MovieChat Forums > JFK (1991) Discussion > Tried watching it twice now - couldn't g...

Tried watching it twice now - couldn't get far

posted a year ago by maximmm (3184)
23 replies | jump to latest

The first time I saw it was in the 90's - couldn't finish it - convoluted storyline - too many odd characters - the narrative is all over the place

Now I know a lot more about the murder - I think it's a fascinating topic - so, I tried watching it again, the director's cut. Same thing - 40 minutes in, too many characters, disjointed narrative, etc - stopped watching it.

It's remarkable how such a fascinating topic turns into a film this crappy (in my opinion). I am also aware that I am in minority here - this film apparently got very high rating on imdb and other review sites.

I've seen a few documentaries on this topic and they were all ten times better - perhaps it's the book this film is based on that's the problem? Anyways - rant over - cheers.

[–] AnagramYYZ (503) a year ago

It had terrific acting from an ensemble cast, but I see what you’re saying. It’s disjointed, and works against itself in suggesting conspiracy by throwing every theory ever conceived of in a blender—except apparently the one where Oswald was an assassin.

My theory has always been that Oliver Stone is a Bush-family propagandist undercover in Hollywood. George Herbert Walker Bush, the 41st President of the United States, and former Head of the CIA was obviously very shrewd and powerful at the time. He covertly directed Stone to make a conspiracy-laced film that muddied the waters about Bush’s own CIA of 1963. Sure, it mentioned Anti-Castro activities in the Intelligence community, but ultimately used Garrison trial to blame the assassination on a clique in the homosexual underworld of New Orleans. This also was made during the AIDS epidemic.

Exactly what would be expected and applauded from Bush’s right-wing administration.

[–] moviechatterer (14219) 25 days ago

and works against itself in suggesting conspiracy by throwing every theory ever conceived of in a blender
Similar to how the MAGAS proof of rigged 2020 election works.

[–] enriquesingh (1786) a year ago

Great movie, 8/10.

[–] pjl69 (2544) a year ago

Stone's masterpiece. 10/10

[–] Satan2016 (24007) a year ago

Fucking conspiracy bullshit, 1/10. And his pro-Putin shit is -10!

[–] PaladinNJ (20747) a year ago

I made the mistake of trying to watch it at night. Fell asleep three times watching it. #4 was my lucky number to finally see it.

[–] thbryn (228) a year ago

If you know content, then you probably can see where things make sense. if you don't then I can appreciate where things are complicated.
For example the Jack Lemmon, Ed Asner characters -early- are known by mostly no viewers, that haven't done extensive reading. But they are quite well known in the overall scheme even though they are not major players.
For the film to make the kind of money it did without being a mass-market blockbuster that virtually nobody under-18 would be interested in, was a major accomplishment. It didn't happen because it was second-rate production. The film changed things in ways that the media never did.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8464) 7 months ago

Our of curiosity, in regard to your last sentence, how exactly do you think that the film changed things?

[–] Interlepos (1789) 7 months ago

Maybe Transformers is for you?

[–] maximmm (3184) 7 months ago

oh dear....

[–] Interlepos (1789) 7 months ago

Lol, the Transformers line really gets people riled up.

JFK remains a cinematic masterpiece, but obviously not for everyone.

[–] MCguy (949) 7 months ago

"JFK remains a cinematic masterpiece, but obviously not for everyone." True.

[–] Heisenberg (6468) 7 months ago

I came here to post this.

Maybe I can say stick to Fast & furious?

[–] maximmm (3184) 7 months ago

my favorite - YES! ^^

[–] thingmakersback (1273) 7 months ago

I really like the film. The theory or theories are nonsense but it is utterly engrossing.

[–] Ranb (8013) 7 months ago

I watched it years ago. Too much exposition by characters making claims as if they were telling rock solid facts. Garrison's top view of the limo was a obvious lie by Stone.

It seemed so childish to anyone who had at least some knowledge of the events of that day.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8464) 7 months ago

To be fair, Stone has never claimed that everything in the film is true. In fact, he called it a "counter-myth" to the Warren Commission findings. I think his chief intention was to heighten people's interest in the JFK assassination and to get people thinking and talking about the event in new ways.

[–] Ranb (8013) 7 months ago

Can you link to the claim his film is a counter-myth?

It did get people talking though. I was unaware of what a dirt bag Garrison was until I looked into his claims more when the film came out. It was like Stone was trying to somehow wipe Garrison clean of all of the filth he accumulated while employed as a district attorney in Louisiana.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8464) 7 months ago

I'm not sure what the original source is for his quote, but it's been mentioned several times. For instance, in this article:

https://www.texasmonthly.com/arts-entertainment/oliver-stones-new-jfk-movie-already-faces-concerns-over-fact-checking/

We find this mention of it:

"Stone made no bones about its various liberties, famously proposing his version as a 'counter-myth' to the more official story that was propagated by the Warren Commission, which named Lee Harvey Oswald as President John F. Kennedy’s lone assassin."

It's also mentioned here:

https://deadline.com/2023/10/oliver-stone-jfk-backlash-documentary-series-citizen-stone-1235569688/

And here:

https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/jfk-doors-30-oliver-stones-portraits-60s-still-resonate-rcna2514

As for Garrison, I actually bought his book a few years ago but never finished it. I haven't looked into him too deeply, but I do know that a lot of bad things have been said about him. Much like the JFK assassination itself, I'm not sure how much of it to believe. Some of it could just be attempts to smear and discredit him, but it does seem like his reputation is pretty negative.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8464) 7 months ago

While I don't think it's a perfect film and can see how someone might not get into it, I think it's an important and well-made movie. In fact, I was shocked when I learned that the Blu-Ray was out of print but was insistent enough upon having it in my collection that I paid $40 to get a copy off eBay.

[–] Ranb (8013) 7 months ago

It is an awful film. Imagine how you might feel if Stone made a film about the 2006 Duke lacrosse team rape case in an attempt to change the image of Mike Nifong after he abused the authority of his office to wrongly accuse three men of rape.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case

Garrison was a monster, but in the film he is a devoted family man who risks his marriage to bring a killer to justice.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/jfkmovie.htm

[–] Poozer91 (588) 7 months ago

Probably the best way to watch is historical fiction. Many events are dramatized and character invented and compiled. It is a very entertaining movie and expertly made. However, Stone is and has never been subtle. He is very into conspiracy theories and this movie is no exception.