Slick movie-making, but utterly false history.

Rating: 3/10 (22 October 2008)

I rated "JFK" a "3" because it is technically an engrossing, suspenseful, well put-together piece of film-making. Terrific recreations (especially Dealey Plaza), excellent acting, great music score. Builds incredible tension, which is an especially difficult undertaking in a movie about a well-known and highly publicized historical event (and one that everyone knows the outcome of). I have to give Oliver Stone credit as a movie-maker. And I guarantee you won't fall asleep watching "JFK". That's the good news.
The bad news is -- "JFK" is completely biased and fictional as a piece of history. Period. It presents the JFK killing as certain conspiracy buffs (whom Oliver Stone used as technical advisors) would LIKE us to believe happened, in order to sell more of their books. As a movie that purports to be a "documentary" on the subject, "JFK" is abysmal and wouldn't even rate a "1".
Essentially what Oliver Stone does is take EVERY conspiracy theory ever put forward since the assassination itself, and thrown it into his plot. The average movie-goer, unacquainted with all the "in's and out's" of the JFK assassination, won't know this and will tend to take everything Stone says as gospel. I myself didn't know much about the Kennedy killing when I first saw this movie in the theaters. Stone seemingly presents a mountain of "evidence" to prove his thesis, and to the uninitiated it's all rather compelling.
However, after taking the time to read several books on the subject, I realized just how much a piece of fiction Stone's screenplay really is. I was amazed that some of the "conspiracy" proof that Stone uses has been so long and so effectively refuted that even the most dedicated buffs don't hold with them anymore! Stone throws much junk "evidence" into the mix that, in some cases, hasn't been taken seriously by ANYONE in almost 30 years.
Even more disturbing is Stone's need to create, out of whole-cloth, certain sub-plots, scenes, and characters that never existed! Kevin Bacon's "Willie O'Keefe" immediately comes to mind -- there was no such person, nor anyone even remotely resembling him in real-life. Donald Sutherland's "Colonel X" is only vaguely based on a nut-case ex-officer named Prouty who liked to make himself big by claiming "special knowledge" of the assassination. And yet most of what comes out of "Colonel X's" mouth can't even be attributed to Prouty -- just the fertile mind of Oliver Stone! Stone created numerous scenes to suit his plot -- including virtually every scene with Joe Pesci's character, and many with Tommy Lee Jones' "Clay Shaw" character. No basis for any of it -- just made for a more compelling storyline. Same with many of Lee Harvey Oswald's scenes (chillingly performed by Gary Oldman, by the way). All this, while adding to the entertainment factor of "JFK", does nothing to bolster it's authenticity. Stone of course defended such make-believe with the time-honored claim of "artistic license". Yes, Hollywood has taken many liberties over the years with real events and people -- but Oliver Stone takes this to an ENTIRELY new level.
While Kevin Costner may be a compelling actor, Stone's idea of making his character, real-life New Orleans D.A. Jim Garrison, a "folk hero" is absurd to the point of being laughable. Jim Garrison was a corrupt, despicable character who routinely abused the power of his office to promote himself in a way that makes D.A. Mike Nyfong of the Duke "rape" case look like a saint by comparison! Again, Stone counts on the public not knowing the incredibly shady aspects of Garrison's "investigation" (if you can even call it that), and his witch-hunt against a man he knew, long before the trial even began, to be innocent.
The other "hero" of Oliver Stone's piece is, not surprisingly, Lee Harvey Oswald himself. Stone not only clears Oswald of ever being a "real" Communist, but also absolves Oswald of any responsibility in the killing, and THEN starts presenting the idea that he actually tried to warn the FBI of the plot, but was ignored because the FBI (among many, many organizations) was in on it. In fact, it's hard to find anyone OTHER than Oswald who Stone believes WASN'T in on the plot or the subsequent cover-up. VP Lyndon Johnson, the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, military intelligence, the Mafia, the Anti-Castro Cubans, the Dallas Police Dept, Jack Ruby, the Warren Commission...in Oliver Stone's twisted fantasy-world, they're ALL in on it!
And Stone's "ultimate truth" -- that Kennedy was assassinated cause he wanted to pull out of Vietnam -- simply isn't backed-up by any facts. It was JFK who increased our military commitment in Vietnam by three-fold, to over 18,000 troops, by 1963. Stone would have us believe that JFK suddenly had a "change of heart" and wanted, but never got around to, pulling out of Vietnam. That JFK, already sensitive to the charge of being "soft on Communism", would do this with re-election looming in 1964 is EXTREMELY improbable. Stone's citation of a particular "National Security Action Memo" JFK signed as the first step in the pull-out is, like so much else in "JFK", a complete fabrication.
It would take far too many pages to refute every factual error Stone makes in his movie; suffice to say that the over-all effect is stupifying. If one wants to really get the "low down" on the Kennedy killing, I would suggest Gerald Posner's monumental work "Case Closed". Posner, who for years was a leading conspiracy theorist himself, finally "saw the light" and is now dedicated to debunking such fantasies. He succeeds in "blowing out of the water" EVERY piece of "evidence" Stone presents, and gives a compelling picture of the REAL Jim Garrison, who's about as far from Kevin Costner's heroic portrayal as you can get. "JFK" is slick entertainment, but forget it as a factual account of a historic event.