JFK (1991)

Engrossing drama, superb performances - and brilliant cinematography
The brilliance in this film's production is that, by the artful interweaving of historical footage with the dramatic scenes, the finished product seems like an insightful, revisionist documentary. This is the film's strength and weakness, because it is primarily historical fiction in that Jim Garrison's point of view is presented as incontrovertible fact. I would caution those viewing the film, who may have no familiarity with the Kennedy assasination, that its plot not only presents Jim Garrison (of whom I'd never heard before seeing "JFK") in quite a different light than any Google search would reveal, but even distorts actual individuals with whom the real Garrison had dealings.

If one can detach oneself from the slanted version of the facts, it is a totally rivetting film. Kevin Costner heads a sterling cast - the acting is superb, and so believable that, despite the many familiar faces of fine actors whom one has seen in many roles, one nearly has the impression of having an inside look at 'real people' revealing secret dimensions to the evidence. For example, Ed Asner shows a shocking side to the attitudes towards the assasination which some in Dallas may have held (seeing the murderer as hero, where I'd always thought of Kennedy as an esteemed, well loved president), with a rough but convincing demeanour which is both deep and chilling. Joe Pesci gives a multi dimensional picture, both moving and puzzling, of the bizarre David Ferry.

I've rarely seen a lengthy film (and one in which I recognised significant innacuracy in relation to history) which so totally held my interest.

Not historically accurate, not factual, but entertaining and well directed.
Oliver Stone, a brilliant liberal film director with a skewed anti-American political agenda, is mildly entertaining at best but usually offensive to reason, truth, and fact. The old saying of 'never letting the facts get in the way of a good story' is certainly applicable here with the JFK film. Costner is great (as usual), but one can't stop thinking that possibly the supporting cast (all leftists by design) have an agenda similar to that of Stone. If you really want the facts and the factual history about the assasination of JFK, do some literary research on your own. Start with Posner's 'Case Closed'. After you've assimilated that, read the Warren Commision Report. The bottom line is this: Lee Oswald was the only shooter; he also killed Ofcr. Tippet; Oswald was a leftist, Lenninist, Marxist communist. The Left simply refuses to believe or consider that one of their own (Oswald) could possibly have commited such a heinous crime. It must have been a Right-wing conspiracy! (sound familiar?)
Anyway, as far as FICITIONAL entertainment goes, this film JFK is every bit as good as 'Wayne's World', 'Animal House', or 'Cabin Boy'. Just don't confuse this film with the truth.

Now I Know Why the "17 Minutes" Got Left Out.
Of the theatrical release, that is. It looks like a lot of it was from the windy, overwrought closing arguments Jim Garrison made in the Clay Shaw trial. They bordered on Shakesperean soliloquy, suppressed tears and all. I found myself waiting for a bailiff or court reporter or someone to come out and offer Garrison a box of kleenex. I can't help but notice that Costner outgrew this type of overacting in later efforts. Still, this cri-de-coeur struck me on reflection as possibly being as much of an opportunity to rant for the pretentiously iconoclastic Oliver Stone as it was Garrison's words. Elsewhere in the story, I found myself wondering at the way Garrison "took his job home with him" by constantly ruminating out loud about the case around his family, or was it just another use of the hackneyed movie cliche about the resentment of cop/ doctor/ whatever spouses at their spouses' tendency to be consumed or endangered by the job. I guess this film had to be this long to tell the story, but it also serves to remind us of who Michael Moore's "daddy" was.