A decent film, that takes hearsay and conspiracy theories and tries to make them fact- that is the films weakest component. Its basically Oliver Stones pet project on the Kennedy assassination. He takes broad liberties with the facts in telling this subjective version of history. JFK nonetheless is an enjoyable film, with fine performances by Kevin Costner and Sissy Spacek- as well as Kevin Bacon. The reality is and was is that Oswald was an eccentric little waif, who in all likelihood acted alone. His horrible act had a murderous impact on American history.

If you're not a paranoid conspiracy theorist already, you will be after watching this country. After the movie was over, my first thought was, "My God, this country is screwed up!" Then I realized that this movie is just a grab bag of Stone's theories, a thriller very loosely based on fact. I mean, I think there's more to the JFK assasination than the lone gunman theory, but we may never know the complete truth for many many years, if ever. Stone's movie was compelling, but a little hysterical and over the top.

The undersigned lived through Jim Garrison's trial against Clay Shaw in New Orleans and blames the prosecutor for irresponsibly having contributed to the failure to establish clear certainty about the conspiracy theory regarding President Kennedy's assassination. Garrison created unreasonable and unwarranted expectations in regards to blame. For many years following the trial, all further enquiries that would have put the matter to rest were discouraged. Understandably, the conspiracy theory remained dormant but alive for decades. Indeed, director Oliver Stone, too young at the time of the assassination and given his proclivity to denounce government and big business, was much too disinclined to be objective; therefore, it was not unexpected of him to present the story with Garrison as a martyr. In that regard, 'JFK' can be regarded as unreliable and, indeed, dangerous history. The fact is, however, that 'JFK' should be appreciated primarily as a sophisticated, complex and masterful three-hour narrative which few contemporary filmmakers (with the possible exception of Milos Forman and Martin Scorcese) could have accomplished with equal skill. No character is superfluous, the casting, flawless, the pacing and editing, both impeccable. Set aside our shared reservations regarding Oliver Stone's political inclinations and 'JFK', cinematically, will stand alongside 'Triumph of the Will'.

I can't pretend to be a student of the Kennedy assassination, but based on what I have read, I do believe in the final analysis that Oswald acted alone. Having said that, however, it's easy enough to see why people fervently do believe there was a conspiracy involved. There's a tremendous amount of circumstantial evidence and connections (Oswald-Castro, Oswald-Marcello, Oswald-Mafia, Jack Ruby-Chicago Mafia, etc.) that just can't be laughed off or dismissed out of hand. Unfortunately, despite a plethora of strong theories, Oliver Stone elected to choose the lamest, most easily disproved on which to base his movie. Clay Shaw, who is portrayed in the film as evil incarnate, was actually a victim of Jim Garrison's blind ambition. It has been proven that Garrison was a corrupt mob puppet, but Stone for some inexplicable reason chooses to present him as a paragon of virtue and integrity. My question is...why? Stone is not a film-maker without talent, but I thought this movie was an irresponsible travesty, chock-full of erroneous nonsense.