammo that expands dumping energy into the target. Personally I think Oswald acted alone, but was provided with Intel and support. His actions post shooting have tradecraft written all over. I also believe the cop killed near his home was killed by one or more of Oswald's handlers who then tipped the Dallas cops as to his location and that he had killed the officer. Or was the officer tipped to Oswald's location or sent there to kill him? Anyway, if Oswald had support, Intel and an escape plan, then the handlers are accessories. And that's conspiracy.
This is my favorite Oliver Stone film. That says a lot considering "Platoon" and "Natural Born Killers" which I also love.
This film terrified me so much as a 16 year old that I daren’t revisit it.
Don't sweat it, it's complete fiction.
@@aaronz7056 So was the Warren Commission of 1964 that certain reactionary right-wing fools that were part of it, like Allen Dulles and Gerald Ford, and that the 26 volumes of the fictional report were such a waste of taxpayers money at the time as well!
FYI this 4K release does NOT include the theatrical in 4K. Only the Director’s Cut is presented in 4K. Theatrical is blu-ray only.
The film is so good because even though Garrison lost his case the speech he gives to the jury at the end about our right as Americans to question and take charge of our government and to seek truth and justice is what makes the movie so powerful
Of course, the real Garrison never made any closing speech and his crackpot "case" against an innocent man whose life he ruined fell apart within minutes of reaching his hand-picked jury and got him soundly condemned by the ABA for his conduct.
The speech didn't happen in the real court, only in the movie.
Spike Lee got inspiration from Oliver concerning the runtime for his film, *"Malcolm X."* Oliver told him he lied to the studio execs that the film will not run for 3hrs for it to get made.
When Costner summed up at the end...i was floored. It holds up pretty good. A great slow burn
Shame the real Jim Garrison never made that speech...
One of the greatest cinematic achievements ever in terms of virtuoso craft between all creative departments. Not necessarily one of the most historically verifiable. But it wears its highly speculative nature more honestly than most (I'm looking at you Killers of the Flower Moon).
"Not necessarily one of the most historically verifiable..." It tells more than 80 highly relevant and demonstrable lies. Few movies ever made could have legitimately have been called out for committing blatant slander.
@@aaronz7056
Says who? Liars?
@@Geronimo_Jehoshaphat I just listed a mountain of Stone's demonstrable lies elsewhere under this video.
@@aaronz7056
I don't think you've even watched the movie. It presents multiple alternatives theories from differing points of views which often conflict with one another, if you're paying attention and can comprehend sophisticated cinematic editing. Primarily it is attempting to depict Jim Garrisons line of dot connecting. But not even exclusively that. It doesn't state any single idea as definitively the truth. It states that there is reason to doubt the official explanations and pursue different angles for consideration.
So you're the one that's either too myopically biased, outright dishonest, or simply lacking in mental capacity to conceive the actual premise of the movie accurately.
@@Geronimo_Jehoshaphat Yeah, whatever, the movie is packed with more than 80 demonstrable lies, don't insult my intelligence, buddy. The real Jim Garrison was a complete paranoid and a demonstrable liar himself who implicated scores upon scores of people, including Ronald Reagan, Johnny Carson, Bobby Kennedy, lawyers defending people he suspected, the telephone company, Cuban guerrillas, neo-Nazis, and, of course, "the homosexuals," so depicting him as "connecting the dots" is a bit rich.
That is a great movie. The 3 hour run time just flies by. the suspense throughout film as they go further into investigating the mysteries is off the charts. the MVP would have to be Donald Sutherland as Mr X, that an amazing scene at the national mall.
Pity it's just making pretty much everything up.
@@aaronz7056 LOL! Is there a movie that you THINK was based on certain facts? Or should I say ALTERNATIVE FACTS?
@@robertpolanco1973 Whatever that incoherent question is supposed to mean. I list plenty of Stone's demonstrable lies elsewhere under this video.
@@aaronz7056 Well, I already read your list of so-called "demonstrable lies" and NOT EVERYONE would agree with you, like me! What a pity!
@@robertpolanco1973 You know, you can't just summarily dismiss a long list of demonstrable evidence with a sneering wisecrack without addressing one word of it like that settles the matter. lol
Any Given Sunday is underrated to me.
whether you're behind Oliver Stone's politics or this story's theory's now outdated or not...there's NO denying JFK's one of 1990s cinema's BEST.
It was just a cameo, but was this John Candy’s sole dramatic film role?
The movie wasn’t made to be completely factual, Stone’s intention was to put all the theories as well as facts out there so that people would ask Questions and never forget what happened on that day in Dallas that changed the course of American history forever.
Haven't watched the video but the movie holds up. One of my favorite movies.
Joe Pesci was awesome in JFK, and in The Irishman. Let that sink in
Of course, the REAL David Ferrie was not rubbed out. He died of Berry aneurysm after failing health, always hotly denied any knowledge of the assassination, and was preparing to sue Garrison for harassment.
It's a great film, even if you don't buy the conspiracy. I don't think it's a film that pretends to have all the answers, but it certainly creates more questions, if you're open to them. And it's compelling. Oliver Stone does a great job of combining actual footage with fictional material that, again, creates more questions than answers. And that's what movies like this should do.
Should movies falsely and knowingly paint a lot of innocent people as conspirators and murderers with B.S. "evidence" and portray screwball prosecutors who ruined innocent peoples' lives with crackpot "cases" as heroes?
Great film really got me excited to learn more as a kid in the 90's but then seeing it in quinquennially it was a constant for me to return to and eventually become so studied the dates and names are burned into me noggin
He certainly did want to set both sides up for us to decide.
He made Salvador and Romero, from my old country El Salvador. I truly appreciate his films.
Not only does it hold up, but additional facts revealed since have vindicated his conclusions.
Trivia; Oliver Stone calls JFK “a counter myth,” which this video also quotes (I wrote this before I heard it here). For the channel: how did u not mention Nixon (1995) when recounting his post JFK films?
I’m planning something else on Nixon. Needs a whole video of its own.
That was one of Stone's most arrogant moves, coming up with that "counter myth" slogan since all credible evidence points at Oswald while he himself was pulling dozens and dozens of demonstrable lies out of thin air.
@@aaronz7056 How amusing of you to say such a pathetic amount of bullshit!
@@robertpolanco1973 I list plenty of Stone's lies elsewhere under this video.
@@aaronz7056 Oh, really? Well, I read your alternative facts elsewhere in the comments section of UA-cam here and I DO NOT find them to be credible at all!
Even the “formerly banned upon 2 weeks into release” film, *”EXECUTIVE ACTION,”* which released merely a decade after the event, provided the foundation for what we know today.
Only the Directors cut is in 4K
Saw it for the 5th time a few weeks ago...bet your ass it still does!
For some reason people have forgotten how to make movies like this. Whether you believe the premise or not it doesn’t matter. It’s a really well made movie that belies its running time. Apart from some ridiculous and overly schmaltzy scenes with Costner, overall it’s a great watch and still holds up today.
There're some great directors and I think the talent is still out there but we can't see it if the studios won't back it.
When a movie is 3 hours and 20 minutes long but feels like 2 ,youknow it's a great film. better than platoon in my opinion.
It’s Garrison. With a G. Not Carrison. Not Harrison. Someone’s not doing their job properly.
*Salvador, Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July, Wall Street, JFK, Snowden, et al. I'd forgotten about Stone's **_incredible_** body of work. (Where's HIS AFI lifetime award, Hollywood?!)* 🤷♂
Back when Hollywood knew how to make 3 hour movies. This was a masterpiece.
Stone's peak after that he went downhill.Maybe Costner's peak too...Stellar cast stellar acting stellar directing and editing Tommy Lee Jones was robbed at the Oscars that year ...if it came out in the 80s or late 90s it would've won Best Picture Best Director easily
10/10
Natural Born Killers, Nixon, Any Given Sunday and U Turn was pretty underrated. I would say he lost it in the 2000's.
@@BishopWalters12 Alexander(2004) is underrated too it came out after several epic films like Gladiator Lord of the Rings Last Samurai Master&Commander Troy and there was an epic movie fatigue,it would have been better if 1st choice Heath Ledger played Alexander and 1st choice Sean Connery Phillip II
Also the inaccurate historically homoerotic undertones doomed any box office success it was a protowoke L
Probably it was the 1st Go Woke Go Broke moment in Cinema
@@BishopWalters12 The Doors that came out that same year as JFK is also underrated.Val Kilmer deserved a nom for his stellar performance as Jim Morrison
@@Constantine_IA I didn't really like The Doors or care about Jim Morrison but it's a well-made movie and Val Kilmer was one of the most gifted actors in his prime.
@@Constantine_IA I watched Alexander one time when it came out, I don't remember much about it overall but I didn't hate it or think it was as bad as some critics made it out to be.
The movie is beautifully shot and edited superbly. Whether or not there really is a conspiracy is another topic.
There was no conspiracy and don't think the filmmakers were not perfectly aware of that, but they didn't have the balls to walk the walk and base their narrative on the actual evidence.
@@aaronz7056 LOL! Like you are still among others who believe in the verdict of the laughable Warren Commission of 1964 and that Lee Harvey Oswald was the "lone assassin" at all! After all, NOT EVERYONE would agree with people like you on this ongoing issue anyway!
Top 5 all time
Love the love for this film. It is one of Oliver Stone's masterpieces. This was my favourite film of 91', and that was a great year for movies. Pietro Scalia and Joe Hutshing both won deserved Oscars for Editing, and Robert Richardson won his first Oscar for cinematography. Their work along side the rest of the departments under Oliver Stones direction is marvelous. And side note, this is one of John Williams best scores outside of his most notable works
That gold glitter covered leapfrog scene was a bit much.
I liked the film a lot, and find that the worst part is that Stone never reached that sublime combination of importance and agressiveness again.
Nor did he reach the level of telling dozens of demonstrable lies either.
Oliver Stone has always said he wasn't making a documentary he was making a film to make people think and question what they are told.
As a kid, this was the first serious drama movie I ever really got into and it was enthralling.
Hey I remember that Quantum Leap episode. I was like nine and he was sent back to save Jackie I think. It was a very confusing episode in my young mind haven't seen it since but I remember watching it
Surprised he didn’t mention Nixon as another film tapping the zeitgeist.
Instead of the who….we must ask why…
It's a great film, and should be watched for what it is: The story of a development of a conspiracy theory. As Jim Garrison says in the film "White is black, and black is white." A statement that leads to him arguing that somehow the FBI, CIA, and the Dallas Police were all complicit and but also concedes he doesn't doubt the mob's involvement "but at a lower level". By the end of the film it's a massive convoluted plot. Does he uncover the names of these people? No. They remain shadowy people involved in the execution, and the person he identifies is...by complete coincidence...a businessman in his own back garden.
I've spent a large part of my life trying to explain that a commonly held belief in the UK is entirely a conspiracy. I have an advantage that those who want to talk about JFK don't have. I have the video footage of people saying what many people in the UK believe was never said. Not just one piece of footage, multiple pieces of footage spanning 15 years. You would think at that point, people who believed the conspiracy would concede, but they don't. They naturally look for any thread to grab hold of which allows them to continue to hold on to their conspiracy theory.
Meanwhile when you look at their original evidence, is almost entirely taken out of context or just not understood. Other pieces of evidence are entirely fictitious, and the problem with human memory is people will swear to me that they remember something that simply did not happen.
In my experience, the film JFK is a very good depiction of someone who took the conspiracy path.
The real Jim Garrison, of course, was a paranoid fruitcake whose crackpot "case" against an innocent man whose life he ruined hinged on a witness so unreliable even Stone doesn't include him in his narrative, fell apart within minutes of reaching his hand-picked jury, and got him soundly condemned by the American Bar Association for his crazed actions.
I loved when I first saw it. Then years later I thought.... MMmmm?
It does Not hold up.
It sure does
This is the most important Hollywood movie ever made
Hollywood...that's a pretty low bar to set, but even at that, I could name many, many movies that I consider to be more important than this trainwreck.
One of my favorite movies.
I highly recommend the watching - PBS Nova Cold Case JFK documentary that really does explain a lot.
One of the best movies ever....very important to show aspects of what really happened that fateful day in Dallas. Like for example, Oswald being seen in the book depository canteen by witnesses at the time of the shots being fired...
No one testified that they saw Oswald at the time the shots were fired.
Only person to place Oswald in the canteen at that time was Oswald and the people he claimed he was with flatly denied ever seeing him. Stone tells more than 80 demonstrable lies in this film, lets Kennedy's murderer off the hook, turns a crackpot, lunatic prosecutor who ruined an innocent man's life into a hero with his fictional portrayal of him, and falsely and knowingly paints a lot of innocent people as conspirators, murderers and traitors with B.S. "evidence."
How does the director's cut differ from the theatrical release? Is it significant?
The movie's horseh*t already, so I can't imagine any difference being significant.
An ardent believer in the lone gunman theory is a frightening individual that I never want to know.
You’re frightened by reality?
In that case why don't you provide your ironclad evidence there was more than one gunman and win everybody over?
Case Closed by Gerald Posner clears up all the nonsense. It’s on UA-cam.
I’d also recommend Patricia Lambert’s book False Witness. There was also a documentary made that’s also on UA-cam. Jim Garrison was anything but the hero Stone portrayed him.
@@DeanStrickson Poser is a contrarian just to sell books
This is an instant classic! I love that movie!!!
It remains a superb piece of filmmaking.
One of my favourite movies of all time. For my money, its the best political thriller ever made
As a movie? Yes.
As an examination of historical fact? No.
Back and to the left, back and to the left, back and to left, back and to the left LOL
"Back & to the left."
back...and to the left.
@@JoBloOriginals 😆😎👍
Donald Sutherland was robbed of a Oscar nod.
Oliver is spot on.
I love J.F.K. as a film...but I don't believe ANY OF IT. The performances are great; the photography is beautiful; the music is haunting; and the editing...? Wow. WOW.
Oh, and Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.
I admire the film but as a former (re-formed) conspiracy junkie, I think serving up a 'counter-myth' is hardly the way to go if you want convince people you're shining light on the 'truth.' One of the stories about the making of JFK involves Stone's dissatisfaction by the 'smoke' appearing from behind the grassy knoll (supposedly seen by some witnesses) from a prop rifle, so he had a props guy blown some out of bellows. A good analogy for the relationship Stone had with actual facts.
Congrats on breaking your conspiracy addiction. Stay sober.
Stone doesn't care about truth, he cares about self-promotion and the axes he has to grind in general with America.
People thought Oliver stone was nuts when this movie came out. Now after all these years 95% of the movie really happened