Graha Valentino Manullang

(2012-05-01 17:35:01)

for the world to see

Series of JFK, Thirteen Days and Bobby, sure nothing beats themagnitude of JFK (1991) movie, ever!Amazing translation of common sense on seeking the truth of the'probable conspiracy' verdict by Congressional Investigation, that myeyes just wont let go for 3 hours play.Missing evidences, dead witnesses, counter fact findings, unsolvedhistory which not followed by contempt lawsuit on Jim Garrison in whichhe named names including LBJ, which reversely created a greatdeterrence on Jim Garrison, on any possible demeaning attempts in hiscareer and life, or even any 'incident' attempt ... or is he then?This movie pictures probably the greatest counter argument of the 'notmaking sense' gross deceit US ever witnessed, and better yet, to befilmed! for the world to see

memo-4

(2012-05-01 07:47:32)

thought-provoking...

It feels somewhat strange to be able to watch a film on DVD after 9 yearshaving watched it on the big-screen.It was not the 'Director's Cut'(206mins) though,but giving enough brain food to think of the conspiracies theworlds' governments producing.JFK,for me' is a name from the past,evenbefore I was born,and being from Europe I have to admit I don't know muchabout him and his deeds;but watching this film 9 years ago I felt compelledto read about him finding out he was not the usual 'American patriot' peopleare used to see.He resisted something and paid for this with his life.Thefilm's sayings may or may not be true but after the Congress decision of a'conspiracy theme might be involved' in 1979,there still has not been anyprosecutions or cases ever since,I think people might seek the truth in2029,that's when the assasination files be disclosed.Still yet,Oliver Stoneis a great name and I believe this was Kevin Costner's one of the mostsuccessful roles ever.If you think you can focus for about 3 hours Irecommend this movie to anyone who wants to be provoked towards seeking fortruth and multiple layers of incidents that can take place anywhere in theworld any-time and to those who desire more than 'shoot and dodge themups'.

(2012-05-01 21:06:45)

HISTORY OR HYSTERIA?

`Oliver Stone's best filmed historical novel sees Costner bringing the overly aggressive Jim Garrison into the Kennedy assassination plot as a major player, years after his sun had set nationally. In a highly realistic tale, Garrison and wife Spacek weave an intriguing story of mafia-Cuban relations, which many today still believe to be true. Fortunately, the book "Best Evidence", followed by modern forensics seem to have cooled down the hysteria concerning gunman Oswald's need of an accomplice. Meanwhile, even the bit players including Sutherland talking in his eerie manner on a park bench, deliver top rate performances. One has to alert the public however that this film is historical fiction on the screen, not pure history. President Ford went to his grave believing that Oswald had acted alone in Dallas as a "nut",with absolutely no Cuban backing.It's a great movie, just be careful of your objectivity.

Servo-11

(2012-05-01 09:26:10)

Powerful film of emotions, not facts

This movie has been trashed by so many people that I wonder whether theyhold the opinion that historical dramas have to be rigidly accurate. I knowlittle about the assassination and this movie has given me the desire toread about it. To me that is the measure of an excellent movie: that it istold in such a fascinating way that the viewer wants to discover more aboutit.Oliver Stone is an inspired filmmaker, no doubt. And I have to agree withRoger Ebert's conclusions about this film. It is not history, but apowerful movie about the emotions of the time, which is just as important asthe actual fact that JFK was killed. Garrison's character is the collective1960s American who was optimistic about the direction in which the countrywas being led and when JFK died, that vision vanished as well. The sense ofloss and frustration is what Stone captured to perfection.I was pleasantly surprised at Costner's performance. Given his lateststreak of bombs, it's nice to see his brilliant earlier performances. GaryOldman was believable as Oswald and with every film I see of his, I like himmore and more.

Greg Treadway

(2012-04-30 15:04:56)

Excellent Example of Editing

The main reason JFK is considered such an excellent film is thecreative use of editing by the film's director and behind the scene'sco-editor Oliver Stone. The main editors on the film are Joe Hutshingand Pietro Scalia. Of course Hutshing worked with Stone before, notablyon "Born on the Forth of July" - another editor's movie. Scalia was anew choice for Stone and chosen no doubt for his technical aptitude forediting and being new Stone could easily be Scalia's puppet-master andpull the strings.The film in some ways is a throwback to the great epic films that useto come from the studios in the golden age of Hollywood. Stating theobvious, it is based on true-life events of New Orleans DistrictAttorney Jim Garrison and the death of President Kennedy and the onlytrial resulting from the crime. Some might argue that it'sdocumentary-like presentation is at times too much information andslows down the film. For film aficionados this may be the reason thefilm is such a draw for them. Certainly a better film than it's rivalfor the Oscar nod and winner in 1991 "The Silence of the Lambs."With an all-star cast, from beginning to end the film never stalls andspeeds along like a roller-coaster ride. If there is an argument to bemade for where the film might slow it would be the trial scenes. Don'tmention the trial excerpts to any JFK conspiracy for they will tell youthat the trial scenes are not transcript favorable. There is a lot ofartistic license taken and watching this portion of the movie over andover you may be numbed into believing a test after the film may beforthcoming. Decidedly this is an excellent film with fantastic acting, thedirection is expertly applied and the editing is the star of the film.Considered one of Stone's best work, this film is one for the annals ofmovie making legends. If the digits rules allowed it, the award wouldbe more than two thumbs up.

tommx

(2012-04-30 07:31:21)

This movie is not what it seems.

The interesting thing about this film to me is not so much the conspiracytheories that it cites, but rather its portrayal of Jim Garrison. Imyselfam not a proponent of any of the conspiracy theories cited in this film.Itend to regard them in the same way I regard urban legends or sightings ofElvis. However, the films account of Jim Garrison's activities inrelationto the trial of Clay Shaw is definitely of interest tome.Having read Garrison's book, `On the Trail of the Assassins' and variousother accounts of the JFK assassination, I find that the movie only servesto support my belief that Garrison's case against Clay Shaw was utterfiction. There really wasn't anything even remotely resembling hardevidence that Clay Shaw had anything to do with the JFK assassination.There are indications, however, that Garrison probably singled Shaw outbecause of his homosexuality. It's pretty well documented that Garrisonwashomophobic and this is even referenced in the movie when his wife cites itas the reason Garrison is going after Clay Shaw. In fact, in hisinterviewwith Shaw in the movie, he puts Shaw on the spot for hiring a maleprostitute before he even mentions Lee Harvey Oswald. (The characterplayedby Kevin Bacon in this film is fictional by the way. There was no WillieO'Keefe) What bearing does Shaw's homosexuality have on the Kennedyassassination? You tell me! Another thing you notice in the movie isthatGarrison's witnesses all seem to be from the bottom layer of society. Inreal life, his only real witness (if you can call him that) was a mancalledPerry Russo whose deposition was initially taken under the influence ofsodium pentathol. Until then, Russo never even mentioned knowing ClayShaw,and the name he gave, Clay Bertrand, was used by Garrison as evidence ofShaw's guilt. (There was never any hard evidence that Shaw ever used thatalias, although Garrison insists that it was given by Shaw when he wasarrested) The point is, the more you know factually about Garrison, themorethe film shows him not to be some kind of Shakespearian hero, but rather acorrupt and paranoid man with extreme charisma. It's also worth notingthatif Clay Shaw hadn't died of cancer (not mysteriously as the film suggests)he'd have probably won the civil lawsuit he'd brought against Garrison forwrongful persecution. It's also worth mentioning that Shaw wasfinanciallybroken by the legal expenses involved in defending himself againstGarrison's lawsuit. The film makes no mention of this, of course as itwould not serve Stone's ends to make a documentary about how Garrisoneffectively ruined Shaw's life.The frustrating thing about this movie is that since it is cinematicallywell crafted, and the performances are compelling, it is also grosslymisleading. Aside from making Garrison into a hero, it makes Oswald looklike some kind of complex character straight out of the ManchurianCandidate. (A movie I'm sure Stone loved...I certainly did.) Oswald wasabitter little man who wanted to be a big man. I saw no indications ofthisin the film. Costner's portrayal of Garrison was actually more accuratethan I expected as it gives indications of all the aspects of hischaracterI've cited above.I'd say if you don't know a lot about the Kennedy assassination, read uponit before you subject yourself to this movie. In spite of it'simplausibletheories, it can convince the uninformed of some very inaccuratethings.

SavingPrivateSam-ltq

(2012-04-27 22:23:16)

A movie about the pursuit of the truth.

I had always hated this movie for pointing out the bad things about theUS government in order to get public appearances. I don't like movieslike that. Making a good movie, you need to have good acting, gooddirecting and a good plot. Having a controversial topic doesn't makeyou anything special. However, since everybody was praising this movie,I decided to give it a try. But, I have to admit and I slept duringwatching it for its.On another lovely morning, I got up at 5:00 a.m. in the morning,everything was still dark, I couldn't see anything. Since I already gotup, I had no intention of falling asleep again, and I didn't know howto cook then. Inn order to kill my time, I took out the DVD of Jfk andinserted it into the DVD player. When I finished watching it, it wasalready eight o'clock in the morning, and sun had already come out. Isat there, stunned by the movie's delicacy and genius.How wrong I was. I thought this was just going to be anothersimple-minded movie about another theory on the Kennedy'sassassination. But this had every single element a good movie required,no more, no less. Why it didn't win the Best PIcture of 1991 is beyondme, I was still touched by Jim Garrison's pursuit of the "truth"(atleast the truth he believed in). The society lacks this kind of people.Searching the minority truth may occurred to somebody, but nobody daredto do that because their actions were always referred as "fanatical","useless" and "brainless". Well, JIm Garrison defeated theseaccusations with great courage and steadfast dedication. The 40 minutesin the court was one of the most precious scenes ever filmed in moviehistory. This movie lasted for three hours, the shortest time in mylife, personally. I've never seen any movie that divided three hours soneatly. Schindler's list had some redundant scenes, Dances With Wolveshad some major plot holes, Tiatnic was too sappy, The Deer Hunter had areally need-to-cut marriage scene, and ONce upon a time was just plainboring. However, I can't even find a single flaw of pacing in threehours, not even one. THree hours of JIm Garrison's investigation seemedunilateral, but it never bored me. Instead, it gave me new insightsinto history, inspired me to seek the truth I believed in. In short, Ihave to quote;" This is the shortest there hours I've ever spent in mylife. "The actors were perfect. Kevin Costner never gave such a blisteringperformance ever since. Kevin Babon, Gary Oldamn and Joe Pesci werealso very well-done. And we could forget the most memorable performancefrom Tommy Jones(Oscar-deserved). The cinematography was top-notch. AndOliver Stone immersed himself in directing, and his direction was muchmore better in this than in Platoon IMHO. This is Stone's best moviesince Platoon. How come this never didn't win the Best Musical Score in Oscar. Thescore boiled my blood, it made me revere Jim Garrison's eagerness inpursuing his truth. Lovely score.The ending was one of the best endings I've ever seen. usually, I canhave a definite feeling for the ending, but this one was surely theexception. THe ending kept me stunned in be-wilderness. I didn't knowhow to feel about the ending. IT was both uplifting and depressing.First, I was sad about (Possible Spoilers) JIm Garrison losing thecase, and then I saw his outline walking towards the sunset as a symbolof the pursuit of truth, and then the lovely score began, I wasstunned. I turned off the TV and had my breakfast without a word. Inoticed how bad a government could be if it doesn't put people ahead ofpolitics. Now, I've watched JFK at least six times. Each time, 205 minutes fliesaway, but they were never wasted. Ecah time, I learned more and moreabout the movie, and more and more about the Pursuit OF THE TRUTH.This is truly a GREAT movie, strongly recommend. My vote: 10/10.

olye

(2012-04-27 08:16:24)

Something for every conspiratorialist

As much as I could gather, according to Oliver Stone in this movie, theassassination of JFK (as well as RFK and MLK) seems to have beencarried out by a conspiratorial network consisting of people drawnfrom:a) disgruntled right-wing extremists in this country; b) fanaticalCuban nationalist mercenaries; c) the FBI; d) the CIA; e) the Dallaspolice department; f) the more secret echelons of the conventionalmilitary; g) members of Kennedy's cabinet, including then VicePresident Lyndon Johnson; h) organized crime; and i) Big Business.The reasons for the assassination include (but aren't limited to):a) punishment for Kennedy's backing out during the Bay of Pigs; b)Kennedy being soft overall on Communism, and c) being too tough onorganized crime; d) his perceived desire to ratchet down the cold war,including e) his plan to end US involvement in Viet Nam, which would inturn f) deprive the military of a much desired war and concomitantinflated military budget, which would then in turn g) deprive BigBusiness of lucrative military contracts.Lee Harvey Oswald is portrayed as a CIA operative who was onlyperipherally involved in the plot, but was then used by the mastermindsas the "patsy." Oswald was particularly attractive for this rolebecause, as part of earlier operations, he had developed apro-Communist persona that had allowed him to infiltrate and spy onleft-leaning groups. Among his assignments was even a fake defection tothe Soviet Union. After the assassination, Oswald himself wasassassinated before he could talk. Thus the murder of the presidentcould be publicly attributed to the lone action of a pinko wing-nut,the dual results being the elimination of a pesky, non-ball-playinghead of state and further fanning up of the flames of furor against theEvil Empire and its world-wide pawns.Was there a conspiracy? We are left with no doubt that Oliver Stonethinks so. If there was a conspiracy, is this version correct? Again,we must conclude that Oliver Stone thinks it is. At one point in themovie, Kevin Costner even says (parapharsed) that "What we do here nowis only the beginning. It may be 25 or 30 years before someone finallyfinds the real truth." I'm sure it's entirely coincidental that thattime frame would take us right up to 1991, when this movie came out.He's casting a pretty wide and implausible net here. It is implausible,if for no other reason, just because there's no way you could get allof these disparate people to work together, even if they were united inmutual hatred of Kenedey's guts. Petty personality differences andterritorial squabbles would inequitably doom any such ambitious effort.Not just in the JKF assassination, but in general, humanity is savedfrom these kind of large scale conspiracies by its own inbornvainglorious proclivities.

contronatura

(2012-04-27 11:05:07)

Riveting and chilling

Oliver Stone's JFK is certainly not a film that should be taken as literaltruth. It bends the truth in places in order for Stone to present hisalternate history. But as cinema, there are few films that are thisstunning. This is a genuine masterpiece - incredibly acted, directed,photographed, and written. And most importantly of all, Stone captures thatperiod of time so well. He captures Dallas in all its corrupt mid-60s glory.He captures the atmosphere of criminal-ridden New Orleans. He captures theurgency of the 60s, and the craziness that era produced. But what he doesbest is present a film that is at once a fascinating mystery and aterrifying "what-if" tale. I would even go so far as to say that this is thepinnacle achievement in modern "noir" films - featuring a doggedinvestigator, his harried staff, and a group of shadowy criminals. Like Isaid, this film is not history. Jim Garrison in this film is nothing like hewas in real life. But the film itself is a absolute masterpiece.

(2012-04-27 06:18:23)

A Monumental Achievement

... This movie is truly a breakthrough because it challengesthe cowardice and silence of the American people regarding the JFKassassination, while also portraying excellent characters, each with their own unique characteristics. The cinematography, pace, and dialogue make this film absolutely mesmerizing. ... Stone has done extensive research on the assassination using both books and human sources that were involved in the American government at that time. I suggest that you read Stone's counter to historian's criticisms in the book "Oliver Stone's USA". Of course, he does not possess all the facts regarding the Kennedy assassination, but he has used numerous resources to speculate on the mysterious death.... Read up on the CIA's secret histories and then decide the logic for yourself...

brown_blonde

(2012-04-16 06:49:28)

Fact or Fiction?

As testament to how cleverly Oliver Stone's JFK was made, most peoplecannot distinguish where the real footage facts stop, and thestorytelling and director's artistic license begin. A History Channeldocumentary even attributed the public's overwhelming belief in a JFKassassination conspiracy to Oliver Stone's 1991 film. While it isimportant to remember that the movie is a dramatic work of fiction, itis certainly fun to watch and gives rise to several good questionsabout the assassination of JFK. The cast is quite amazing--Kevin Costner, Kevin Bacon, Sissy Spacek,John Candy, Tommy Lee Jones and others, topped off with a John Williamsfilm score are cause enough for me to recommend this film. Save 3 hoursand watch JFK

generationofswine

(2012-04-15 15:34:58)

Childhood memories.

My father took me to see this when I was a little kid, I was 11. Itscared the life out of me. I remember feeling paranoid & intenselyfrightened the ride home & for days after. It had a very profoundeffect on my as a child that carried over into my adult years. Istarted questioning absolutely everything I heard, I started looking upeverything I could. My grades went up because of it. When it came outon VHS I watched it over & over again, it opened up an obsession forme. I can't recall any other movie I saw as a child that had such aprofound influence on me. Now, as an adult, I can still watch it andsometimes get the same cold feeling of fear running up my spine.

John

(2012-04-10 14:09:54)

Long, but worth it

This movie is really long, but it's worth it, it's one of the coolestmoviesI've ever watched. I watched it over a weekend, and didn't turn my headaway once. Oliver Stone did a superb job, and its a very fascinatingstory.It will make you think about whether or not there was a conspiracy.

(2012-04-10 11:06:35)

"A Tissue Of Lies" said Walter Cronkite

The movie "JFK" was described by the most trusted man in America Walter Cronkite as "a tissue of lies". Director Oliver Stone now calls this film "an alternative myth" such is the misinformation and inaccuracies in this movie. The line "let the truth be known or the Heavens fall" is from a Hollywood writer and was never stated. In actual fact,Garrison wasn't even at the courts at the time of the court's decision. He was in his office at the time. Indeed,there is little truth in this film as a lot of the witnesses and their fates were made up for this fictional movie.

macca6662001

(2012-04-07 10:22:45)

Great cast, but it's not about acting

As my one-line summary of 'JFK' states, this film is much more than just anexcuse to get 'bums on seats'. Oliver Stone knows better than to simplymanipulate the public's need for star-studded casts in order to get themoney rolling in. In fact, a stellar cast in no way guarantees success. Thecoming together of two of Hollywood's finest, (Hoffman and Beatty) in thedisastrous 'Ishtar' is a classic example; as is the reasonably good fun butultimately unsatisfactory adaptation of 'Dick Tracy' (coincidentally againstarring Hoffman and Beatty, with added help from Pacino andCaan).Instead, this is a film about story-telling. It is about the radical ways inwhich a film maker can forge narrative, or rather, non-narrative. From thevery opening sequence, we are bombarded with a mixture of genuine stockfootage and newsreels, coupled with interviews with the charactersthemselves. The film itself acts merely as one big montage of information,with very little emphasis on anything else.There are other elements of the film which are looked at, but these are onlyof minor significance, and are resolved relatively quickly. The ever-growingfriction between Jim Garrison and his wife comes to a family-dividingconclusion which is soon fixed; and the forced resignation of Bill Newmanafter he begins to question his colleagues' commitment to the case, is laterresolved when he shows up in court.The barrage of information that the film throws at us may be a littledifficult to fully take in upon first viewing, but this is probably thedirector's intention. By presenting us with an 'overload' of facts, figures,theories and characters, we are put right there in the team - we feel asthey feel; we are confused, just as they are. Solving the conspiracy behindthe assassination of JFK was no easy task, and watching it isn'teither.At an epic 189 minutes long, the film may be seen as over-long,over-produced and over-the-top by some, but this is again a consciousdecision by the director. We cannot seriously be lead to believe that a casewhich took almost a decade to bring to court, can be easily told in an hourand a half. The case was a long and arduous one for those who made it, andit will be for those who see it.Possibly the least typical scene in the film, is Garrison's closingstatement. After summing up his concluding evidence and ridiculing thegovernment's idea of the 'magic bullet' theory, we are given a 5-10 minutespeech on the importance of truth in 'this great nation'. It may seem alittle pretentious and over-Americanised to some, but this is Oliver 'Mr.America' Stone, remember. The Bruce Springsteen of the film industry.Garrison's final sentence, "It's up to you", as he stares full-on into thecamera is an open invitation for fellow Americans to pick up on his trail,and to bring justice to those involved in the conspiracy.The film both unites and divides the American culture in one go. On the onehand it puts all it's faith in the country's law officials and figures ofpower - as it is they who seek the truth behind the lies. On the other, itrefutes the widely-accepted theory that Oswald acted alone - and brings up acase which had only started to settle down for some.Make no mistake, the acting is first rate on all accounts - but the filmisn't about acting. It isn't even about the story. It's about how to tell astory. And it tells it very well.Five stars.

Erin Cummins

(2012-04-07 07:23:13)

Kevin Costner's best movie

I just recently rented JFK after seeing FLOTG(For Love Of The Game)whichcaused me to rent some of his recent past films and I rented this becausemyfather recommended it. I have to say though that this film(besides TheUntouchables)was Kevin's best. I thought he did an excellent jobportrayingJim Garrison and in my opinion this will be my all time favorite moviethathe has done. Kevin if you should read this somehow I would like you toknowthat you have a lot of talent and I will always continue to see yourmovies.

Mitch

(2012-03-30 14:23:25)

Somewhat boring

When you start out watching this movie you think its going to be good but it just gets boring and it replayed the jfk getting shot footage about 100 times.

(2012-03-30 01:03:07)

Director's Cut Worse Than Original Print Released

In the director's cut, James Garrison (Kevin Costner) ends a scene by telling an aide (Jay O. Sanders) that they're going to have to bring in Clay Shaw for questioning--BEFORE Garrison learns that the real name of Clay Bertrand is Clay Shaw! This makes no sense. The added 17 or so minutes do not enhance the film, which was terrific in its initial release. Sorry, Oliver Stone, but whoever persuaded you to drop those minutes & alter sequences was right. Bring back the print first released: it was a great film.

yddsp@aol.com

(2012-03-21 19:47:01)

Unbelievable!!

What a sad commentary on the world in which we live, that such aprogressive, highly public figure and advocate for peace and racialharmony, is cut down in the prime of his life. Just another example ofthe flagrant travesty of justice and morality. I was but a youngster onthe day of President Kennedy's assassination, but it is still a veryraw, horrendously sad subject in my mind, even to this date. The factthat President Kennedy had personally known the horrors associated withwar and vowed to avoid it at all costs, only exacerbates the heinousact itself and substantiates the need for the full disclosure of factsand further investigation into the possibility of some clandestineconspiracy and treasonable act. That such an egregious, cowardly actcould have been perpetrated on this progressive human rights advocate,great man and political figure, only makes one shudder in disbelief.Just as the age-old saying predicts in the trenches: "There are noatheists in foxholes", Mr. Kennedy knew, firsthand, that the color ofsomeone's skin is of no importance, especially when life and libertyare on the line and that the mere concept of war is, plain and simple,an aberration.It further staggers the imagination that there could be even thepossibility of some government cover-up against releasing the filesassociated with that tragic event and day. Just the notion of aconspiracy sends cold chills down one's spine, as it is an indictmenton the most basic of moral values and democracy itself. To blatantlydiscard or detract from the intrinsic value found in the physicalevidence of this case, reeks of a conspiracy in its own right. We allknow that war is the biggest business of all where the rich only getricher and the good inevitably die young. Somehow I'm a bit surprisedthat a filmmaker was able to address this issue with relative impunityfor broaching a subject of such delicate and potentially incriminatingnature, although perhaps enough time has passed in history to relegatethis event to the rhetorical or even dismiss it as simply artistichyperbole and superficial speculation for the sake of the entertainmentvalue alone. Unless, that is, the powers of corruption and darknesscontinue to run so deep as to infest and permeate the entire fabric ofboth the political and judicial machines. In any event, this filmdefinitely strikes a chord of suspicion and is fodder for a completeand final investigation, if for nothing else, for history's sake. Isalute Mr. Stone for this excellent dramatic achievement. It mostcertainly begs the question of just how safe are we from ourselves andif "Big Brother" could be a festering, insidious reality or a portentof things yet to come? Julius Caesar must be turning in his grave.Excellent film!!

(2012-03-21 07:17:27)

Was there a conspiracy? Well there was...

The Warren Report is the basic starting point for anybody who is even remotely interested in researching the JFK assassination. The book is massive - nearly 2 inches thick, 9 inches in length and 6 inches in width and clocks in at 888 pages. There are many illustrations and photographs to help break the monotony and they are helpful in understanding the text.Be forewarned. This report is not to be taken at face value. It promotes itself while at the same time laying blame on everybody from Oswald to the Secret Service and the Dallas County Police. The movie JFK is critical of this book's findings, because of its omissions. This is what the movie JFK hopes to explore.The warren commission report starts with its summary and conclusions - that Oswald acted alone in killing President Kennedy and that there was no conspiracy. It then gives a brief synopsis of the assassination and the circumstances surrounding the events on November 22nd 1963. We see these in the movie. The report continues by developing the scenario in the Texas School Book Depository including the evidence gained from witnesses at the scene and the recovery of the riffle, spent shells and prints. Connections are established between Oswald and the riffle and the School Book Depository building before moving on to the motive and Oswald's background, Oswald's detention, the media, Oswald's murder and his assassin - Jack Ruby. The film is mostly about dealing with investigating a possible conspiracy, challenging the Warren report in-depth with expert witness testimony, with the big court room showdown that in the end leaves you feeling that Oswald did not do it.Great movie, through and through. Hard not to love it. Why only 4 stars?Oswald was involved in the slaying of Officer J.D Tippit and this is a clincher. The murder of patrolman Tippit is a key event which shows that Oswald was capable of murder and was also on a killing frenzy at the time of the assassination. The movie really does bend the reality of this problem by saying that it was a number of agents pretending to be Oswald.He also tried to shoot officers when he was apprehended in the film theatre. Did Oswald shoot President Kennedy? Probably Yes. Could the Magic bullet theory work? It is possible. Did Jack Ruby kill Oswald on the spur of the moment? The facts surrounding this are vague. Did Oswald act alone? It is possible but unlikely. Does the Warren report do justice for the American people and the people of the world? Absolutely not. Does the Warren report deliberately neglect important and relevant information? Absolutely. Would an impartial jury convict Oswald on the assassination of President Kennedy based on the evidence? Probably not because there is too much doubt at large to deal with. Would an impartial jury convict Oswald of the murder J.D Tippit? Yes. Is there a cover-up and if so why?The truth is that there is probably a cover-up involved and the Warren report as it stands today is absolute proof that the US government at the time was knee-deep in a conspiracy of some kind simply based on its omissions and neglect to deal with highly important and relevant evidence. Was there a government conspiracy to assassinate the President? Probably not, but there was a cover-up of a conspiracy of some kind and this is what is at the heart of the whole assassination and the follow up events including this report. A blind eye has probably been turned to the truth surrounding the assassination because President Kennedy was considered an obstacle to many important people. In fact the Warren Commission report has all the hallmarks of a new administration that just wants to sweep everything under the carpet.But in closing I will say this. Go try the real world simulation run of JFKreloaded and you will see that it might be possible to actually reproduce the magic bullet. You can actually hit the President 3 times no problem, including the fatal headshot. Oswald could have done it. The simulation clearly shows that you can do it also.