I didn't like it much the first time

Rating: Null/10 (7 September 2004)

The second time I really enjoyed it, even if it's not historically accurate. But for the record I DO believe that there was a cover-up involving the assassination, many Europeans claim Americans are just "afraid" to admit the truth but that's not it -- the fact is that the theory of Oswald acting alone is almost unbelievably insane. First of all the whole thing stunk of conspiracy, there's a reason that even the most skeptical people in the world believe this was all a cover-up. I've seen countless documentaries from both sides about this with an open mind and I've always found the evidence on the cover-up side far more hefty.
There's the physical limitations for example. Stone might insert some lies but the truth is no person, Schwarzenegger or a meek little accountant, could EVER fire three shots in the time range that Oswald did. Stone says it's six seconds. It's actually eight. I saw a UK documentary trying to "prove" it was possibly by showing an old man firing three quick shots in 4.3 (I believe) seconds.
Yeah, that's easy. I can throw three stones in four seconds if I had to. But if I had to try and hit a moving target from a faraway distance from a high level partially hidden behind a tree branch, I don't think I could do it. Do YOU?
Then there's the fact that Oswald would have to literally rush all over the place as fast as Superman to be able to do the things they claim he did in the amount of time they claim he did.
Oh, and let's not forget the fact that JFK is shot and the bullet clearly enters from the FRONT, not from behind. "But bodies can fly forward after being shot from behind," someone said.
Yeah, IF you're shot in the lower section of the body -- NOT the head, which -- and any doctor/scientist/whatever will tell you this -- snaps backward or forward depending on the motion of the impact.
Then there's the footage which shows crowds of people instinctively looking towards the grassy knoll. Oh, and the shots came solely from the book depository? And people are looking in the opposite direction because of "echoes" (as some people say)? And a number of witnesses saw men fleeing the scene from the direction of the grassy knoll?
This is just the beginning. No, Stone's film isn't flawless but it isn't TOTALLY lies -- a lot of it is truth, and this is coming from the guy who disliked BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY because of Stone's manipulating dishonesties.
See this movie. Great performances, great direction, and a fair amount of history, even if it's the most flawed aspect of the story.
I recommend downloading a guide to the film after seeing it, marking down the lies and then checking out all the truths left over. You'll be stunned, and then maybe you can draw your own conclusions.
As it is, this is a very good film about a very shameful event that I honestly believe was a total cover-up.