Does "JFK" work as an interesting film, not just a politics lesson? Kind of...

Rating: 8/10 (5 June 2014)

There are a lot of problems that can be faced when making deeply political movies. Filmmakers try to share their views on corrupt systems and political mistakes, but through this they ignore the one thing that is most essential in an interesting film - the plot. There's a fine line between a fascinating thriller and a politics lesson, and occasionally directors will fall on the wrong side of that line. This has never stopped Oliver Stone, however, who has now built up a reputation for dealing with tricky subject matters, such as the Vietnam War, 9/11 or various presidents, in his movies. Here, he tackles the topic of JFK's assassination in a 3 hour movie which addresses as many conspiracy theories that it can. Does it work? Kind of.
The movie follows Jim Garrison, played by Kevin Costner, the District Attorney of New Orleans who begins to look into the JFK assassination, since he is convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald could not have been the only killer. It begins by showing Kennedy's life just before his killing, through newsreel footage, building up to a reconstruction of the actual assassination. The film is intelligent in using this as exposition rather than a major plot point later, since it is such a familiar event, and we can then get right into the fallout. Various theories are debunked and brought up during the course of the film, including a scene where Garrison tests out whether it was actually possible for Oswald to have hit Kennedy from his supposed position at the time.
The acting in the film is mostly superb, with Costner being a likable lead who is also a powerful speaker. The speech that he gives during the court case right at the end is long, but he is a good enough orator that you focus on everything he says. Other great members of the cast include Tommy Lee Jones, playing Clay Shaw, a man accused of conspiring to kill Kennedy, Donald Sutherland, a man high up in Washington who suggests that the CIA had something to do with it, and Jack Lemmon. Kevin Bacon's performance seems like more of a caricature, and is slightly out of place in the film.
"JFK" is a fascinating and often thrilling movie at its best points. But it tends to drag when interesting information is not being discovered, and there is no way that all of its 3 hour runtime is necessary. Certain parts feel gratuitous so that every theory is covered, and others are just a bit confusing. There is also the important question of whether it matters if everything in the film is factual. So long as audience members know that it is supposed to be a representation of possible events, rather than stone cold fact, then this does not matter that much, since it is interesting enough as a movie, and at no point claims to be a documentary.
If you're going to watch "JFK", know that you're in for the long haul, and that some parts of the film are not easy to get through because they do drag. However often Costner's performance alone is great enough that interest levels are maintained in the telling if a story which is still shrouded in so much mystery.