JFK Anyone?

[andyman1970]

Originally Posted by tjericks

Agreed. I'm a phd student in history, focusing on history of US foreign relations. I think what Stone is doing with this movie is just pointing out that we're not always being told the truth.....which I can argue is quite true in a fair amount of cases from the documents I've read in things I've studied. Stone wasn't trying to solve it, because you can't until the key documents are declassified. All he was trying to do (IMO) is make the viewer ask questions, and not take the official story at face value.

With the exception of Natural Born Killers, I'm really not a fan of Oliver Stone since most of his movies, like Michael Moore documentaries, tend to push his own political belief and agenda. Personally, I think it's a good thing that the government doesn't always tell us the "truth" for our own protection. Let's face it, there are somethings the general population doesn't need to know in order to keep us from destroying each other.

[GOAT]

i was personally disapointed by the film itself. I was expecting a lot more, just like with Nixon. Its been a few years since i saw this so i cant place exactly what i didnt like. IF you want an awesome Stone film from the 90s grab Natural Born Killers or Born on the Fourth of July (when that comes to BD)

[sfmarine]

Originally Posted by GreenMonster2007

i was personally disapointed by the film itself. I was expecting a lot more, just like with Nixon. Its been a few years since i saw this so i cant place exactly what i didnt like. IF you want an awesome Stone film from the 90s grab Natural Born Killers or Born on the Fourth of July (when that comes to BD)

I hear ya on that. BOT4OJ was a great film. I wasn't impressed with Nixon either. It was a little slow at times but what do you expect with a run time exceeding 3+ hours? I enjoyed Anthony Hopkins portrayal of Nixon and he definitely deserved the Oscar. I still feel JFK is right under Platoon.

[rev.and.ride]

Originally Posted by Gremal

JFK goes far beyond the point that we are sometimes not told "the truth". Right at the beginning, the protagonist says he is ashamed to be an American. The rest of the long, drawn-out plot is clearly promotional of that shame and demonizes US government. There's really no getting around that. I'm surprised a PhD historian could even watch it without shutting it off part way through, simply by virtue of the manipulation of facts and clear agenda on display.

Ten best of '90s? Not a chance. Goodfellas, Casino, Usual Suspects, Kundun, Fargo, Barton Fink, Big Lebowski, In the Line of Fire, etc. etc., heck even Stone's other films are better than this!

So what if he is ashamed to be American? Garrison is portrayed as disillusioned with America - clearly a lot of the country was in the last election!

You're surprised that a PhD student can tolerate differing viewpoints? Who says that someone must accept Stone's views after watching the movie? Why not take in all of the information, use your own reasoning skills to draw your own conclusions? It seems to me that someone who would shut off a movie because of artistic license is pretty narrow-minded and/or intellectually lazy. Certainly not PhD material!

I've read both the Warren Commission report and the conspiracy books and have the perspective to weigh the evidence. While there are some errors in Stone's movie from a historical standpoint - such as the "tramps" in Dealey Plaza, that have since been identified - it is exponentially more accurate than the Warren report. Even the HSCA concluded that a conspiracy was likely.

If you're going to be opinionated, it helps to know the facts from all sides.

[LMonaco]

Originally Posted by jasonbird

For those that have it, hows the PQ/AQ? It is a Warner release.

One of my favorite movies. When I first put this on I thought I was watching one of those bootleg videos (the ones that look like they were taken from You Tube). I mean it, I get hitting the display button! The numbers were OK (for Warner) & the sound was good but it looked like crap. I does get better as the movie goes along (reading up on it - this was an effect that Oliver Stone wanted) but it lost me. I am a repeat movie watcher - any movie I like, I tend to watch at least once a season. This one bothers the hell out of me. I bought this when it came out & haven't been able to sit thru it once yet.

[DigitalfreakNYC]

Has this been released anywhere in a non-book edition?

[sfmarine]

Negative.

[Riff Magnum]

Originally Posted by andyman1970

With the exception of Natural Born Killers, I'm really not a fan of Oliver Stone since most of his movies, like Michael Moore documentaries, tend to push his own political belief and agenda. Personally, I think it's a good thing that the government doesn't always tell us the "truth" for our own protection. Let's face it, there are somethings the general population doesn't need to know in order to keep us from destroying each other.

So, we're better off not knowing that our president was killed by people within our own government? Those are things we're better off not knowing, huh? Ignorance is bliss, huh?
We can end the debate pretty quickly here folks. First, watch the Zapruder footage shown in JFK or just Youtube it on the net. Second, notice how Kennedy's brains fly out the back of his head. Third, notice how the motorcade is now well past the book depository, meaning a shot from the third floor window would cause Kennedy's brains to fly out the front of his head. Fourth, repeat step number 2.
The kill shot didn't come from the book depository. It came from somewhere else. Meaning there was another shooter. Meaning there was a conspiracy.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by rev.and.ride

So what if he is ashamed to be American? Garrison is portrayed as disillusioned with America - clearly a lot of the country was in the last election!

Without turning the thread too political, that observation is exactly right. It is now considered "normal" or "expected" to be ashamed of America and a lot of that attitude has to do with how our free press and Hollywood portray this country. But you might entertain the possibility that filmmakers and reporters have an anti-US agenda that is not based on facts.

You're surprised that a PhD student can tolerate differing viewpoints?

History is supposed to be based on facts, not wildly manipulative movies made by filmmakers who readily admit they have an agenda.

Who says that someone must accept Stone's views after watching the movie? Why not take in all of the information, use your own reasoning skills to draw your own conclusions? It seems to me that someone who would shut off a movie because of artistic license is pretty narrow-minded and/or intellectually lazy. Certainly not PhD material!

Depends if you're getting your PhD in film or in history.

[DavePS3]

Very well done. At the risk of possibly offending some of our US pals, I read that when the film came out, many Americans cried out that the director was trying to re-create history but facts are facts. If the US government was truly involved with organized crime to pull this off - which is what the film points to, people need to recognize the times when their government is involved with doing the wrong thing.

I love the States, lived there for 7 years but sometimes, governments - and not just in the US, that's for sure, don't exactly have the peoples own interests at heart. Don't mean to pee off anyone in the US and certainly no offense meant here. Just sayin' governments... ALL governments sometimes need questions asked by it's people, man! Ours certainly does!!!

[Gremal]

That's definitely true that facts are facts. And it's also true that none of us will know all the facts. All we can choose is what sources we trust to deliver the facts. And in that regard, Stone's movies are not the shiznit.

[flyboy66]

Originally Posted by tjericks

Agreed. I'm a phd student in history, focusing on history of US foreign relations. I think what Stone is doing with this movie is just pointing out that we're not always being told the truth.....which I can argue is quite true in a fair amount of cases from the documents I've read in things I've studied. Stone wasn't trying to solve it, because you can't until the key documents are declassified. All he was trying to do (IMO) is make the viewer ask questions, and not take the official story at face value.

It will never be solved because there was never anything at the most central point put on paper. I was obsessed in the early to mid 90's on this very subject. Read everything mainsteam and non mainstream. Went to lectures, wrote a college paper on the subject.......it is a mystery that will never be solved.

and to our esteemed reviewer:
And if you go read every critic worth their salt it is one of the 10 best in the 90's my friend. Why dont you go read Ebert's take on JFK.....

god I am getting to where I cant stand these reviewers on this site! I think they should stick to "disc facts only" and give up on trying to critique these films.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by flyboy66

and to our esteemed reviewer: And if you go read every critic worth their salt it is one of the 10 best in the 90's my friend. Why dont you go read Ebert's take on JFK.....

Here are a list of problems with JFK.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jfkmovie.htm

god I am getting to where I cant stand these reviewers on this site! I think they should stick to "disc facts only" and give up on trying to critique these films.

You are welcome to disagree with any review and reviewer if you can be polite about it. However, we are now taking a zero tolerance stand on bashing or heckling reviewers.

[Gremal]

And here's an article from the Atlantic, written by Edward Epstein, an early critic of the Warren Commission who also worked for Garrison (the main character of the film).

http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/jfk.htm

Oliver Stone, as the new Garrison, demonstrated yet again how easily pierced is the thin membrane that separates the mainstream media from the festering pools of fantasies on its peripheries. What he allowed to ooze into JFK from these fringes, with the help of his technical advisers like Colonel Prouty, is the tormenting concept that "secret teams" and "high cabals" fabricated entire historic events to fool them-- a concept that incorporates in its schema even the Iron Mountain Hoax. In doing so, Oliver Stone organized a flight from reality.

If one of Garrison's own men is saying this about Stone, I think some of you JFK cheerleaders who think the film is based on fact need to take note.

[flyboy66]

Are you threatning me? Did I heckle you? Did I bash you? Why don't you go back and read what I wrote!

And as far as JFK is concerned as a FILM, you need to go read some professional reviews like I said. JFK was a mismash of ideas, theories and stories by several people that stone wove together in his own style. It was not supposed to be accurate...how could it be? It was supposed to get us to THINK because more than 70% of Americans believe that "something" happended other than the offical crap that was laid on us. But again...are you not the one that brought up RELIGION as a major issue in Shawshank? Tsk..Tsk..

Im not even going to argue about the events here.....oh but you so make me want to! You want accurate....go watch a documentry! Thats about as close as you will get.

[flyboy66]

Since I bashed you....let me share this with everyone. Your a geat Mod as well.

[Gremal]

The whole premise of the film is that the government lied and that Stone is gonna set the record straight. Turns out Stone is lying more than the government did.

No, films don't need to be historically accurate, but they should at least be made responsibly.

I'm not threatening you. I'm telling you very plainly what the policy here is. You're now bringing up an unrelated review and whining about that again. I'd lose the attitude, if I was you.

[flyboy66]

Originally Posted by Gremal

The whole premise of the film is that the government lied and that Stone is gonna set the record straight. Turns out Stone is lying more than the government did.

No, films don't need to be historically accurate, but they should at least be made responsibly.

I'm not threatening you. I'm telling you very plainly what the policy here is. You're now bringing up an unrelated review and whining about that again. I'd lose the attitude, if I was you.

ITS ART!!!!! WHAT PART OF ART ARE YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING?

[jw]

So how bout them Patriots? LOL!!
I havent read the review but I did see the movie, very long yet interesting, whether its factual or not I didnt think that far into it. Its Hollywood and with almost all films they change things in the value of entertainment. Definitely improves the value of the movie.

ITS ART!!!!! WHAT PART OF ART ARE YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING?

And as far as the art comment, Portraits of naked women are considered Art as well, theres are sites dedicated to the art of it, but its against the forum rules to post such art here, Thats what he was saying. Just because its art or appropriate elsewhere doesnt mean it belongs here

[blu-pacino]

Sorry to bump an old thread but I was wondering if it is possible to get a replacement disc for JFK? I bought mine and noticed that it tends to skip, I know it is the disc since it has done it on more than one player, plus there appears to be a scratch on the disc. I can't return it to the store (Shoppers Drug Mart in Canada) I purchased it from as it was the only one left, plus it was in a bargain bin for only $9.99. Every where else I have seen the movie it is $30.00+. Does anyone know if it is possible to get a replacement by contacting the studio?