JFK - The Movie

Brad_W · 10-10-2001, 10:47 PM

I'm putting on my flame-retardant suit...

It has been officially 10 years now since the release of Oliver Stone's JFK. Never has a movie inspired such controversy: to a point where, after a viewing on Capitol Hill, the government actually created a team to de-classify some documents regarding the assasination of JFK. I have watched this movie three times in the past week and finally bought the 2-disc set on DVD and will watch it one more time with the Stone's commentary. John Williams' music is awe-inspiring throughout the film and I still get shivers everytime I hear the snare rolls and soft horns. I say that I put on my flame-retardant suit because I know I'll probably get flamed for loving such a blatant dramatic work. That's fine, but I still adore this movie. Maybe my over-active paranoia feeds hungerly with this type of film, but hey, I gotta love it. Plus, I love Kevin "bland" Costner's extremly well-done monologue at the end. I typically can't stand him as an actor, but I give him great credit to do this and show emotion all while trying to remember his lines, pacing, hand gestures, and the like. I bring this thread up to hear everyone else's opinions, good or bad. I take no offense, I love the movie regardless.

------------------
"I was born to murder the world." -Nix (Lord of Illusions)

My Home Page http://www.geocities.com/masternix/DVD.html
My List O' DVDs:
http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&id=meshuga

Mitty · 10-10-2001, 10:58 PM

I don't think you'll get flamed for loving this movie.

As history, it's farcical, but as drama and filmmaking it's a masterwork. Stone threw everything but the kitchen sink into this film and, for my money, it's his best work. That he could throw so much exposition at an audience and still make it utterly compelling is extraordinary.

A lot of people hate this movie as they fret about its effect on the impressionable who'll take it as gospel truth. Not me; I'm more than a little tired of the lengths we feel the need to go to protect the ignorant from themselves.

------------------
Do you like SCARY MOVIES?

Scary Movie Challenge: ~~13, 12, 11~~ 10 to go!

andreasingo · 10-11-2001, 06:39 AM

JFK is one of my favourite movies. I don't understand why everyone seems to pick at Kevin Kostner. In my eyes he's a great actor as long as he doesn't sleepwalk through his roles and actually *tries* to act. I also agree JFK is Oliver Stones best work. An incredibly emotionally loaded film that actually works. 4/4.

TheoGB · 10-11-2001, 07:04 AM

'As history, it's farcical...' seems a little harsh. Yeah, it's a drama but it's based on facts. Kennedy was killed by right-wing extremists with the backing of the government.

I think this the only one of Stone's work I can watch again. Platoon and Born on the 4th of July were both excellent but far too harsh for me to relish watching again. I've not really attempted to see any of his other stuff due to his depressing nature.

Theo

------------------
My band is @ http://www.mokita.net

My Novelty Coasters

tyler O · 10-11-2001, 10:56 AM

Absolutely a beautiful movie that took as much as possible and shoved it down your throat. Liberties were taken, but then again, honestly I have no use for what The Warren Comission said, I find that to be more fanciful almost than what is portrayed in the movie.

Excellent use of media and really hammers in the point beautifully. I prefer Natural Born Killers if I must pick a Stone but... JFK definitely ranks up there.

------------------
Share and Enjoy - The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.

The difference between 0 and 1 is infinite.

My DVDs

**HTF Ads**

JonZ · 10-11-2001, 11:22 AM

I think its brilliant and a masterpiece

------------------
Visit My Pathetic WebPage
"....With that in mind,I humbly add my own prophecy of
what the dawn of the new millennium shall bring forth-
one thousand more years of the same old crap" Jose Chung

Rich Malloy · 10-11-2001, 11:49 AM

Except for the strange and ugly depiction of gays (use of "otherness" to express the sinister and menacing?), it works fairly well as comedy (dark comedy, at least). And though I'm not generally a fan of Stone's hyperactive and hamfisted montage style, here it compliments the subject matter. That is, the very structure of the film (the hyperactive editing, the use of varied film stocks, the blurring of the line between archival and shot footage) allows an interesting peek into the mental contortions and paranoia of the fanatical true-believer.

And while I certainly wouldn't give it the 4 stars that Ebert did, I do agree with the thrust of his review:

Quote:

I don't have the slightest idea whether Oliver Stone knows who killed President John F. Kennedy. I have no opinion on the factual accuracy of his 1991 film ''JFK.'' I don't think that's the point. This is not a film about the facts of the assassination, but about the feelings. ''JFK'' accurately reflects our national state of mind since Nov. 22, 1963. We feel the whole truth has not been told, that more than one shooter was involved, that somehow maybe the CIA, the FBI, Castro, the anti-Castro Cubans, the Mafia or the Russians, or all of the above, were involved. We don't know how. That's just how we feel.

Shortly after the film was released, I ran into Walter Cronkite and received a tongue-lashing, aimed at myself and my colleagues who had praised ''JFK.'' There was not, he said, a shred of truth in it. It was a mishmash of fabrications and paranoid fantasies. It did not reflect the most elementary principles of good journalism. We should all be ashamed of ourselves.

I have no doubt Cronkite was correct, from his point of view. But I am a film critic and my assignment is different than his. He wants facts. I want moods, tones, fears, imaginings, whims, speculations, nightmares. As a general principle, I believe films are the wrong medium for fact.

Given that standard, ''JFK'' is a masterpiece. It's like a collage of all the books and articles, documentaries and TV shows, scholarly debates and conspiracy theories since 1963. * * * * [It] is a brilliant reflection of our unease and paranoia, our restless dissatisfaction. On that level, it is completely factual.

Brad_W · 10-11-2001, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Except for the strange and ugly depiction of gays

Please keep in mind that the time period in which this movie took place had almost no tolerance for gays or blacks for that matter. The ugly depiction was of time frame, if you are referring to the "dressing up" sequences: I can't explain that other than it was in Louisianna during the time of Mardi Gras.

------------------
"I was born to murder the world." -Nix (Lord of Illusions)

My Home Page http://www.geocities.com/masternix/DVD.html
My List O' DVDs:
http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&id=meshuga

TheoGB · 10-11-2001, 12:09 PM

Surely the dressing up sequences are simply a reflection of the tale being told at that time. Stone obviously chooses to accept the tale and shows it. Whether or not it's false isn't an issue, if you see what I mean.

Theo

------------------
My band is @ http://www.mokita.net

My Novelty Coasters