A waste of 90 minutes of my life

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

This movie is just A-Mazing! Maybe this is the best film editing ever! Can't wait to watch more Oliver Stone movies!(8.5/10)

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.

The fact I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone doesn't reduce my sincere admiration for this involving, brilliantly packaged indictment of the processes used to affirm his guilt. As a movie, "JFK" rises above any duty to history to develop what director- writer Oliver Stone calls a "countermyth" to what he calls the myth of the Warren Report.In short, it became a template for inculcating what I would call "paranoid chic," a desire to question comforting ideas that goes beyond all rational objections to fashion a mesmerizing if flawed piece of entertainment. "JFK" is, in more than one way, revolutionary.New Orleans, November 22, 1963. While news of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy filters through barrooms and reaches the office of district attorney Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner), an argument between right-wing hothead detective Guy Banister (Ed Asner) and his alcoholic gopher Jack Martin (Jack Lemmon) over strange goings-on in their office escalates into a violent assault. In time, this becomes the lynchpin of an investigation Garrison undertakes that becomes a re-investigation of the Kennedy murder, one that will lead to the only indictment of anyone accused of the president's killing.Garrison spends much time trying to unravel the "tangled web" at the heart of the killing, with much attention paid to the unique character of New Orleans, a city where accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald spent much of his life. With a flair for detail and a pregnant line, Stone puts us at Garrison's side as he closely questions a bizarre character named David Ferrie (Joe Pesci) who drove to Texas on that fatal day, he says for some ice skating and geese shooting. Big Jim shakes his head."I find your story simply not believable," he says."Really?" Ferrie responds amiably. "What part?"It's a welcome moment of levity that demonstrates Stone's complete command of the material. For more than three hours, he brings up a slew of bigger-than-life witnesses who either convince us with their honesty or repel us with their sinister indifference to what happened. In time, Garrison is mocked on national television, betrayed like Jesus by one of his closest aides, and faces divorce before getting the chance to make the case he has built to a jury in a lengthy yet gripping courtroom sequence, one of the finest ever made.The sequences work as vignettes, many of them worth watching over and over. Lolita Davidovich shines in a brief turn as Beverly Oliver, a self-described "two-bit showgirl" who once saw Oswald at a club with his future killer, Jack Ruby (Brian Doyle-Murray). Tommy Lee Jones oozes southern charm as the man Garrison eventually brings to trial, Claw Shaw.Only a couple of sequences hint at a larger truth, that Stone is throwing up a lot of clay pigeons in his attempt to fashion his countermyth. One witness, Jean Hill, is ridiculously dragged screaming from the murder scene to be told by officials in a ludicrous scene that she didn't see or hear what she, and we, just did. There is also some misdirection thrown in the direction of three tramps picked up at the scene, which Stone in his 2001 director's commentary admits turned out not to be the assassins the movie paints them as being.But in the main, the film holds together very well by keeping the focus on Garrison, who speaks forthrightly about what he believes. As in his performance in "The Untouchables," Costner is a master of understatement who saves his passion for the final summation in court. It's hard to keep a dry eye watching him go.After, you can shake your head all you want. I surely do. But "JFK" has left a mark on the American consciousness that feels well-earned when watching it. By enshrining skepticism as not only patriotic but a citizen's duty, the film successfully pushes a less comfortable view of what life is really all about that has become its most lasting legacy, and does so in a way that makes three and a half hours feel like a handful of minutes. Truly epic, however mistaken.

Oliver Stone decided in 1991 to cover one of the most shocking and controversial subjects in America's history JFK's assassination.What lead to all the wide spread criticism is that he dared to weave a web of top ranking officials, military personal and even Johnson in the cope to murder the president for special interests to invade Cuba.Now I don't actually believe in any such belief, but the Warren commission statements and the zeppido film do raise hair raising questions that shouldn't be ignored out of ignorance.I guess that's the reason I even decided to see it in the first place to see how it all could work out in different hypothetical situations.Frank Garrison sets out to prove the American people are being mislead and will not step down from any shadowy figures or even his own bosses who wish to surpass the truth.A few questions arose during my viewing that I think it should've tried to answer like if they are so powerful why not take out Frank or are they suggesting that they are responsible for every assassination in history?Still Kevin Cosnar delivered a power house performance with passion and conviction uttered on every line. It even brought him to years in the final act to speak the words of a man who spent his life trying to solve the case.The movie never set out to give conclusive answers, but it lets you chose your own fate: the CIA, a rogue government agent or a communist out for revenge. Its up to you to decide since no one really knows the truth anyway.Even if your not a conspiracy but it's still one heck of a thriller and will grip you with it's rich story telling.The way alternate history should always try to strive for.