 |
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
|
|
|
 email this review to a friend
Entertainment, Little Else I saw JFK about a year after it was released, a time in my life when I was very politically impressionable. At first I took the film to be, to quote a line from the movie itself, "A lot of smoke but there's some fire" and became both embittered with my government and curious about the assassination. While my views have become far more complex as I matured to seeing shades of gray and many other colors not merely black and white (where Stone often dwells), I've come to realize that Stone's film JFK, while a dangerous piece of fiction that grossly misrepresents the facts of the case and introduces speculation as additional fact, is a masterful piece of storytelling and does raise several important key questions. Though titled JFK, the film is entirely about the years following his death, specifically the investigation by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) and his bringing to trial the only attempted prosecution for the John F. Kennedy assassination, against Clay Shaw (Tommy Lee Jones). Technically, JFK is an editor's and cinematographer's wet dream (winning Academy Awards for both), shooting new footage to look like old and slicing authentic stock footage in with the new to create countless weaving flashbacks of speculated events in with the unfolding enigma that is the events leading up to and surrounding that fateful day in Dealey Plaza. JFK features cameos too numerous to list, many of them remarkable, others remarkable due to how minor they are for such significant actors. Costner is probably as good here as he's been anywhere outside Dances With Wolves and No Way Out; Jones was nominated for an Academy Award for his portrayal of Shaw, among the film's ten nominations. As for the important questions that Stone raises, the most important is the simplest: The American people were no longer satisfied with our government telling us "nothing to see here, move along you bunch of lookeeloos", and our government, by and large, has made it clear they don't give a crap. There are many questions that remain about the strange events surrounding the assassination of Kennedy, and likely they will never be answered to the satisfaction of all parties. Oliver Stone asserted his First Amendment privilege and stated his opinion about what may have happened. I support his right to do so. My fears and criticisms center around two things in particular. One is that he did it so well that some retard may watch this film and take it wholesale. The second is that Stone brings to light several key pieces of evidence, questions that were never asked and should have been, but he obscures them by associating them with other more fantastical elements. Like he accuses the Warren Commission itself in the film, "it all gets broken down and spread around and the point gets lost". It does indeed, but the film itself is still entertaining as hell, and masterfully crafted. email this review to a friend
Comment on this Review:
 Subscribe to MatchFlick Movie Reviews through RSS |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RSS | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | About MatchFlick® | Press | Contact Us | FAQs
Partnership and Advertising Opportunities | Movie Database | Merchandise ©2004-2008 MatchFlick®. All rights reserved. ©MOVIE IMAGES ARE COPYRIGHT PROTECTED AND THE PROPERTY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS |