IMDb user comments for
JFK (1991) Plus avec IMDbPro »

Page 1 sur 37:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

367 commentaires au total

136 utilisateurs sur 207 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
One of the best and most important films ever made!, 9 mars 1999
Auteur : Scott Carr (6sgc2@qlink.queensu.ca) de Kingston, Canada

Oliver Stone's epic film which follows the real-life events of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison is a monumental movie event. It should have been named the Best Picture of 1991 instead of The Silence of the Lambs.

Everything about this film is perfect and it shows that when an intriguing story comes together with all other elements of filmmaking that are executed brilliantly, the film works on so many levels.

First off, Stone's direction is as good as it gets. He has an incredible passion for the subject, knowledge of the art and relationship with the camera. All of his footage goes together seamlessly and makes the 3 h 08 min running time blow by. He gets a strong performance out of the entire ensemble cast especially Costner, Jones, Oldman, and Pesci.

Scalia and Hutsching's editing is a work of art and tells the complicated story with incredible precision. Richardson's cinematography lights up the screen in both colour and black and white. Both of these technical aspects of filmmaking are molded into sheer artistry by these three men who have all deserved their Oscars for this film.

John Williams' score is one of his best (right up there with his Indiana Jones and Star Wars). The script is intelligent, thought-provoking, mesmorizing and heart-wrenching. Costner's closing speech to the Jury is finer that Nicholson's in A Few Good Men, McConaughey's in A Time to Kill and Jackson's in Pulp Fiction. It is Stone and Sklar's best work.

The subject matter is incredibly controverial and subjective but Stone's delivers it with such emotion and raw power that his alternate myth to the Warren Report seems factual. The film is an investigation into the human spirit and how the vigour and dedication of one man and his team of associates can rise above the highest powers of the world and encode a message into the minds and hearts of millions. John F. Kennedy has countless achievements and qualities as a president which makes his life and term one of the most incredible and worthy of deep study.

Oliver Stone's JFK should go down in film history as one of the most important American films ever produced. Watch it with an open mind free of prejudice and predisposition and you will find yourself wanting to go to the library and learn more about this global tragedy.

109 utilisateurs sur 155 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Past the controversy, 3 juillet 2004
Auteur : Strangef8 de St. Louis, MO

In the time since I first saw the film "JFK", I have found myself inexplicably drawn to the events in Dallas, TX on November 22, 1963. I have researched online and in libraries to learn the truth of these events, and I would say that my outlook on those matters has changed substantially. But underneath that, and the controversy that developed from it, there is one universal and almost indisputable truth regarding the film: JFK is simply an excellent movie. And no difference of opinion can refute this.

I have seen my fair share of films over the years, I'm not a cinema maniac by any means. But I think I can judge a quality product when I see one and that's simply what this picture presents. It is, as Tom Wicker of the New York Times said at it's release, propaganda; but the same can be said for every film by Michael Moore... of whom I'm NOT a fan... but they are still strong pictures.

JFK runs the difficult task of presenting fact, fiction, conjecture and opinion, twisting them all to present the increasingly difficult to dispute conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone (and according to director Oliver Stone, did not act) in the assassination of President Kennedy.

The films accomplishments though, past this controversial thesis, are many: 1.) Kevin Costner turns in one of the greatest performances of his career. While his accent is stronger than Garrison and the physical resemblance not astonishing, Costner three dimensionalizes a character and lives in it throughout the film.

2.) An impressive and versatile cast is used superbly. The film is loaded with quality stars such as Kevin Bacon, Tommy Lee Jones (in an Oscar nominated role), Gary Oldman, and Joe Pesci (who share an intense and crucial scene); as well as character actors and actresses such as Michael Rooker, Sissy Spacek, and Jay Saunders. Stone even navigates a dramatic turn from the late comedy great John Candy and utilizes Hollywood legends Ed Asner, Jack Lemmon, Walter Matthau and Donald Sutherland superbly.

3.) With the possible exception of the lone gunman theory, every possibility of truth is explored, at least in dialogue. Because the case has never been fully elaborated on no one can say for certain what the truth is; Stone presents all views while advancing his theory.

4.) The film is a masterwork of editing. It won the Oscar for film editing in 1991, and deserved it. I once read in Entertainment Weekly that a normal film has roughly 200 cuts in it; there are more than sixty in the opening minutes alone here. Even more impressive when you consider the variety of film used.

JFK is not absolute fact, it does not truly pretend to be. By Stone's own admission, Laurie Metcalf, Michael Rooker, and Kevin Bacon play composites or dramatized characters, not the real thing. But standing alone as a movie, JFK is untouchably excellent. And if it does force you to question, as Costner's Garrison asks in the closing moments "of what is our government made?", then it's all for the better.

96 utilisateurs sur 159 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Stone lone braveman, 4 novembre 2001

Auteur : Taxdawg

"JFK" was and remains so controversial that any positive reviews (not to say they were characteristic) it received were dwarfed by the trashing to which it was subjected in the official press, which started well before it was released. This was disturbing, for what is the big need -- it is just a movie. But to so many "JFK" was not, it was somehow threatening.

Ultimately, it does not matter whether JFK's conclusion is correct, and I am even willing to give a little more license than I normally would to more-substantive, as well as less-important, inaccuracies, although I have my limits here too. But this movie's significance is just that it was made. For although other films had chronicled the events surrounding the assassination, none had in any substantial way sought to discredit the Warren Commission, as was so absolutely merited.

Regardless of your opinion on what really happened, it is my view that everyone should be critical of the media, which were so obsequious to the Warren Commission. The New York Times from the start referred to Oswald as the "assassin," not the "suspect." Life Magazine altered photos strongly suggesting a shot had been fired from the grassy knoll. Many years later, when being interviewed by Dan Rather about his film, Oliver Stone said to his face, referring to the event: "Where were you, Dan?"

Indeed, in a documentary he made, Rather said, "in the absence of any CREDIBLE evidence, we can only..." This fallacy is a betrayal of the legal definition of evidence, with Rather's poor characterization of the word "credible." There is enormous, indeed endless, evidence contradicting the Warren Commission's view, and much of it is certainly credible, including all the evidence of the Commission's own efforts to conduct a dishonest and incomplete investigation and intimidate witnesses into changing their testimony to support the version it wanted. In fact, I consider it Gerald Ford's greatest character flaw that he served on it and backed its conduct and conclusion, a far more disturbing matter than his pardon of Nixon. Whether the evidence to which Rather referred is CONCLUSIVE is another story; that is up to us, the jury. The sort of smugness Rather shows has been characteristic of much of the media, and I do not know all the reasons they behaved as they did. Thus, we needed a more courageous, enterprising person like Oliver Stone to step in and fill the gap -- the overwhelming majority of people believe the Commission got it wrong.

Stone's enlistment of mere hypotheticals, theorized by Garrison (setting aside the final scene--there were moments before) or whoever, has been subjected to unfair, ill-conceived criticism. Most people who knew anything at all about the assassination believed there were problems with the Commission's version before they saw this film, and came out of it with an elaboration and hypothesis, not a mindbender. Even if we concede that some younger viewers knew little about the assassination, the notion of the critics of "JFK" that the film would automatically program their minds is an insult to their intelligence, of the ability of people in general to think and come to their own conclusions. Indeed, no one to whom I have EVER spoken has betrayed a view of events that reflects even most, if not all, of Stone's conclusions. If any programming is called for, it is to program people against the Commission's version, not, as its defenders would wish, against Stone. For no one can be programmed to accept Stone's alternate view.

OK, some inaccuracies of Stone can be criticized, such as his portrayal of Garrison (All-American Kevin Costner, natch) as a wholesome hero, and the time-between-shots issue (it is now generally conceded that there was enough time, based on all the evidence, for Oswald to have done it, for those who believe he did). Perhaps the speech by David Ferrie never occurred, but it still reflects the widely held view that the CIA and Mafia worked together in this matter. Certainly, many people in the government despised Kennedy, and there were substantially more elements of this hostility than portrayed in the film. Anyway, we can go on and on. The Warren Commission tried to cover up overwhelming evidence that Ruby knew Oswald, that a shot was fired from the grassy knoll, that a dark-skinned man fired shots from the Dallas School Book Depository, and that Officer Tippit was killed by someone other than Oswald (actually, two people). Well, at least some members resisted the single bullet theory (I guess that passes Rather's definition of "credible"), although they ultimately signed the report.

I do not agree with Oliver Stone's specific ultimate conclusion about the central moving force of the assassination. But he has the right to suggest the U.S. government was involved, and many, including myself, think it was involved somehow, but that what is debatable is merely to what extent and how far up. Hats off to Stone for his courage and thoughtfulness in making his necessary statement.

9 out of 10

66 utilisateurs sur 106 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
A Stunningly Well Planned and Articulated Film, 11 janvier 2003

Auteur : Collin E. Anderson (dustbrother204) de Ithaca, NY

Oliver Stone is undoubtedly one of the most controversial directors of all time, his work has included horrifyingly real stories of Vietnam, stories of the corruption of politics and a much-despised account of Jim Morrison's life. No matter the subject matter, Stone always gives it his all and sometimes the world's response is positive and sometimes it's negative. With JFK we are faced with one of his films that was probably one of his most successful (next to Platoon of 1986). This is a rare instance in which the public loved the concept of conspiracy in their own country, and took special interest in the debates that it caused amongst the government upon release. The best thing about this film is that it is and was treated as so much more than a film. My honest opinion is that this response was created not because of a more plausible theory but because of Stone's fantastic and unique job putting the story together.

The film opens on a surprisingly suspenseful scene of the murder of John F. Kennedy. The chopped style of the scene lets you know that something is not right, dramatic black and white shots spliced with the blurry grain shots of the home video taken by a witness (it won Academy Awards for Best Film Editing and Best Cinematography). This, accompanied by John Williams' excellent original score helped do an excellent job of creating a mood, just for this very first scene. Often times a director will stop after this, give it his all for style and then stop after the first scene, but Stone doesn't do this. He makes the film so much more than a boring investigation; he takes you in to each of the puzzle pieces (indeed, it feels like you're with Kevin Costner "digging" through hundreds of events.) For 90% of these clips that lace the film's concepts together, the camera is not kept steady, it is, indeed, like you are there witnessing it. The human eye doesn't only look at what is important, and a situation of trauma can make everything seem broken, confused. Oliver Stone doesn't try to make sure you understand what's going on. Some frown upon this, but it's realistic and that's what counts.

Kevin Costner plays Jim Garrison, the district attorney of New Orleans who investigates the murder of John Kennedy. Sometimes you are expected to disagree (at first) with some of Garrison's presumptuous statements, and when you do there is always at least one character around who will agree with you. Stone realizes most viewers aren't devoted enough to believe everything Garrison says no matter what it is throughout the film. Stone has said that he wants people to "rethink history" and that this film is not guaranteed fact, but an "alternate myth" to the myth that has been presented before. The story is not solid because very few ideas or people or events in life are. What I mean to say is that Garrison's comments are not necessarily ridiculous, it's just a matter of how hard he tries to support them. The focus constantly changes -- yes, Costner will smile a bit when he makes a ridiculous remark that everyone rolls their eyes at, yes, even at the end of the film some clips will be left unchecked, and yes, you will see that there is no way that the question "who killed JFK" is answered as simply, solidly, and, dare I say it, Hollywood-esquely as a one man killing. If you watch this movie looking for real life, without dramatization and without guaranteed entertainment and fun, you will be impressed. This is not a popcorn movie.

And finally a word should be said about the actors' enhancement of the realism of the film. Most notable are Joe Pesci as the frantic David Ferrie who pretends to be a victim but truly (we see) had much more to do with it than he pretends (although convincingly was not an assassin -- he blows the whole thing out of proportion "this is too f*cking big for you, you know that?") and Tommy Lee Jones as the wry ring leader Claw Shaw, who seems to be a pompous upscale member of society that has been doing the dark business of conspiracy behind closed doors. The fact that these characters can appear real to us and not just appear as familiar actors taking on a role (as you might feel in Ocean's Eleven) truly does the film justice in driving it forward.

This is in fact one of my top three favorite movies, but I tend to refrain from mentioning it as just this to my friends-- I'm sooner to mention Memento or Fight Club. The reason for this is that the movie is almost an acquired taste, and certainly not normal entertainment for a teenager. It's honestly written for a generation above me, but everything that makes it (up to and including the "kings are killed" and other political themes) are intriguing to me, and for me anything intriguing grows to be a favorite. Even if the subject is not something that ever really impacted me, I take themes to heart, and I always love a good "enigma wrapped in a riddle."

NOTES: -Maybe a point off for being inconsistent in goal. Though as admirable in a movie as any other characteristic, I found this to be the most restricting on ability to follow along. -Also notable is the fact that it's very release sparked opening of sealed governmental records on the subject.

OVERALL: A+

35 utilisateurs sur 59 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Oliver Stone's greatest film!!!, 1 décembre 2007

Auteur : BobStage de Ontario, Canada

I have stated many times that Oliver Stone is an incredible film maker whose films sizzle with excellent cinematography, good acting, and original storyline. He makes controversial films that are sometimes unappreciated by the public and the critics. I said and believed all this even before I watched "JFK".

"JFK" is a film that stars many A-list actors in major and minor roles, but they give deep imprints nonetheless. Tommy Lee Jones, the Oscar nominated actor of the film, gives a performance that I almost missed due to my not recognizing him. Gary Oldman as the widely publicized murderer, Lee Harvey Oswald. Joe Pesci, fresh from his Oscar in "Goodfellas", as Dave Ferrier, a man who is struggling to cope with the heavy accusations and mysteries of the JFK murder. Donald Sutherland in an Oscar-worthy performance, as an informant that talks to Jim Garrison, played wonderfully by Kevin Costner. Other great appearances include Kevin Bacon, Michael Rooker, and even Walter Matthau in a bit appearance.

All those mentioned above were worthy of Oscars, but if there is one man that deserved an Oscar more than anyone else, it would have to be Oliver Stone, who did NOT win Best Director OR Best Picture. Who did he lose to? "Silence of the Lambs". I have yet to see this film, but I daresay I am prejudiced in Oliver's favour. I don't deny it, and I won't pretend I prefer Oliver Stone to most other directors.

The appearance of "JFK" is astounding. You are taken to a time of much distrust, horror, confusion, corruption, and cover-up. The murders of JFK, Martin Luther King, and RFK all influenced the time periods and the peoples. Many people tried not to think about it, or else they were scared into silence. Some, like Jim Garrison, tried to present the truth of "JFK", and their efforts are being felt even now.

Before I saw this film, I had seen Oliver comment that "JFK" was a movie in which he got all the crazy theories and presented them. He was not implying that everything was true, and some of it isn't true. But after seeing this film, I am convinced there was definitely more to the story than was originally told, as I believed even before I saw "JFK". This gave me a knowledge of the period, and awareness of the people participating in the drama of the time.

I have seen the films "Platoon" and "Born on the Fourth of July": films that Oliver Stone won Best Director for. Why did he not win for "JFK"? Why did it only win 2 Oscars? For me, it is another example of how disappointing the Oscar results can be. I urge all to see this epic film of mystery and deceit, of truth and lies, the work of a master film director known as Oliver Stone.

34 utilisateurs sur 59 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
A Modern Cultural Obsession, 29 septembre 2007

Auteur : Michael O'Connor de Canada

The assassination of JFK has been told in every possible way through every available medium. Oliver Stone managed the unimaginable transforming and almost folk tragedy, through a mix of drama and cinema veritè, into a riveting mystery thriller with the paranoiac style of a man who's in touch with paranoia in a quasi permanent basis. Unnerving, frustrating and spectacularly satisfying. Kevin Costner manages to be convincing as the center piece of the conspiracy theory. We believe the whole damn thing because we see it through his logic. Sissy Spacek, as his wife, represents most us and she does it brilliantly. Tommy Lee Jones and Kevin Bacon are a pleasure to watch. Donald Sutherland, Jack Lemmon, Walter Matthau and even John Candy, Sally Kirkland and Vincent D'Onofrio deliver little parts of the puzzle without ever becoming distracting. Gary Oldman is a chilling dead ringer for Lee Harvey Oswald. For film lovers, for history nuts, for pop culture fanatics and for conspiracy theorists, this is a must.

5 utilisateurs sur 7 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Is anything more important than the truth?, 5 août 2009

Auteur : praveen77 de Inde

"What is Past is Prologue"… I just got over another viewing of Oliver Stone's JFK, this time the Directors cut, which runs for around 3 hrs 20 mins. As always, I was not bored for a single second of this high octane, virtually paranoia driven dialog. And I got reminded again why it is one of my favorite movies. I've always been a fan of the political thrillers with espionage thrown in, and JFK is undoubtedly one of the best (if not the best) of these. This is Oliver Stone at his best (which is telling, because there have been a lot of instances, especially in recent times, when it seems he has lost it). His Vietnam trilogy not withstanding.

Based on the true life memoirs of Jim Garrison, who was, as per the movie, the only person to bring a trial in the Kennedy assassination, this movie holds you from the first scene till the end. Unless of course, you're the kind who rates a movie's greatness based on the special effects. In which case, I would suggest you go for the Transformers sequel, as most of the world seems to be.

Kevin Costner plays Jim Garrison, the New Orleans DA, who (after 3 years) discovers that things were just not right with the investigation and findings of the Warren commission regarding the murder of John F. Kennedy. Together with his office, a small yet dedicated bunch, he sets out to investigate. Against all odds and a labyrinth of characters, threats, murders and political intrigue, he manages to bring forth the case to trial. Regardless of the outcome of the trial, the final monologue by Costner has to be seen to be believed. And felt. No matter how many times I see this, it always brings a lump to my throat, as Costner elaborates on just why this is so important. Reminds you that Costner is capable of being there with the very best, despite some of the crap he dishes out at times.

As for the actual case, was there conspiracy involving the CIA, the govt, the FBI, and the anti-Cuban and anti-communist forces? Or is Oliver Stone just a paranoid genius, as many say? Well, I don't know, but the power of the movie can be gaged from the fact that it turned me, a completely disinterested person, into a believer.

7 utilisateurs sur 12 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
The News Media Meets Depravity, 13 mai 2009

Auteur : dataconflossmoor de Etats-Unis

This Oliver Stone classic was a lengthy depiction of one of the most controversial presidents in U.S. history, John F. Kennedy. Kennedy was the consummate politician who garnered an unprecedented charisma with the American people by implementing lofty ideology with pragmatic political procedures!! His wife, Jacqeline, was a regal artifact of fashion and glamor, and this couple of President and First Lady which was labeled as "Camelot", easily elevated into the limelight of American culture! The Kennedys were American icons who invoked a dogged tenacity for social changes, and dirges of moral outrage, which titillated minorities and under privileged Americans!! On November 22nd, 1963, when John F. Kennedy was assassinated, it sparked a national uproar with the public perception of nationwide politics!!Such a pejorative pique mandated the launching of the investigative documents by the Warren Commission known as the Warren Report. Now enters Jim Garrison, (Played by Kevin Costner) who became engrossed in the factual details involving JFK's death. It was Garrison's ardent admiration of Kennedy that made his prescient curiosity an obsession. It was not just his responsibilities as a district attorney which nurtured his persistence, it was also for his own edification that Jim Garrison wanted to unearth facts about Kennedy's assassination. This entourage of interrogations was all in the hopes that his resolution to this issue would enhance his conception of the American system of democracy!! Garrison embarked on a series of inquiries concerning JFK's assassination which were of his own volition!! The Warren Report was an edict by the Johnson Administration as a way of putting a bureaucratic style explanation on the aggregate calamity concerning JFK's murder!! Such desultory data enticed the subornation of perjury by numerous public officials!! This virulent abuse of due process was tantamount to parading around a flagrant dismissal of democratic justice which was pertinent to the wishes of the American people altogether!! The initiative to challenge the findings of the Warren Commission was motivated by the fact that subsequent reports contained indiscretions to the Warren Commission's findings! Amidst the myriad of miscalculations in the Warren report was the principle bone of contention that more than one bullet was fired. The Communist insurgent who became the guinea pig for this debacle, Lee Harvey Oswald, ultimately became a target himself, and was assassinated by Jack Ruby! This string of heinous murders involving Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald, culminating with the "magic bullet theory" became a cogent revelation to the American people that the Kennedy assassination was indeed a conspiracy! In view of this whole incident, Dallas became the most politically scrutinized city in the entire world for over two years! The film, "JFK" brandishes all of these occurrences as stark revelations to the American public. Such an illustration was realistic because that is what these precarious occurrences were!! Many nuances to the assassination of John F. Kennedy became an outlet for depraved intrigue. The film "JFK" illustrates how the south took a lethal and flippant path of trepidation to Kennedy's killing!! The film "JFK" introduced the viewing audience to the debauched proclivities of many sordid reprobates in Dallas and New Orleans!! Such dubious walks of life demonstrated a social callousness which brought on an onslaught of purulent jeremiads as to why the prevailing political spectrum was so convoluted during this era!! The nefarious characters involved in the whole Kennedy conspiracy were societal outcasts. A copious quantity of them evoked such an ideological ambiguity to their feelings that even the cadence to their voices were extremely dehumanizing!! The film "JFK" is tremendously bolstered by incredible acting performances by an enormous number of accomplished actors and actresses. In addition to Kevin Costner and Sissy Spacek, other famous stars were: Donald Sutherland, Jack Lemon, Tommie Lee Jones, Kevin Bacon, Ed Asner, Walter Mathiau, and many others!! Oliver Stone does a tremendous job at directing this film, as he encompasses a disconcerting aspect of democracy into the entire genre of this movie! I enjoyed this flick more when I saw it a second time. This movie possesses a non-acknowledgeable realism that satiated my ghoulish perception of the whole Kennedy affair, and how it revolutionized American News coverage!! I have been to Dallas many times, and I can empathize with the attitudes that Oliver Stone was trying to expedite with this film. I was dining at Morton's Steakhouse in Dallas, which is right next to the book depository where Kennedy was shot. When I pointed out to a parking valet that this is where John F Kennedy was assassinated, he replied "Who's John F Kennedy?" Historical events reflect our lives accordingly! The film, "JFK" effectively portrays the assassination of John F. Kennedy as a tragic escapade which restructured America's political priorities!! I recommend seeing this film, it is up there with the better American films ever made!! One of the best films of the 1990's!!! Definitely!!

4 utilisateurs sur 7 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
This is how it happened, 27 juin 2009

Auteur : Milan (mim-8) de Belgrade, Serbie

JFK is the best political assassination conspiracy thriller ever made! It's a visually striking, documentary like movie with heart-throbbing pace, and bravura acting with story based on nothing but hard facts. It was striking that polls conducted from 1966 on show that as many as 80% of the American public hold beliefs contrary to the findings of the Warren commission. And how could anybody believe the report that invented a "magic bullet" theory which supposed to explain how a mixed up character like Lee Harvey Oswald, could have managed to shoot both president and governor Connally six times, including a fatal frontal shot to John F. Kennedy's head, clearly visible in Zapruder film, firing only three times in 5.6 seconds from up behind the motorcade. The facts of the case show that there had to be another gunman, and if so than we have a conspiracy, and everything that happened later both to principal characters, witnesses and shift in foreign and domestic American politics, only give proof to that conclusion.

Oliver Stone waste no time in presenting the case. I've never seen a movie 197 minutes long, that doesn't let your mind wonder for a second. People who testify to various aspects of the assassination are moving in front of your eyes like passing trains and every one of them puts another piece in never completed puzzle of conspiracy behind the Kennedy assassination. This film, along with "Executive action", filmed only 10 years after, in 1973, show that the plot to kill John Kennedy is worked out and organized in a way that there's no doubt that it leads to the highest ranking government officials and all the industrial and banking tycoons that had everything to loose with JFK's policy of non involvement, racial equality and détente with the USSR. Later assassinations of Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy, show that this pattern was used in a same manner, to eliminate most dangerous political threats to the "big money" and conservative politics. Like Donald Sutherland's "X" has said in the movie "Who benefited? Who has the power to cover it up?", these are the questions Stone's film is trying and in my opinion succeeding in giving good answers to. More than recommended, a must see.

2 utilisateurs sur 4 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
"Let justice be done though the heavens fall", 18 septembre 2009

Auteur : ackstasis de Australie

Oliver Stone's wildly-speculative conspiracy theory epic 'JFK (1991)' opens with a montage of archival footage depicting the presidency of John F. Kennedy, 35th President of the United States, up until 12:30PM on Friday, November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas. However, even before this historical prologue has come to an end, Stone has already introduced his own dramatisation – a beaten prostitute, dumped on the side of a road, pleads that Kennedy's life is in danger. Her agonised cries play over familiar documentary footage of the Presidential motorcade. Already, Stone is defiantly blending fact and fiction, speculation and dramatisation. On its initial release, the film stirred enormous controversy due to its flagrant disregard for historical fact, but that's not what 'JFK' is all about. Oliver Stone may (or may not) genuinely believe all of Jim Garrison's conspiracy theories – which implicate everybody up to former President Lyndon B. Johnson – but his film nevertheless offers a tantalising "what if?" scenario, an unsettling portrait of the fallibility of "history" itself.

Having undertaken some light research, I don't feel that Garrison's claims hold much water. However, that doesn't detract from the film's brilliance. Crucial is Stone's more generalised vibe of government mistrust, the acknowledgement that political institutions are at least conceptually capable of such a wide-ranging operation to hoodwink the American public. 'JFK' also paints a gripping picture of its protagonist, torn between its admiration for a man willing to contest the sacred cow of US government, and its pity for one so hopelessly obsessed with conspiracy that it consumes his life, family and livelihood. Kevin Costner plays Garrison as righteous and stubbornly idealistic, not dissimilar to his Eliot Ness in De Palma's 'The Untouchables (1987).' The only difference is that Garrison is chasing a criminal far more transparent than Al Capone – indeed, a criminal who may not exist at all. Costner is supported by an exceedingly impressive supporting cast, which includes Jack Lemmon, Kevin Bacon, Donald Sutherland, Joe Pesci, Michael Rooker, Tommy Lee Jones and Gary Oldman.

With the Director's Cut clocking in at 206 minutes, 'JFK' is an epic piece of work. However, the film is so dazzlingly well-constructed that watching it becomes less of a choice than a compulsion. Stone frenziedly throws together seemingly-unrelated puzzle-pieces, systematically peeling back layer after layer of conspiracy until all that remains is what Jim Garrison believes to be the naked truth. Beneath the sordid details, Stone speculates on the nature of history itself. Archive footage blends seamlessly with dramatisation – but what is recorded history but a re-enactment submitted by the winners? Not even the witnesses to Kennedy's assassination, clouded by subjective perception, can know for sure what exactly took place on that dark day in Dallas. Perhaps Zapruder's 486 frames of grainy hand-held footage (combined with that of Nix and Muchmore) represents the only objective record of the event – but Antonioni's 'Blowup (1966)' showed that even photographic documentation is unreliable through the inherent bias of the viewer. In short, nobody knows what really happened that day. 'JFK' is Oliver Stone creating his own history – or merely correcting it.

Page 1 sur 37:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Ajouter un autre commentaire

Liens liés

Plot summary	résumé du Amazon.com	Notes
Récompenses	Critiques des Forums	Revues externes
Plot keywords	Principaux Détails	Your user comments
Your vote history

Liens rapides

Top liens

Vue d'ensemble

Récompenses et critiques

Synopsis et citations

Curiosités

Autres infos

Matériel publicitaire

Liens externes

IMDb user comments forJFK (1991) Plus avec IMDbPro »

Liens liés

IMDb user comments for
JFK (1991) Plus avec IMDbPro »