Review of JFK (1991) by Matthew J — 01 Jul 2012

Please note that this review is over the director's cut of the film, clocking in at about 205 minutes.

Everyone knows John Fitzgerald Kennedy was assassinated, but the case was never open and shut from the beginning, and with this film, Oliver Stone hoped to show that. What we have here is a dramatized take on the efforts of New Orleans District Attorney and his team of colleagues to bring to light various conspiracies surrounding the death of JFK, including the only (to this date) public trial concerning the event.

I knew from the beginning that this film was going to be heavy on historical revision, rejection/ignorance (as in purposely ignoring) of historical fact, and tons of conjecture, a lot of times without evidence, or at least substantial and credible amounts of it. I knew there'd be more questions and answers. And I knew that in general this film was going to be pretty inaccurate and take as much dramatic license as possible in the name of telling a great, engaging, and absorbing story.

And, now that I've seen it, I can easily say that yes, this is a riveting cinematic experience. But, I do think it's overrated and not the full on masterpiece it's been touted as being. However, if you treat the film as having no relation to reality in any way whatsoever, ie as just a fictional investigation into a fictional assassination, it still holds up as a wonderful story about a guy determined to bring about truth and justice. But, it's not totally fictional. It's a look at probably the most well known assassination of all time.

I honestly don't know what to believe in watching the film, and I'm not sure if Stone really knows the truth either. I'm not sure anyone does. That's not the point. The fact that people obsess over this case is a testament to its power. The fact that this is such a talked about and controversial movie is an even further testament to the strength of things.

Despite some dodgy writing and conclusions, this film is a brilliant show of cinematography and editing, especially with the editing. The presentation, like some of Stone's other works, is a frenetic, schizophrenic explosions of various filters, lenses, formats, styles, and techniques, all in the name of artistry, symbolism, or some other sort of important reason. And...it works. It definitely makes for a unique experience, that's for sure.

Don't ask me to name the whole cast. That'd be insane. I think Stone may have out Altmaned Altman on this one. The choices are excellent though, and it's nice seeing so many notable names, especially since a lot of them are in tiny roles or cameos, and many agreed to take pay cuts to be in the film. Costner is absolutely brilliant as Garrison, and Rooker, Knight, Sanders, and Metcalf are all equally strong as his underlings. Gary Oldman knocks it out of the park as Lee Harvey Oswald, which I expected, but for me, the two best performances after Costner belong to Joe Pesci and Donald Sutherland. Pesci's breakdown and Suther;and's monologue rank as some of the best moments of their respective careers, and the final courtroom monologue given by Costner is one of the most epic things ever.

I really enjoyed this film despite its flaws. I feel it is definitely an important piece of work, because it really did open up a lot of eyes, and it did so in such a stellar cinematic way, but it didn't shake me enough to warrant the full grade that this sort of thing typcially illicits from me. Defintiely give it a watch though.