It all comes together here.

Rating: 10/10 (7 June 2001)

Let it be said, this is Stone's best film.
Hollywood has been shirking the relentless pursuit of truth in this film for the last ten years. It was released to great controversy, but not the right kind. The media (vafenculo) played up the fact that Stone had 'tampered with history.' Isn't an artist required by definition to be uncompromising in his vision? I think that the questionable scenes based on witness testimony or the Zapruder film are not fictitious at all, by mere definition.
How much of the film is incorrect? Maybe two-five mins. total; this picture, however, is well over three hours. Three hours of historical revelation (at least it's revelatory for those who don't read books) and all the press can focus on is those couple of minutes that probably have more truth to them than most Americans would feel comfortable thinking.

The U.S. involvement in Central America and Southeast Asia were journalistic non-events, kept from public scrutiny by the corridors of power. That hardly nobody in this country knew (knows) about them in any detail is the fault of the Washington propaganda machine. That Stone puts 'JFK' into mass circulation and Americans knowingly permit the media to dismiss the film as controversy hype and inaccurate is much less than sheltered ignorance. It is sedition of the worst kind--an intellectual and social shirking of one's duty to eliminate falsehood from history and forbid the tampering of the collective consciousness around the world.
As Garrison (Costner in the film) says, "...it was a coup d'etat..." At least admit it.