JFK from Oliver Stone is a well- executed conspiracy theory full of great performances and a nice setup of events leading up to one of the most unforgettable events in world history- the assassination of President John F Kennedy. Costner plays state attorney Garrison who has been given the arduous task of finding out who committed the heinous crime and how. The film is political and so the subject is a bit hard to sit through, but no one can question Stone's perspective or approach. This one will bring up hot debates and conspiracy theories.

Few events in American history stand out quite so heavily as the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Besides the shocking nature of the event with the American president being gunned down in broad daylight in a major city came the psychic scars caused by unanswered questions due to an alleged assassin gunned down before he could ever be tried and an official investigation that was at best botched and, at worst, a whitewash. Perhaps no single film or work of fiction has done more to raise questions about the event than Oliver Stone's 1991 JFK with its exploration of events through the perspective of Jim Garrison, the New Orleans District Attorney who brought to trial of the one alleged conspirators.Stone, along with his co-screenwriter Zachary Sklar, craft a peculiar film around the biggest unsolved mystery in American history. Indeed, JFK as a film owes much both to political thriller films such as Z (which also focuses on the assassination of a government official with multiple versions of the same events seen from the perspective of witnesses brought forth by a determined investigator) and the murder mystery genre. The only difference is that this is a murder with far more scope, far more suspects, and far more consequences than your garden variety murder mystery. It's a tale that takes in a large portion of still recent history and an era in time before distrust in government would reach its zenith (and perhaps has never truly subsided) and when terrible things very likely lurked in the shadows. Incidentally, anyone convinced that Stone's vision is overly paranoid should seek out the published script book for the film with dozens (if not hundreds) of annotations. The film's vision, while leaning perhaps a bit far in cases, turns out to be far plausible a vision than it's often given credit for. The result is at nightmarish with its implications, so perhaps it's no surprise that the film led to an act of Congress to release more of the classified files related to the assassination which is still being released even as I type these words.To bring the story to life, Stone assembled a first-rate team both in front of and behind the camera. Borrowing another trope from some of the better-filmed murder mysteries, the film has an all-star cast of actors in roles both big and small. Leading it is Kevin Costner as Jim Garrison, the New Orleans District Attorney who becomes both investigator and the audience's guide into the twisty world surrounding the assassination. Costner, though quite different from the real Garrison who was taller and more built, was nevertheless a perfect piece of casting as the intelligent everyman armed with a large amount of dignity and a determination to get to the truth no matter where it leads. Costner's performance plays up all of these elements and even the dark side of Garrison's obsession while also creating someone the audience is willing to follow for the three-plus hours the film runs for. The rest of the film's cast is equally as strong. The Garrison investigation turns up a number of fascinating characters, any of whom could very well the protagonist of their own film, ranging from Tommy Lee Jones' quietly menace as Clay Shaw, Joe Pesci's eccentric David Ferrie, John Candy as the ever-shifting lawyer Dean Andrews, and Kevin Bacon as Willie O'Keefe (a composite character, one of several the film uses) among many others. There is also Gary Oldman's Lee Harvey Oswald is not only uncanny in his resemblance but a fascinating portrait in its own right, presenting many different versions of one of modern history's most enigmatic figures. The film also has its fair share of strong female performances from Laurie Metcalf as an assistant DA to Sissy Spacek as Garrison's wife torn between supporting her husband and being drawn into the world he's uncovering. That's without mentioning the effective cameo appearances from the likes of Edward Asner, Jack Lemmon, and Walter Matthau or the scene-stealing monologue delivered by Donald Sutherland as the mysterious insider known as X. Few films can claim to have perfect casts but, for my money, JFK is one of them. Those behind the camera are the other half of the equation. Stone's team includes superb costume and set designs from Marlene Stewart and Victor Kempster which gives the film its sense of time and place. Yet as cerebral as the film is, a thinking person's thriller in many ways, it's also an immensely visual work with Stone often relying on the editing of Joe Hutshing and Pietro Scalia as well as the stunning cinematography of Robert Richardson. The three of them together weave in footage both archive and newly shot together into a tapestry that captures the viewer's eye as well as their brain. Underpinning it all is John Williams' score, perhaps one of his most underrated, that plays up not only the sense of unease but also the sense of what was lost all in the space of the film's opening titles and haunting themes elsewhere in the film. It's a remarkable tapestry all around.Indeed, that is a nice summary of the film as a whole. Stone's JFK is, in essence, a murder mystery. One whose stakes have a firm basis in reality and based on a crime whose particulars are still hotly debated decades after the fact. With his cast and crew, he created a fascinating piece of film-making that crosses genres and time, presenting an incredible and paranoid vision of an earth-shattering event. Except that, if what's in the film is even half true, has deeply disturbing implications. That thought and the fact that the film led to documents being released speaks to the power of film-making and JFK as a film in particular.

Director Oliver Stone does it again with another brilliant movie this time the conspiracy of who shot President JFK. The subject matter is already intense and fascinating, so many documentaries about the assassination. What you get with this movie is a mystery. So many people wanted JFK dead and this film brings it all to the fore. The political undertones to this film does have the effect of discouraging the non political to disengage. For those people this movie is boring. For those who appreciate a good mystery like myself the value of describing the participants in the cover up and the shoddy police work that occurred does a great service in showing us a real clear picture of 60's Texas. The drawback which is a feature of Stone's work is the preaching of the protagonist. Aside from that small aspect the film stands on its own as a great thriller. People are free to make up their mind as to whether or not JFK was indeed killed by an inside agent or a mercenary hired Oswald to take the hit. As an intellectual movie that serves to inform the public of the misdeeds of public officials i would say Oliver Stone has provided a valuable contribution to American democracy.

This is a well-made, suspenseful movie--in spite of it being about the most famous murder in history. When I watched the movie--most of which narratively was told in retrospect--I felt the knot of suspense that I feel while watching a fictitious thriller---even though I know what's going to happen because it's historical! I'm also an amateur historian, a trial attorney who deals with the problems of reconstructing past events by using various types of evidence. Over the years I've read most of the Warren Report; I've read the conspiracy books. I find flaws in the former--and serious error in logic on the latter. Long ago, I concluded the evidence available was overwhelmingly demonstrative of Lee Harvey Oswald's factually causing the death of the president by shooting him with the rifle found. How that would have played forensically in a real trial is impossible to say. The conspiracy writers have no evidence of anything, just holes in the evidence presented by the Warren Commission. From these holes come theories that devolve into circular arguments where they end up proving the theory by assuming to be true. If the conspiracy writers could have been able to assist Oswald's defense counsel (hypothetically), they could have created reasonable doubt, which may have acquitted Oswald--or gotten him on reduced charge of manslaughter. But enough reasonable doubt to prevent a conviction is NOT the same thing as proving beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of other alleged culprits.But this is a movie website, made for movie buffs like myself, who enjoy reading about movies and discussing movies and reading what other film buffs have to say about movies. As a movie, JFK is something I have watched a few times because it is so well crafted. I suspect Oliver Stone must be tough as a director because he also got performances out actors I didn't think possible--even known talents. It's editing, the music, the sound, the sets--everything creates this bizarre, paranoid effect, where nothing is as it seems. Like one of the legendary conductors that can move an entire orchestra to great climactic crescendos, Stone creates a thriller set withing a courtroom drama. It's a virtuoso work, that also shows mastery of narrative technique, such as shifting point-of-view, retrospect and foreshadowing, story-within-a-story, building to devastating and heartbreaking ending of JFK's death and of a traumatized nation left with fear, uncertainty and unanswerable questions in the middle of a nightmarish Cold War.As an historian, I am not moved very much from what I still believe to be the sad, absurd and unspectacular truth. As a lawyer, I am impressed with the way reasonable doubt can be generated by working up facts more likely to be deemed irrelevant at a trial; equally, I am relieved to see that reasonable doubt to prevent a guilty verdict in the trial of one person (which never happened) is not sufficient to prove conspiracy in the trial of another. As a movie fan, I am awed with what a great director can do with historical material and a good cast and crew. As an American, I am also glad that movies like this can be made. It is the mark of a society free enough to express such withering criticism of the government without fear of punishment.I strongly recommend this movie to anyone who has not seen it yet, and that it be seen repeatedly by those who have already seen it. The mark of a classic is it that can speak to people of all generations--and differently to the same person moving through life into older generations.