This movie is not what it seems.

Rating: Null/10 (20 September 2000)

The interesting thing about this film to me is not so much the conspiracy theories that it cites, but rather its portrayal of Jim Garrison. I myself am not a proponent of any of the conspiracy theories cited in this film. I tend to regard them in the same way I regard urban legends or sightings of Elvis. However, the films account of Jim Garrison's activities in relation to the trial of Clay Shaw is definitely of interest to me.
Having read Garrison's book, `On the Trail of the Assassins' and various other accounts of the JFK assassination, I find that the movie only serves to support my belief that Garrison's case against Clay Shaw was utter fiction. There really wasn't anything even remotely resembling hard evidence that Clay Shaw had anything to do with the JFK assassination. There are indications, however, that Garrison probably singled Shaw out because of his homosexuality. It's pretty well documented that Garrison was homophobic and this is even referenced in the movie when his wife cites it as the reason Garrison is going after Clay Shaw. In fact, in his interview with Shaw in the movie, he puts Shaw on the spot for hiring a male prostitute before he even mentions Lee Harvey Oswald. (The character played by Kevin Bacon in this film is fictional by the way. There was no Willie O'Keefe) What bearing does Shaw's homosexuality have on the Kennedy assassination? You tell me! Another thing you notice in the movie is that Garrison's witnesses all seem to be from the bottom layer of society. In real life, his only real witness (if you can call him that) was a man called Perry Russo whose deposition was initially taken under the influence of sodium pentathol. Until then, Russo never even mentioned knowing Clay Shaw, and the name he gave, Clay Bertrand, was used by Garrison as evidence of Shaw's guilt. (There was never any hard evidence that Shaw ever used that alias, although Garrison insists that it was given by Shaw when he was arrested) The point is, the more you know factually about Garrison, the more the film shows him not to be some kind of Shakespearian hero, but rather a corrupt and paranoid man with extreme charisma. It's also worth noting that if 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 for wrongful persecution. It's also worth mentioning that Shaw was financially broken by the legal expenses involved in defending himself against Garrison's lawsuit. The film makes no mention of this, of course as it would not serve Stone's ends to make a documentary about how Garrison effectively ruined Shaw's life.
The frustrating thing about this movie is that since it is cinematically well crafted, and the performances are compelling, it is also grossly misleading. Aside from making Garrison into a hero, it makes Oswald look like some kind of complex character straight out of the Manchurian Candidate. (A movie I'm sure Stone loved...I certainly did.) Oswald was a bitter little man who wanted to be a big man. I saw no indications of this in the film. Costner's portrayal of Garrison was actually more accurate than I expected as it gives indications of all the aspects of his character I've cited above.
I'd say if you don't know a lot about the Kennedy assassination, read up on it before you subject yourself to this movie. In spite of it's implausible theories, it can convince the uninformed of some very inaccurate things.