JFK (1991)
Genre: Thriller
Duration: 188 minuten / 206 minuten (director's cut)
Country:
United States / France
Directed by: Oliver Stone
Stars: Kevin Costner, Kevin Bacon and Tommy Lee Jones
IMDb score:
8,0 (173.867)
Releasedate: 20 December 1991
JFK plot
"The story that won't go away."
1963: Jim Garrison takes on the task of investigating the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Texas. Garrison is very suspicious of the official story being told by the FBI. What he already knows, and what he discovers next, leads him to suspect that there is more going on than what is being told to the public.
Actors and actresses
Jim Garrison
Clay Shaw / Clay Bertrand
Lee Harvey Oswald
Willie O'Keefe
Bill Broussard
Jack Martin
Susie Cox
Liz Garrison
David Ferrie
Dean Andrews
Reviews & comments
RuudC
-
- 4636 messages
- 2529 votes
That this picture did not win the Oscar for best picture. It wouldn't be the first political Oscar. It turns out that a lot of people really enjoyed this, but I actually didn't think it was nearly as brilliant. Looking at the big picture, JFK is really nothing more than an Oliver Stone excuse to join in on all the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the death of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. We eventually follow the lawsuit against Clay Shaw, but in fact Stone mainly wants to tell us that the CIA is behind the attack. After many documentaries about the attack on Kennedy, I feel like I know all the stories. Then a new three-hour film, I can tell you.
I'm not really impressed with the cast either. Costner is a boring actor who is cut out for such a role, but Garrison really has very little to offer. Joe Pesci looks like a circus act with his megalomaniac eyebrows and ditto wig. Whenever he tries to put on a southern accent, I simply burst out laughing. The only good part in my opinion is that of Gary Oldman.
There is nothing wrong with the story. Some scenes (especially Lee Harvey Oswald's past) are quite interesting. There is also a lot of material that is superfluous. Somehow I can't take Oliver Stone seriously and find it hard to put my finger on what it is exactly. The intentions are good, because it is very easy to take the official statements blindly. A good dose of doubt is always wise. JFK isn't bad, but somehow I think it's a missed opportunity.
Translated from Dutch · View original
Fisico (moderator films)
-
- 9534 messages
- 5190 votes
Last year I saw with Jackie a great piece of cinema from one of the most charismatic presidents the US has ever known. This film by Stone does not have to be inferior to that either. Admittedly also a film after the death of the president, but from a completely different angle. No focus on Jackie, but the attention for the murder suspect(s) and the unraveling of what really happened. Conspiracy theories have never been far away from this one.
With JFK, Stone combines historical news images with strong fiction and a high-quality actor's arsenal. The many archive images used sometimes have a documentary-like feel, but that is precisely why this historical film is so interesting. The list of actors is legion and was top notch. Costner was one of Hollywood's most renowned actors in the early 1990s. Garrison's final plea was especially impressive. The other actors were also of a high standard. Just think of Gary Oldman who plays eerily handsome Lee Harvey Oswald. The film also excels in strong editing and the good structure of the film. Although the film lasts three hours, it hardly gets boring and the schwung is always present. It is not illogical that they have been awarded mainly for this at the international film festivals. Stone proves once again why he is an absolute winner! He perfectly translates the myth surrounding JFK into the film. He also pays attention to his opponents and the lesser successes (Cuba, for example) of the president.
Stone presents a believable story and only fueled the conspiracy theories. The myth surrounding JFK persists and grew after his death. Even today, JFK is a president that is always talked about with some emotion or nostalgia. If you like historical films or American history, this is an absolute must see! Nice 4.0*!
Translated from Dutch · View original
eRCee
-
- 13380 messages
- 1936 votes
Actually, it's quite simple: it's unlikely that Lee Harvey Oswald was the one who shot Kennedy, it's practically impossible that he was the only perpetrator. So the official version is wrong. The question remains about who has an interest in this version (the qui bono principle). You then get into the corner of sound opinion, with Oliver Stone probably not far off with his accusation against the CIA and military hardliners. (The CIA roughly made it its basic strategy in those years to overthrow regimes, even when democratically elected.)
In the book The Shape of Ruins, by Juan Gabriel Vasquez, the Kennedy assassination is discussed indirectly, but the focus is on two murders of progressive politicians in Colombia. There, the same pattern can be discerned: in a curse and a sigh, a suspect is found who allegedly operated alone (in one of the murders, he was immediately lynched), evidence is ignored, witnesses are liquidated and the conservative forces clearly at work. have been thwarting further research.
The story itself is also the main pillar of this film. But it must be said that Oliver Stone has found an extremely efficient way of telling this story in images. The second half is especially captivating. He also knows how to process his own vision very well, which gives it unity, without giving it too much weight. The scenes with the family are very dissonant, enormously caricatured and misplaced. Nevertheless enjoyed it. And the text at the end may be: What Is Past Is Prologue.
Translated from Dutch · View original
Corporate & Media
Realtimes Network
Innovatieweg 20C
7007 CD, Doetinchem, Netherlands
+31(315)-764002
Realtimes Network
- Sign up |
- Contact Us |
- About Us |
- Advertise |
- Privacy |
- Disclaimer |
- RSS Feed
© 2024 MovieMeter B.V.