Oliver Stone's JFK 4K UHD (1991)

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by lilboyblu

I doubt you have ever left Australia, let alone visited Dallas. Do this tour, learn a few things, and then rejoin the conversation.

I've read literally thousands of pages of writing on the JFK assassination and Clay Shaw prosecution.

[Rzzzz]

Originally Posted by koberulz

I've read literally thousands of pages of writing on the JFK assassination and Clay Shaw prosecution.

And still you only know what they want you to know. Wake up. Here in America we all know that the CIA and the FBI murdered JFK. And they will do it again....

[grahams76]

I don't know how anyone could think Oswald acted alone for a number of reasons but especially when it's clearly visible that JFK was shot in the face from the knoll area as evidenced by the "back and to the left" moment in the Zapruder film.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by Jorvic

The Blu-ray isn't very good, so nice to see that a 4K UHD of this is finally on the way.

Even if the Theatrical is superior, I've sort of got used now to the Director's Cut.

JFK is so mesmerising that it tends to (rather unfairly) cast a shadow over Nixon, which I still think is in the upper tier of Stone's films.

I consider NIXON to Stone's unequivocal best film and a masterpiece. Not taking anything away from JFK, but NIXON seemed to really perfect the style Stone invented with JFK and the script was more focused and personal, I think.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by Rzzzz

And still you only know what they want you to know. Wake up. Here in America we all know that the CIA and the FBI murdered JFK. And they will do it again....

They will murder JFK again???

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

koberulz is not a fan of the various conspiracy theories surrounding this event, and firmly believes they're entirely untrue.

This has come up before multiple times in various JFK threads.

Absolutely nobody is going to change koberulz's mind, and it seems like things are getting a bit unpleasant as people try.
.

I've noticed over the years, dating from the 60's when I was a little kid and having lived through the assassination and the subsequent effects of it in the next two decades that the "lone gunman" believers tend to be the most obnoxiously stubborn and resolutely deaf and dumb in their beliefs. I tend to stay away from them because I have always had a hard time with anyone who becomes a slave to their beliefs and allows no room for further education and expansion of ideas. Those who stop a discussion before it starts by bullying any other perspective will never learn anything different and therefore will never gain any knowledge or wisdom as they experience life. It's sad really. That's a black and white world which will never exist, despite politicians of the last few years in America criminally trying to convince us that it should.

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by grahams76

I don't know how anyone could think Oswald acted alone for a number of reasons but especially when it's clearly visible that JFK was shot in the face from the knoll area as evidenced by the "back and to the left" moment in the Zapruder film.

That movement is consistent with being shot from behind. Bullets don't push your head forward.

[Olmo]

Originally Posted by koberulz

That movement is consistent with being shot from behind. Bullets don't push your head forward.

That massive flap of scalp & skull that went back over isn’t consistent with a shot from behind. Nor is Jackie O’s attempts to retrieve her husband’s brains that had been blown back over onto the rear canopy of the vehicle.

There is skepticism then there is an outright refusal to accept the laws of physics because of a political stance or other.

[koberulz]

JFK's Head Movement - YouTube

Originally Posted by Olmo

Nor is Jackie O’s attempts to retrieve her husband’s brains that had been blown back over onto the rear canopy of the vehicle.

A woman who had just seen her husband shot in the head acted irrationally? You don't say.

[Olmo]

Originally Posted by koberulz

JFK's Head Movement - YouTube

A woman who had just seen her husband shot in the head acted irrationally? You don't say.

What’s your excuse?

[levcore]

Oliver Stone's JF4K

[SpacemanDoug]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

Yep, that's correct. The only DVD of the theatrical cut was released in the UK. I bought it, it's a super low-res master, probably the same atrocious master used for the streaming version currently available in the US. And on top of that, it suffers from PAL-speedup, so everyone moves like they're on cocaine and sounds like a chipmunk, at least to my American eyes and ears, conditioned to NTSC and 24-ishfps.

Isn't the streaming version at the proper speed and resolution?

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by SpacemanDoug

Isn't the streaming version at the proper speed and resolution?

it is.

[SpacemanDoug]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

it is.

But admittedly I've always wondered why the theatrical cut was such a rarity on home video for a long time

[NeilZ]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

They will murder JFK again???

He's talking about his nephew obviously. He's running for President in case you didn't know, and he espouses the exact same things his Uncle and dad did (cutting back on all foreign interventions, reducing size of military, breaking up the intelligence agencies etc), thus the concerns.

The movie release now is a smart move on Warner Brothers/Shout on so many levels but one of them is that the assassination is being discussed a lot more again with RFK Jr's candidacy. We hear about it in interviews again more than we have in a long time.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by koberulz

"Oswald shot JFK and was acting alone" is a conclusion with far more evidence pointing to it than almost any conclusion in any criminal case in the history of the United States. Had he lived, convicting Oswald - and Oswald alone - would have been trivial. There was no conspiracy, and it's not up for debate. Every single point raised in the film has been thoroughly debunked.

Oh, OK, then.

[balthazar_bee]

Originally Posted by NeilZ

He's talking about his nephew obviously. He's running for President in case you didn't know, and he espouses the exact same things his Uncle and dad did (cutting back on all foreign interventions, reducing size of military, breaking up the intelligence agencies etc), thus the concerns.

I don't know much about RFK Jr. beyond the highlights (I'm good, thanks) but this notion that the elder Kennedys were secret doves trying to change the system from within has always read like myth to me. They may not have always been hawkish enough for some, but the escalation in Vietnam and paramilitary action against Cuba didn't just "happen". When all's said and done, I think it's this aspect of Stone's case that leaves him most vulnerable, more than inserting fictional characters or playing fast and loose with logic: his sentimental mythologizing about the betrayed dream of the Kennedys, which is now a standard element in the "narrative" of the 60s.

[jvonl]

Well, these last pages have been both entertaining and sad. Do I know all that happened? No. But I did live through the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK, and have done a great deal of reading and research on the issue. I can say that anyone who buys the government's "stories" on these murders is guilty of willful ignorance. There are too many inconsistencies flying in the face of the official "facts". An excellent book, The Man Who Knew Too Much by Dick Russell, is a worthwhile read on the JFK killing. And to the writer from Down Under, me thinks thou doth protest too much... to be taken seriously, at least.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by balthazar_bee

I don't know much about RFK Jr. beyond the highlights (I'm good, thanks) but this notion that the elder Kennedys were secret doves trying to change the system from within has always read like myth to me. They may not have always been hawkish enough for some, but the escalation in Vietnam and paramilitary action against Cuba didn't just "happen". When all's said and done, I think it's this aspect of Stone's case that leaves him most vulnerable, more than inserting fictional characters or playing fast and loose with logic: his sentimental mythologizing about the betrayed dream of the Kennedys, which is now a standard element in the "narrative" of the 60s.

Myth or not, the JFK assassination did in fact betray at least the hopes and idealism of a lot of people back then and without question dragged it into the rest of the decade and our consciousness ever since. Whether that idealism about the Kennedys was justified doesn't matter anymore because it actually existed and when it ended so suddenly and brutally a lot of ideas and ideals fell apart, particularly when there seemed to be no closure to the incident. Personally, I think it was more organized crime and the mafia than governmental/military industrial policy that brought about the assassination-or the two working together. Nobody keeps secrets like the Mafia and that's why we may never find out the reality.

But I think Oliver Stone's take still tells a good story and is capable of edge of your seat suspense even when the history is already known. He disregarded facts and invented things to fit his vision, but at least that vision turned out to be fascinating on many levels and makes the film a modern masterpiece in my opinion.

[NeilZ]

Originally Posted by balthazar_bee

I don't know much about RFK Jr. beyond the highlights (I'm good, thanks) but this notion that the elder Kennedys were secret doves trying to change the system from within has always read like myth to me. They may not have always been hawkish enough for some, but the escalation in Vietnam and paramilitary action against Cuba didn't just "happen". When all's said and done, I think it's this aspect of Stone's case that leaves him most vulnerable, more than inserting fictional characters or playing fast and loose with logic: his sentimental mythologizing about the betrayed dream of the Kennedys, which is now a standard element in the "narrative" of the 60s.

He didn’t escalate in Vietnam. His generals were doing that on their own. Kennedy had only sent peace corps volunteers, but when he learned some were getting killed he signed an order to have them all return. He died shortly after and when Lyndon Johnson came into office he revoked that order.

As for Cuba again same thing, his generals were pushing him to make decisive actions that he didn’t want and resisted making. He had secret conversations with Khrushchev via letters (behind the backs of the military industrial complex and intelligence agencies) and that relationship is what led to diplomatic solutions.