It’s funny, considering how play-it-safe studios are now, that for about a 3-year stretch at Warner Brothers, you had big budgets, all-star casts, and full creative freedom given to Oliver Stone to make JFK and Spike Lee to make a 3 and a half hour movie about Malcolm X.
@@BishopWalters12 MY MAN, i'm glad i'm not the only one. I'd argue it spilled over to early 2000s, but it's was clear by then it was a dying art and simply no more room for quality control.
If you have not seen the deleted scenes, it was originally two scenes The second one at the end after Garrison lost the trial. Stone was right to put it all in the middle but watching the original plan is interesting.
Pity it's full of demonstrable lies and sits there taking dumps on an innocent man whose life was ruined by a crackpot "case" that fell apart within minutes of reaching the jury.
Jo Blo mentions an episode of the dismally rated sci-fi Quantum Leap TV series in the same vid as JFK! Let's be kind and state the obvious, our host is not the most reliable narrator.
@@charlesderosas5577 Movie insults the audiences' intelligence with a narrative knowingly packed with nearly 100 demonstrable and highly relevant lies.
@@troyundroy1 except the conspiracies for 9/11 and the Moon landing are so obviously garbage the "conspiracy" behind the JFK assassination is believable Oswald did not kill Kennedy alone, i mean how the hell could he die right after the shooting? easy cover up, silencing the patsy Oswald this movie, based on Jim Garrison's book, proved that the Warren commission was 100% BULL
Speaking of Kevin Costner, an under appreciated film he’s in, also set around the Kennedy era, more people should see is Thirteen Days. It’s historically inaccurate, but still a good movie
It was a good movie, save Costner's attempt at a Bostonian accent. 😂 Bruce Greenwood was solid as Kennedy. I always hoped he would have done more work.
It's far closer to reality than JFK is, don't get me wrong as a movie fan I really like JFK, it's well written, well acted and directed and everything else you need to have a great movie like the cinematography, editing, sound, all of it, but when it comes time historical accuracy it just completely goes off the rails, it's actually fiction and not anywhere close to the true events that actually happened, like the scene with Donald Sutherland's character, it never happened, and there wasn't a newspaper that printed a story about JFK's assassination before it actually happened because of confusion over the GMT dateline, that doesn't make any sense anyway, for it to be true the assassination story would have had to be planted before he was actually killed no matter where your at and what the date is, the "magic bullet" wasn't magic and it didn't make 90° turns in the air, the seating positions are all incorrect in the movie and had someone presented them like that in a courtroom the attorneys on the other side would have made a meal out of it, that's all made up conspiracy malarkey, the fact is if you put Kennedy and Connolly in their correct positions the bullet holes do indeed line up. Stone did quite a bit more than play fast and loose with the facts when he made JFK, he just down right fabricated thing's that never even happened to create his conspiracy plot. But as I said as far as movie's go it's an excellent movie, but it certainly isn't a history lesson because it's more fiction than fact, far more.
I need to mention that the scene in JFK where the trajectory of the bullet has Wayne Knight as the dude sitting down......was lampooned in Seinfeld.....with Wayne Knight also. Briliiant.
@@aaronz7056 LOL! As IF you think that Jim Garrison was a "fictional character," played by Kevin Costner, when in fact it was based on both Garrison and his book, "On The Trail of the Assassins," one of two books that were the basis of Oliver Stone's film. The other was "Crossfire" by Jim Marrs.
@@robertpolanco1973 I didn't say one word about Garrison being a fictional character. The VERSION portrayed was hugely fictional. As for your books... Garrison lies about the parade route being changed, about the tramps not being ID'd and cleared, about Oswald being in the Depository doorway, etc. Jim Marrs' record: - spent years giving his middle finger and one great big "F-word You" to the family of a decorated police officer who lost his life in the cause of his duty as he accused the man without evidence of being a conspirator so long as it suited his despicable and crackpot "theories..." - made up a bogus "mysterious deaths list of witnesses" where everybody on it either had little or no connection to the case or else he misreported their causes of death to sound more "sinister..." - gave us the "multiple Oswald clones running around Dallas" idiocy - proved flying saucers are real...
@@aaronz7056 Well, I find your assessment to be very pathetic and negative as ever! It is such a pity that people like you have alternative facts as "truth" when it came the 1963 Kennedy assassination indeed!
He was making a movie he deliberately packed with nearly a hundred demonstrable lies and obscenely depicted a lot of innocent people as conspirators, and he demanded we should "applaud" Jim Garrison for ruining an innocent man's life with a crackpot "case" that fell apart within minutes of reaching his hand-picked jury.
And, other than _V for Vendetta_ , is the most powerful movie of all time. Very Best Regards, Tom Scott Author ● Speaker ● World's Leading Expert on the Corrupt U.S. Legal System _Our American Injustice System_ _Stack the Legal Odds in Your Favor_
It absolutely still holds up and I think always will. It's a superb piece of technical filmmaking. The editing in the movie is some of the best ever. And it's run time flys by. It is not completely historically accurate, but that doesn't diminish the quality of the direction, writing and acting. It's a wonderful film and always will be.
"Not completely historically accurate..." It lets Kennedy's murderer off the hook, falsely paints a lot of innocent people as traitors and murderers with B.S. "evidence," turns that lunatic Jim Garrison into a hero, and tells more than 80 (!) demonstrable and relevant lies over its narrative.
JFK was a great movie. it wasnt about JFK it was about all these characters possibly involved in his murder. I watched the directors cut, all 3.5 hrs of it and it flew by. Not boring. Fascinating character study. Amazing cast- costner, tommy lee jones, john candy, kevin bacon, donald sutherland, sissy spacek, jack lemmon. phenomenal editing- rarely does that aspect of a movie really shine through but it absolutely made this movie. the way the current events were intertwined with flashbacks, the way scenes were shot on different film stock, just a great absorbing movie that shined some light on 1 of america's greatest myths/conspiracy/unsolved mysteries. great work oliver stone!
"Movie is packed with more than 80 demonstrable and relevant lies. "@@aaronz7056 Stone tells more than 80 demonstrable lies in this movie. we keep hearing about all these MORE THAN 80 intentional lies but we never get to see them . firstly you are claiming stone intentionally lied , prove it . secondly provide examples of these supposed intentional lies along with your PROOF that they are intentional lies .surely as you claim to have 80 im sure you can post a few for us .
The movie wasn’t made to be completely factual, Stone’s intention was to put all the theories as well as facts out there so that people would ask Questions and never forget what happened on that day in Dallas that changed the course of American history forever.
Stone's intention was to let Kennedy's murderer off the hook and falsely and knowingly implicate a lot of innocent people as conspirators in murder and treason so long as he could profit by it.
Perhaps this is not what the channel is about, but a mention of the magnificent cinematography (its lighting especially) and editing would have been warranted. Both these disciplines won Academy Awards.
JFK’s one of those movies which is really long (the version I’ve seen is about 3 and a half hours) but manages to be really engaging to the point when I kind of wish it was longer. This movie was Oppenheimer for the 90s and it also has one of the best casts of all time, most of whom aren’t even in the movie enough to be credited in the opening. It also looks great (thanks to great Robert Richardson) and has brilliant music (again, thanks to the great John Williams.) Also, funnily enough, Joe Pesci (who played David Ferrie) eventually acted in the film “The Irishman” which featured a short cameo from Ferrie played by Louis Vanaria.
The film is so good because even though Garrison lost his case the speech he gives to the jury at the end about our right as Americans to question and take charge of our government and to seek truth and justice is what makes the movie so powerful
Of course, the real Garrison never made any closing speech and his crackpot "case" against an innocent man whose life he ruined fell apart within minutes of reaching his hand-picked jury and got him soundly condemned by the ABA for his conduct.
The real Jim Garrison implicated 2 TV networks, 3 major newspapers, the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, military, Dallas PD, Ronald Reagan, Johnny Carson, Bobby Kennedy, neo-Nazis, Cuban guerillas, White Russians, and, of course, "the homosexuals..."
@@aaronz7056 You are so amusing and pathetic because people like you must have been among those who had campaigned against Oliver Stone's "JFK" like the way certain elements of both the U.S. media and some reactionary historians have done it in more than thirty years ago! I guess they have NO respect for what people like Mr. Stone had set out to do at the time.
@@aaronz7056 So was the Warren Commission of 1964 that certain reactionary right-wing fools that were part of it, like Allen Dulles and Gerald Ford, and that the 26 volumes of the fictional report were such a waste of taxpayers money at the time as well!
A watershed moment in getting closer to the truth of the real assassination, JFK's penultimate courtroom sequence ranks among the finest things ever done in American cinema with Costner's "do not forget your dying king" moment, a heart-wrenching tour de force.
I have to say that I am a BIG FAN of Oliver Stone and some of his films that have been great aside from the ones that were NOT successful. I will look forward to purchasing the new "JFK" on Blu-ray/4K disc restoration someday.
@@aaronz7056 80 lies? Like why did you have to believe such an assumption about Oliver Stone's "JFK" anyway? Like are you some kind of believer and defender of the Warren Commission's verdict on the 1963 Kennedy assassination where Lee Harvey Oswald was the "lone assassin" and that there was "no conspiracy" as well? Besides, I really DO NOT accept what you stated and what happened with the assassination is no longer a "conspiracy theory" but a conspiracy FACT! After all, I have a DVD/Blu-ray collection of some documentaries on the JFK assassination and they had featured Oliver Stone among some individuals that he interviewed in them. So DON'T try to tell me otherwise!
Even the “formerly banned upon 2 weeks into release” film, *”EXECUTIVE ACTION,”* which released merely a decade after the event, provided the foundation for what we know today.
As a film, absolutely it holds up. This was Oliver Stone at his most deliberate and focused. He even shot his 2 prior movies (Talk Radio and about half of Born on the Fourth of July) in Dallas just to curry favors with the film community and civic leaders with the eventual goal of shooting in Dealey Plaza. The performances, the photography, the editing, etc. were all the culmination of an extremely talented filmmaker at the peak of his abilities.
Stone is deliberate all right: knowingly and falsely paints a lot of innocent people as traitors and conspirators with B.S. "evidence," to hell with them or the feelings of their families as he does so so long as he can profit off of it.
Looking back at the line up of the cast, it was incredible 30+ years ago, John Candy, Donald Sutherland, Joe Pesci, Tommy Lee Jones, Gary Oldman, Sissy Spacek, Kevin Bacon, Jack Lemmon etc, we will never see a cast like it again.
Spike Lee got inspiration from Oliver concerning the runtime for his film, *"Malcolm X."* Oliver told him he lied to the studio execs that the film will not run for 3hrs for it to get made.
I remember watching a Discovery documentary that debunked the conspiracy theories. One interesting explanation they gave was the seating arrangement and seating height of the Lincoln Continental car. According to them, the rear seats were raised in comparison to the front seats..and the front seats were positioned slightly inwards compared to the rear (so shorter in length). These seating positions therefore explained the single bullet theory of both Kennedy and Conelly being hit. I’ve never actually looked into this further..
Stone knew full well the victims were not seated bolt upright at the same height and facing forward; he thinks everyone is a gullible idiot. Victims' reactions in Zapruder's film clearly demonstrate they are hit by the same bullet, and ergo, from behind. Victims' wounds demonstrably line up on a perfect trajectory and track straight back to the sixth floor window. View of the entry wound on Connally's back would have been demonstrably blocked by Kennedy's body, the same bullet has to have gone through both of them. Bullet recovered from the stretcher is in a condition perfectly consistent with going through Kennedy without hitting bone, slowing and tumbling on leaving him, then broadsiding its way through Connally's ribs, as medical and forensic evidence clearly demonstrate: badly crushed at the nose and flattened down one side. That bullet was matched to Oswald's rifle. Hilariously, Stone never bothers explaining how the hell anybody planting a bogus bullet at the hospital within one hour of the assassination could possibly have known a bullet needed planting at all or that he wasn't simply planting one bullet too many into evidence and blowing the whole plot. Again, he has nothing but contempt for our intelligence.
I saw the documentary you’re speaking of, too. I know people love a good real life conspiracy/mystery, and if people disagree with me, I respect their right to do so, but the actual evidences for the JFK assassination conspiracy theories that have been presented are EXTREMELY flimsy. Emotions aside, it is very likely that Oswald acted alone.
@@patrickc3419 yes, the only thing that makes me doubt the single shooter theory was the History Channel series in late 80s “the men who killed Kennedy”. There appeared to be evidence of man behind the fence on the grassy hill. Also some of the wounds on the president and irregularities around the autopsy notes. Weren’t they supposed to release all the documents that was in a time lock?
That is true about the seats. The governor's seat was a jump seat. It was lower than Kennedy's seat and 6 to 8 inches inboard of where Kennedy was sitting. Also the 3 degree declination of Elm Street helped make the one bullet pass straight through both men at the angle it did, as the car was actually heading downhill itself.
@@franclin0Another thing people miss is that the 6.5 Carcano round was designed to go through a man or barrier and still be lethal. Unlike hunting ammo that expands dumping energy into the target. Personally I think Oswald acted alone, but was provided with Intel and support. His actions post shooting have tradecraft written all over. I also believe the cop killed near his home was killed by one or more of Oswald's handlers who then tipped the Dallas cops as to his location and that he had killed the officer. Or was the officer tipped to Oswald's location or sent there to kill him? Anyway, if Oswald had support, Intel and an escape plan, then the handlers are accessories. And that's conspiracy.
It's good that you are saying how you watch the film now. It would be cool to know if you watch, on dvd, bluray, digital etc. I am slowly edging towards having physical media again.
One of the greatest cinematic achievements ever in terms of virtuoso craft between all creative departments. Not necessarily one of the most historically verifiable. But it wears its highly speculative nature more honestly than most (I'm looking at you Killers of the Flower Moon).
"Not necessarily one of the most historically verifiable..." It tells more than 80 highly relevant and demonstrable lies. Few movies ever made could have legitimately have been called out for committing blatant slander.
@@aaronz7056 I don't think you've even watched the movie. It presents multiple alternatives theories from differing points of views which often conflict with one another, if you're paying attention and can comprehend sophisticated cinematic editing. Primarily it is attempting to depict Jim Garrisons line of dot connecting. But not even exclusively that. It doesn't state any single idea as definitively the truth. It states that there is reason to doubt the official explanations and pursue different angles for consideration. So you're the one that's either too myopically biased, outright dishonest, or simply lacking in mental capacity to conceive the actual premise of the movie accurately.
@@Geronimo_Jehoshaphat Yeah, whatever, the movie is packed with more than 80 demonstrable lies, don't insult my intelligence, buddy. The real Jim Garrison was a complete paranoid and a demonstrable liar himself who implicated scores upon scores of people, including Ronald Reagan, Johnny Carson, Bobby Kennedy, lawyers defending people he suspected, the telephone company, Cuban guerrillas, neo-Nazis, and, of course, "the homosexuals," so depicting him as "connecting the dots" is a bit rich.
This is one of my favorite court thrillers of all time. Of course, I take it as historical fiction, emphasis on "fiction". Granted, maybe it's easier for me to do so because I'm not American myself. But still. As a movie, it's just masterful. The script, the editing, the acting, the music... People talk about Donald Sutherland's show stealing scene, with good reason (probably the best exposition dump in film history), but the entire movie is one banger scene after another.
It's a great film, even if you don't buy the conspiracy. I don't think it's a film that pretends to have all the answers, but it certainly creates more questions, if you're open to them. And it's compelling. Oliver Stone does a great job of combining actual footage with fictional material that, again, creates more questions than answers. And that's what movies like this should do.
Should movies falsely and knowingly paint a lot of innocent people as conspirators and murderers with B.S. "evidence" and portray screwball prosecutors who ruined innocent peoples' lives with crackpot "cases" as heroes?
It's a great film, and should be watched for what it is: The story of a development of a conspiracy theory. As Jim Garrison says in the film "White is black, and black is white." A statement that leads to him arguing that somehow the FBI, CIA, and the Dallas Police were all complicit and but also concedes he doesn't doubt the mob's involvement "but at a lower level". By the end of the film it's a massive convoluted plot. Does he uncover the names of these people? No. They remain shadowy people involved in the execution, and the person he identifies is...by complete coincidence...a businessman in his own back garden. I've spent a large part of my life trying to explain that a commonly held belief in the UK is entirely a conspiracy. I have an advantage that those who want to talk about JFK don't have. I have the video footage of people saying what many people in the UK believe was never said. Not just one piece of footage, multiple pieces of footage spanning 15 years. You would think at that point, people who believed the conspiracy would concede, but they don't. They naturally look for any thread to grab hold of which allows them to continue to hold on to their conspiracy theory. Meanwhile when you look at their original evidence, is almost entirely taken out of context or just not understood. Other pieces of evidence are entirely fictitious, and the problem with human memory is people will swear to me that they remember something that simply did not happen. In my experience, the film JFK is a very good depiction of someone who took the conspiracy path.
The real Jim Garrison, of course, was a paranoid fruitcake whose crackpot "case" against an innocent man whose life he ruined hinged on a witness so unreliable even Stone doesn't include him in his narrative, fell apart within minutes of reaching his hand-picked jury, and got him soundly condemned by the American Bar Association for his crazed actions.
For some reason people have forgotten how to make movies like this. Whether you believe the premise or not it doesn’t matter. It’s a really well made movie that belies its running time. Apart from some ridiculous and overly schmaltzy scenes with Costner, overall it’s a great watch and still holds up today.
Even if the historical accuracy of the film is questionable, it was an All Star cast at the time. Gary Oldman, Joe Pesci, Tommy Lee Jones, Kevin Bacon, John Candy, Walter Matthau, Donald Sutherland, Sissy Spacek, etc. I'm not even a big movie person but I know and remember all those names.
90’s movies are my favorite decade of movies. Everything about them are amazing. JFK is a tour de force from Oliver Stone and is more relevant than ever.
I even think if you know the real story about Jim Garrison, and if you know how he tried to force things in his JFK trail, you can see the movie in a total different light too. ( that he slightly is loosing his marbles ) And yes, this is in fact a very very good movie, even if it plays with facts :)
Stone's peak after that he went downhill.Maybe Costner's peak too...Stellar cast stellar acting stellar directing and editing Tommy Lee Jones was robbed at the Oscars that year ...if it came out in the 80s or late 90s it would've won Best Picture Best Director easily 10/10
@@BishopWalters12 Alexander(2004) is underrated too it came out after several epic films like Gladiator Lord of the Rings Last Samurai Master&Commander Troy and there was an epic movie fatigue,it would have been better if 1st choice Heath Ledger played Alexander and 1st choice Sean Connery Phillip II Also the inaccurate historically homoerotic undertones doomed any box office success it was a protowoke L Probably it was the 1st Go Woke Go Broke moment in Cinema
@@BishopWalters12 The Doors that came out that same year as JFK is also underrated.Val Kilmer deserved a nom for his stellar performance as Jim Morrison
@@Constantine_IA I didn't really like The Doors or care about Jim Morrison but it's a well-made movie and Val Kilmer was one of the most gifted actors in his prime.
@@Constantine_IA I watched Alexander one time when it came out, I don't remember much about it overall but I didn't hate it or think it was as bad as some critics made it out to be.
I’d also recommend Patricia Lambert’s book False Witness. There was also a documentary made that’s also on TH-cam. Jim Garrison was anything but the hero Stone portrayed him.
That is a great movie. The 3 hour run time just flies by. the suspense throughout film as they go further into investigating the mysteries is off the charts. the MVP would have to be Donald Sutherland as Mr X, that an amazing scene at the national mall.
@@robertpolanco1973 You know, you can't just summarily dismiss a long list of demonstrable evidence with a sneering wisecrack without addressing one word of it like that settles the matter. lol
Pick up a copy of JFK: The Annotated Screenplay. it contains the full shooting script and highly detailed notes and references indicating where Stone found the information he used in the script and also admits to mistakes he made or changes for the narrative. He did not just pull things out of thin air, but put a lot of effort into this.
He tells more than 80 demonstrable lies and had the nerve to insist we should be "applauding" that fruitcake Jim Garrison for ruining an innocent man's life with a crackpot case (which Stone didn't even dare portray accurately) that fell apart within minutes of reaching his hand-picked jury. To this day he still parrots the "back and to the left" idiocy so the idea he "admits he made mistakes" is a bit rich.
There was no conspiracy and don't think the filmmakers were not perfectly aware of that, but they didn't have the balls to walk the walk and base their narrative on the actual evidence.
@@aaronz7056 LOL! Like you are still among others who believe in the verdict of the laughable Warren Commission of 1964 and that Lee Harvey Oswald was the "lone assassin" at all! After all, NOT EVERYONE would agree with people like you on this ongoing issue anyway!
Of course, the REAL David Ferrie was not rubbed out. He died of Berry aneurysm after failing health, always hotly denied any knowledge of the assassination, and was preparing to sue Garrison for harassment.
Love the love for this film. It is one of Oliver Stone's masterpieces. This was my favourite film of 91', and that was a great year for movies. Pietro Scalia and Joe Hutshing both won deserved Oscars for Editing, and Robert Richardson won his first Oscar for cinematography. Their work along side the rest of the departments under Oliver Stones direction is marvelous. And side note, this is one of John Williams best scores outside of his most notable works
Thank you. I didn't realize this was out and that I needed it this much! I love this movie and the last time I saw it was when it was 2 VHS tapes in cases taped together if you know what I mean.
*Salvador, Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July, Wall Street, JFK, Snowden, et al. I'd forgotten about Stone's **_incredible_** body of work. (Where's HIS AFI lifetime award, Hollywood?!)* 🤷♂
JFK remains Oliver Stone's finest film. It's a technically accomplished piece of bravura filmmaking and it takes a real and quite frankly doomed investigation waged by New Orleans DA Jim Garrison and makes it the dramatic and narrative thrust of the film. Actually JFK is not "talky" per see. It's a highly stylized and visually fast paced movie that admittedly throws a lot of information at its audience . Also the film was financially successful. It wasnt touted as a box office megalith but It certainly made back it's $40 million dollar investment back both domestically and primarily in overseas markets . it was a hit. This financial success is important to note because what isn't noted in the video was the considerable attack campaign -including theft of a script and hit pieces -waged against this movie by sectors of the major media and press at the time. So it wasn't simply that JFK was a controversial film, it was considered contemptible by certain sectors of the country.
Movie is packed with more than 80 highly relevant lies and Jim Garrison was an equally demonstrable lunatic who bears no particular resemblance to the goody-two-shoes crusader portrayed in the film.
For pure filmmaking purposes, it’s an important film.. Great film, even.. The problem is and always has been it’s an amalgamation of nonsensical conspiracy theories, most of which contradict each other.. The cop killer did it.. And Stone wouldn’t even talk about that?.. Which was odd..
Trivia; Oliver Stone calls JFK “a counter myth,” which this video also quotes (I wrote this before I heard it here). For the channel: how did u not mention Nixon (1995) when recounting his post JFK films?
That was one of Stone's most arrogant moves, coming up with that "counter myth" slogan since all credible evidence points at Oswald while he himself was pulling dozens and dozens of demonstrable lies out of thin air.
@@aaronz7056 Oh, really? Well, I read your alternative facts elsewhere in the comments section of TH-cam here and I DO NOT find them to be credible at all!
One of the best movies ever....very important to show aspects of what really happened that fateful day in Dallas. Like for example, Oswald being seen in the book depository canteen by witnesses at the time of the shots being fired...
Only person to place Oswald in the canteen at that time was Oswald and the people he claimed he was with flatly denied ever seeing him. Stone tells more than 80 demonstrable lies in this film, lets Kennedy's murderer off the hook, turns a crackpot, lunatic prosecutor who ruined an innocent man's life into a hero with his fictional portrayal of him, and falsely and knowingly paints a lot of innocent people as conspirators, murderers and traitors with B.S. "evidence."
Excellent, very good film and the soundtrack was amazing ..scary and literally after many years still watching this film . I don’t know how to describe it except the fact it’s scary in a good way that scene when the generals are talking in black and white with the smoke with the sounds of their drinks was very creepy that’s why it’s a good film & the production 👍
@@aaronz7056 we keep hearing about all these MORE THAN 80 intentional lies but we never get to see them . firstly you are claiming stone intentionally lied , prove it . secondly provide examples of these supposed intentional lies along with your PROOF that they are intentional lies .surely as you claim to have 80 im sure you can post a few for us .
I listed dozens of them elsewhere under this video, can you not see them? Then again, you've spewed countless uncorroborated accusations against innocent people so long as it suits you... To reiterate just a few: Stone: Oswald a lousy shot. Truth: Oswald scored 18 out of 20 in rapid fire at targets 200 yards away as per his Marines scorebook. Stone: Mayor Cabell changes parade route to assist assassins. Truth: Parade route was never changed, accurately described in the newspapers from the beginning. Stone: Conspirator has fake seizure in plaza, disappears. Truth: Jerry Belknap went to Parkland Hospital after recovering from real seizure. Stone: 2 actors seated bolt upright, facing forward, demolish "gross lie" of single bullet theory. Truth: Connally was seated lower, inboard and turned sharply to his right, strengthening single bullet theory. Stone: 3 shots over 5.6 seconds. Truth: Victims' reactions in Zapruder's film clearly demonstrate 3 shots over 8-9 seconds. Stone: Limo full of bullet holes. Truth: Only damage is a crack in the windshield caused by a bullet fragment from the inside. Stone: Jean Hill sees knoll shooter, is immediately seized, sequestered and menaced by sinister agents. Truth: Hill was making no such claims in the 1960's, nor does she mention one word about any of it when interviewed on live TV the day of the shooting. Stone: 3 fake tramps fake arrested, disappear. Truth: Harold Doyle, John Gedney and Gus Abrams were ID'd that same day, cleared and released with no evidence against them, their arrest records existing to this day, and Doyle was interviewed on camera more than once. Stone: Depository employees never see Oswald coming downstairs, thus clearing him. Truth: Those employees, who couldn't even agree on their own timing, came downstairs after he did and hilariously Stone never explains how the "real assassins" escaped downstairs because nobody ever saw them either. Stone: EVERYTHING pertaining to Beverly Oliver character. Truth: Oliver has been notorious for decades as a lying grifter who could not have been the Babushka Lady. Stone: Bogus bullet planted at Parkland Hospital (by Jack Ruby, no less). Truth: That bullet was matched to Oswald's rifle and hilariously Stone never explains how anybody planting a bullet within one hour of the shooting could possibly have known a bullet needed planting at all or that he wasn't simply planting one bullet too many into evidence and blowing the whole plot. Stone: Lee Bowers murdered. Truth: Bowers' words make it clear enough he saw nothing that would threaten any conspiracy, he didn't die until some two years after he had already testified, and his car accident was investigated by the police, HSCA and researcher David Perry, none of whom found any evidence of foul play. Stone: Officer Tippit shot by two shooters. Truth: Clemons' words make it clear enough she saw at best a shooter and bystander who was almost certainly Cimino or Benavides, and Stone oddly doesn't tell us that in fact other witnesses much closer to Tippit than Clemons firmly said there was but one shooter and that Oswald was ID'd by nearly a dozen witnesses. Stone: Police arrive at Texas Theater to arrest a man for not paying admission. Truth: The man was a good match for the suspect just seen murdering a police officer nearby. Stone: Mean cops rough up Oswald as he defends himself in theater. Truth: Oswald drew his gun and tried to shoot the first officer to approach, fighting so violently 3 officers were injured just disarming him, and he observed, "Well, they say it only takes a minute to die" after asking about the penalty for cop-killing. Those officers risked their lives to capture their suspect alive as per their duty but Stone couldn't care less who he gives his middle finger to. Stone: Clay Shaw admits to alias Clay Bertrand during booking. Truth: Flatly contradicted by other witnesses and story is implausible anyway. Stone: Justice Department "does nothing" in regards to HSCA's conclusions of "probable conspiracy." Truth: HSCA was all set to conclude Oswald acted alone until those acoustics experts came forward at the last minute with their dictabelt recording... which the J.D. investigated and found to be erroneous and invalid as evidence, completely debunking it more than 40 years ago. Stone: Guilt-ridden David Ferrie starts cooperating with Jim Garrison, is murdered. Truth: Ferrie died of Berry aneurysm after failing health, always hotly denied any knowledge of the assassination, and was preparing to sue Garrison for harassment. Who killed him? Garrison? Stone: Garrison advised by mysterious Mr. X. Truth: Mr. X never existed, he was based on notorious lunatic Fletcher Prouty, the man who lectured Roosevelt was poisoned at behest of Churchill and that flying saucers are real. Stone: 112th Military Intelligence Group ordered to "stand down." Truth: Flatly contradicted by sworn HSCA testimony of C.O. of Group, which provided extra men to assist Secret Service in Dallas. Stone: Garrison unmasks Shaw as a conspirator. Truth: Garrison's "case" against an innocent man whose life he ruined hinged on a witness so unreliable he barely figures in the movie, it all fell apart within minutes of reaching his hand-picked jury, and Garrison was soundly condemned by the American Bar Association. Stone: Garrison uncovers conspiracy at highest levels of government. Truth: Garrison in fact implicated the FBI, CIA, Dallas PD, Secret Service, lawyers defending people he suspected, NBC, CBS, Washington Post, L.A. Times, Newsweek, Governor Rhodes of Ohio, Governor Tiemann of Nebraska, Ronald Reagan, Bobby Kennedy, Johnny Carson, a Marine buddy of Oswald's Garrison decided was an Oswald "lookalike," the John Birch Society, the entire Warren Commission staff, the 13 State Regional Democratic Organization, a man who'd made inflammatory comments about Kennedy and had been in El Paso during the assassination, neo-Nazis, Cuban guerrillas, White Russians, President Johnson, Chief Justice Warren, the oil and aerospace industries, NASA, the telephone company ("an extension of the U.S. government"), and, of course, gays and masochists pulling off a "homosexual thrill killing..."
@@aaronz7056 i guess you did not understand a very simple question . i will ask again . "we keep hearing about all these MORE THAN 80 intentional lies but we never get to see them . firstly you are claiming stone intentionally lied , prove it . secondly provide examples of these supposed intentional lies along with your PROOF that they are intentional lies .surely as you claim to have 80 im sure you can post a few for us ." fobrien1 there are many jfk assassination movies , both for conspiracy or anti conspiracy . all of them have problems , including the more recent movie parkland which has zapruder on the pedestal alone . which attempts to make oswalds mother look a loon at the police station where they have her character utter the words MY SON , LEE HARVEY OSWALD , HAS DONE MORE FOR HIS COUNTRY , THAN ANY OTHER MAN . the line in question was not used as the movie depicts , it was not even used by oswalds mother at the police station , and the movie INTENTIONALLY omitted some very important words from that line . they had to because they could not make that scene trying to make her look like a loon otherwise . this was INTENTIONAL deception . she in fact uttered the line after oswalds death while stood crying over her dead sons grave , and this can be seen on youtube . and what she said was MY SON , LEE HARVEY OSWALD , EVEN AFTER HIS DEATH , HAS DONE MORE FOR HIS COUNTRY THAN ANY OTHER LIVING MAN . the important words there being EVEN AFTER HIS DEATH LIVING what else did they intentionally deceive us about ? . oh yes . they state that the hosty note (which he destroyed ) said in it that oswald threatened to blow up the fbi building . and they do so by using the say so of a secretary at that office who claimed they read the note , and who gave multiple different versions of what that note supposedly said . when asked about her hosty made clear she was not reliable and asked in essence WHICH VERSION OF HER LIES DO YOU WANT ? . he maintained to his death and again at the time mentioned just above that the note simply said that he was not to speak to marina without oswald being there as she was not a US citizen . yet that movie has oswald threatening to blow up the fbi building .this is the nonsense we have to put up with , but of course also movies dramatize , they invent stories and characters and scenes even in true stories because often truth is not as interesting as they would like . the difference between that movie and JFK ? .well its worlds apart . you see even in 1991 when the movie jfk was released stone was recorded on film (its out there for anyone who wants to view it ) telling the media his movie was dramatized , mixing fact and dramatization . that it was HIS COUNTER MYTH to what he saw / sees as earl warrens warren commission myth . meaning simply that if earl warren can invent a version of events so can he . so Aaron here cant possibly argue that stone lied , its a pointless exercise and he will always fail . he can argue that scenes in the movie are not accurate , or not true , but then that would be just stating the obvious lol . and stating what stone essentially admitted as far back as 1991 as the movie was released .but as often as Aaron is reminded of the above facts he choose to ignore them . "Then again, you've spewed countless uncorroborated accusations against innocent people so long as it suits you" Aaron i invite you whole heartedly to provide quotes by me (verifiable quotes , meaning you provide links to those quotes ) in which you claim i falsely accused innocent people , i shall be waiting . quite a few have tried falsely accusing me . give it your best shot . "you've spewed countless uncorroborated accusations against innocent people so long as it suits you... To reiterate just a few:" Aaron by the way you accused me of making false accusations against innocent people , then proceeded to post a very long list of claims etc .all of which you clearly have and highlight stone making the claims . so clearly if stone made the claims you list I DID NOT .
Hollywood...that's a pretty low bar to set, but even at that, I could name many, many movies that I consider to be more important than this trainwreck.
you get an extra 15 minutes of the movie that was originally unseen . on youtube there is about a 45 minute video showing more unseen footage that was cut out . he had i believe over 5 hours of footage . it was not possible to fit all that he wanted into the movie . i think she should put it all together on two dvds in a special boxset so the movie can truly be sen as he wanted it to be seen . there is a scene in the directors cut for example after garrison had appeared on the carson show , he was at the airport returning home . he goes to the bathroom , while there reads a magazine for a few minutes . he then notices something is not right . he fears he is being set up as a gay in a toilet looking for sex . he tries to quickly leave and finds he may just be right . then he meets bill broussard at the airport . bill was a character based in main on an unsavoury character called pershing gervais that worked for garrison and who later admitted setting garrison up . would i say the 15 minutes later added is significant to the movie / story and the over all understanding of the jfk assassination ? perhaps no . would cast a bit more light on the treatment of garrison and his family ? and the attacks on him and his case ? yes .
It’s funny, considering how play-it-safe studios are now, that for about a 3-year stretch at Warner Brothers, you had big budgets, all-star casts, and full creative freedom given to Oliver Stone to make JFK and Spike Lee to make a 3 and a half hour movie about Malcolm X.
The 1990's was the last great decade for mainstream American movies.
@@BishopWalters12 MY MAN, i'm glad i'm not the only one. I'd argue it spilled over to early 2000s, but it's was clear by then it was a dying art and simply no more room for quality control.
This movie still holds up. The Donald Sutherland 20 minute exposition scene is still beautifully written
Masterful
"Call me X"
and Sutherland's acting in that scene is just great.
If you have not seen the deleted scenes, it was originally two scenes The second one at the end after Garrison lost the trial. Stone was right to put it all in the middle but watching the original plan is interesting.
except none of its is even remotely true. total falsehoods. Lee Harvey got lucky and in many ways so did kennedy.
When my wife and i saw it in the theater in 1991. It was so great that those 3 hours went fast.
This movie is one of my favorites of all time. The court scene is absolutely incredible.
Watched it on 4K AFTER SO LONG. JUST BRILLIANT.
Pity it's full of demonstrable lies and sits there taking dumps on an innocent man whose life was ruined by a crackpot "case" that fell apart within minutes of reaching the jury.
Jo Blo mentions an episode of the dismally rated sci-fi Quantum Leap TV series in the same vid as JFK! Let's be kind and state the obvious, our host is not the most reliable narrator.
This movie also made me question our government 🤔
@@charlesderosas5577 Movie insults the audiences' intelligence with a narrative knowingly packed with nearly 100 demonstrable and highly relevant lies.
John Candy and Donald Sutherland really stood out in this film.
John Candy was on screen for a matter of seconds yet its so memorable. He was such a good actor but not given enough credit in my view.
When this movie came out the assassination had happened less than 30 years earlier. Now it’s been more than 30 years since the film.
I know! Amazing how time flies. The equivalent time would be for Oliver to do a 9/11 government cover-up film
@@troyundroy1 except the conspiracies for 9/11 and the Moon landing are so obviously garbage
the "conspiracy" behind the JFK assassination is believable
Oswald did not kill Kennedy alone, i mean how the hell could he die right after the shooting? easy cover up, silencing the patsy Oswald
this movie, based on Jim Garrison's book, proved that the Warren commission was 100% BULL
Speaking of Kevin Costner, an under appreciated film he’s in, also set around the Kennedy era, more people should see is Thirteen Days. It’s historically inaccurate, but still a good movie
It was a good movie, save Costner's attempt at a Bostonian accent. 😂
Bruce Greenwood was solid as Kennedy. I always hoped he would have done more work.
@@Clonetrooper1139 Greenwood has played presidents (not historical ones but generally) quite a few times. Seems he is made for that role.
It's far closer to reality than JFK is, don't get me wrong as a movie fan I really like JFK, it's well written, well acted and directed and everything else you need to have a great movie like the cinematography, editing, sound, all of it, but when it comes time historical accuracy it just completely goes off the rails, it's actually fiction and not anywhere close to the true events that actually happened, like the scene with Donald Sutherland's character, it never happened, and there wasn't a newspaper that printed a story about JFK's assassination before it actually happened because of confusion over the GMT dateline, that doesn't make any sense anyway, for it to be true the assassination story would have had to be planted before he was actually killed no matter where your at and what the date is, the "magic bullet" wasn't magic and it didn't make 90° turns in the air, the seating positions are all incorrect in the movie and had someone presented them like that in a courtroom the attorneys on the other side would have made a meal out of it, that's all made up conspiracy malarkey, the fact is if you put Kennedy and Connolly in their correct positions the bullet holes do indeed line up.
Stone did quite a bit more than play fast and loose with the facts when he made JFK, he just down right fabricated thing's that never even happened to create his conspiracy plot.
But as I said as far as movie's go it's an excellent movie, but it certainly isn't a history lesson because it's more fiction than fact, far more.
@@dukecraig2402 - THANK YOU. the way that Oliver Stone heroicized Jim Garrison's persecution of Clay Shaw made me ill.
@@Clonetrooper1139
You mean not as convincing as his Robin Hood accent? 😁
I need to mention that the scene in JFK where the trajectory of the bullet has Wayne Knight as the dude sitting down......was lampooned in Seinfeld.....with Wayne Knight also. Briliiant.
That’s right! In JFK, “Numa”. In Seinfeld, “Newman”.
😁
"There was a second spitter"
The magic loogie
It was MCDOWELL!!!!!!
Kevin Costner at the end of the movie breaks the 4th wall and says "its up to you"
Which is particularly funny since he just appeared in a movie where his character tells dozens of demonstrable lies.
@@aaronz7056 LOL! As IF you think that Jim Garrison was a "fictional character," played by Kevin Costner, when in fact it was based on both Garrison and his book, "On The Trail of the Assassins," one of two books that were the basis of Oliver Stone's film. The other was "Crossfire" by Jim Marrs.
@@robertpolanco1973 I didn't say one word about Garrison being a fictional character. The VERSION portrayed was hugely fictional. As for your books...
Garrison lies about the parade route being changed, about the tramps not being ID'd and cleared, about Oswald being in the Depository doorway, etc.
Jim Marrs' record:
- spent years giving his middle finger and one great big "F-word You" to the family of a decorated police officer who lost his life in the cause of his duty as he accused the man without evidence of being a conspirator so long as it suited his despicable and crackpot "theories..."
- made up a bogus "mysterious deaths list of witnesses" where everybody on it either had little or no connection to the case or else he misreported their causes of death to sound more "sinister..."
- gave us the "multiple Oswald clones running around Dallas" idiocy
- proved flying saucers are real...
The CIA was behind the murder of JFK. Tucker Carlson confirmed it and not ONE reputable Journalist or organization argued with his assessment.
@@aaronz7056 Well, I find your assessment to be very pathetic and negative as ever! It is such a pity that people like you have alternative facts as "truth" when it came the 1963 Kennedy assassination indeed!
I watched the first half of this recently. Way ahead of its time in terms of structure. And the cast he gets just for tiny roles?! Amazing.
Love this movie. Saw it in the theaters when it first came out
Oliver Stone has always said he wasn't making a documentary he was making a film to make people think and question what they are told.
He was making a movie he deliberately packed with nearly a hundred demonstrable lies and obscenely depicted a lot of innocent people as conspirators, and he demanded we should "applaud" Jim Garrison for ruining an innocent man's life with a crackpot "case" that fell apart within minutes of reaching his hand-picked jury.
They dont make them like that anymore this is so true for this movie , one of greatest
JFK is the best edited movie of all time
I 100% agree.
And, other than _V for Vendetta_ , is the most powerful movie of all time.
Very Best Regards,
Tom Scott
Author ● Speaker ● World's Leading Expert on the Corrupt U.S. Legal System
_Our American Injustice System_
_Stack the Legal Odds in Your Favor_
@@tomscott3 It's glorified junk historically.
It absolutely still holds up and I think always will. It's a superb piece of technical filmmaking. The editing in the movie is some of the best ever. And it's run time flys by. It is not completely historically accurate, but that doesn't diminish the quality of the direction, writing and acting. It's a wonderful film and always will be.
"Not completely historically accurate..." It lets Kennedy's murderer off the hook, falsely paints a lot of innocent people as traitors and murderers with B.S. "evidence," turns that lunatic Jim Garrison into a hero, and tells more than 80 (!) demonstrable and relevant lies over its narrative.
Lol
Totally inaccurate fits better
@@bill-fk7tl "It's a superb piece of technical filmmaking..." So was Triumph of the Will...
JFK was a great movie. it wasnt about JFK it was about all these characters possibly involved in his murder. I watched the directors cut, all 3.5 hrs of it and it flew by. Not boring. Fascinating character study. Amazing cast- costner, tommy lee jones, john candy, kevin bacon, donald sutherland, sissy spacek, jack lemmon. phenomenal editing- rarely does that aspect of a movie really shine through but it absolutely made this movie. the way the current events were intertwined with flashbacks, the way scenes were shot on different film stock, just a great absorbing movie that shined some light on 1 of america's greatest myths/conspiracy/unsolved mysteries. great work oliver stone!
Movie is packed with more than 80 demonstrable and relevant lies.
"Movie is packed with more than 80 demonstrable and relevant lies. "@@aaronz7056
Stone tells more than 80 demonstrable lies in this movie.
we keep hearing about all these MORE THAN 80 intentional lies but we never get to see them . firstly you are claiming stone intentionally lied , prove it . secondly provide examples of these supposed intentional lies along with your PROOF that they are intentional lies .surely as you claim to have 80 im sure you can post a few for us .
The movie wasn’t made to be completely factual, Stone’s intention was to put all the theories as well as facts out there so that people would ask Questions and never forget what happened on that day in Dallas that changed the course of American history forever.
Stone's intention was to let Kennedy's murderer off the hook and falsely and knowingly implicate a lot of innocent people as conspirators in murder and treason so long as he could profit by it.
Perhaps this is not what the channel is about, but a mention of the magnificent cinematography (its lighting especially) and editing would have been warranted. Both these disciplines won Academy Awards.
I own it and rewatched it last month and yes it's still great.
On a side note. I absolutely LOVE Platoon. It is in my top 5 movies of all time.
FYI this 4K release does NOT include the theatrical in 4K. Only the Director’s Cut is presented in 4K. Theatrical is blu-ray only.
"Back, and to the left." Definitely an amazing cinematic accomplishment.
Yep - shooters behind the grassy knoll - LHO didn’t shoot anything.
JFK’s one of those movies which is really long (the version I’ve seen is about 3 and a half hours) but manages to be really engaging to the point when I kind of wish it was longer.
This movie was Oppenheimer for the 90s and it also has one of the best casts of all time, most of whom aren’t even in the movie enough to be credited in the opening.
It also looks great (thanks to great Robert Richardson) and has brilliant music (again, thanks to the great John Williams.)
Also, funnily enough, Joe Pesci (who played David Ferrie) eventually acted in the film “The Irishman” which featured a short cameo from Ferrie played by Louis Vanaria.
Except that OPPENHEIMER was an establishment version of its story; JFK decidedly wasn't.
@@chipmunkvernoy!!!!!!
Don't forget the 1-derful John Williams score, adding an eerie 60s atmosphere !!!
The film is so good because even though Garrison lost his case the speech he gives to the jury at the end about our right as Americans to question and take charge of our government and to seek truth and justice is what makes the movie so powerful
Of course, the real Garrison never made any closing speech and his crackpot "case" against an innocent man whose life he ruined fell apart within minutes of reaching his hand-picked jury and got him soundly condemned by the ABA for his conduct.
The speech didn't happen in the real court, only in the movie.
The real Jim Garrison implicated 2 TV networks, 3 major newspapers, the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, military, Dallas PD, Ronald Reagan, Johnny Carson, Bobby Kennedy, neo-Nazis, Cuban guerillas, White Russians, and, of course, "the homosexuals..."
This film is essential viewing.
A slanderous movie packed with more than 80 demonstrable "essential viewing?"
@@aaronz7056 You are so amusing and pathetic because people like you must have been among those who had campaigned against Oliver Stone's "JFK" like the way certain elements of both the U.S. media and some reactionary historians have done it in more than thirty years ago! I guess they have NO respect for what people like Mr. Stone had set out to do at the time.
"That . . . is one magic loogie."
“I’m hit!”
When you're parodied on Seinfeld, you've made it.
I got this on Blu Ray for Christmas and the Digital restoration is amazing!
This film terrified me so much as a 16 year old that I daren’t revisit it.
Don't sweat it, it's complete fiction.
@@aaronz7056 So was the Warren Commission of 1964 that certain reactionary right-wing fools that were part of it, like Allen Dulles and Gerald Ford, and that the 26 volumes of the fictional report were such a waste of taxpayers money at the time as well!
One of the greatest political thrillers ever made!
A watershed moment in getting closer to the truth of the real assassination, JFK's penultimate courtroom sequence ranks among the finest things ever done in American cinema with Costner's "do not forget your dying king" moment, a heart-wrenching tour de force.
Movie tells more than 80 demonstrable lies, it is a work of complete fiction.
Incredible movie - so complicated and so well edited.
The movie is fun. However the logical leaps it takes to tie everything together would make even the Ancient Aliens guy lose his mind.
A quip, smug and foolish.
Yeah .I'm amazed that Hancock hasn't jumped on the bandwagon ..?!?
I have to say that I am a BIG FAN of Oliver Stone and some of his films that have been great aside from the ones that were NOT successful. I will look forward to purchasing the new "JFK" on Blu-ray/4K disc restoration someday.
Just be aware Stone tells more than 80 demonstrable lies in it.
@@aaronz7056 80 lies? Like why did you have to believe such an assumption about Oliver Stone's "JFK" anyway? Like are you some kind of believer and defender of the Warren Commission's verdict on the 1963 Kennedy assassination where Lee Harvey Oswald was the "lone assassin" and that there was "no conspiracy" as well? Besides, I really DO NOT accept what you stated and what happened with the assassination is no longer a "conspiracy theory" but a conspiracy FACT! After all, I have a DVD/Blu-ray collection of some documentaries on the JFK assassination and they had featured Oliver Stone among some individuals that he interviewed in them. So DON'T try to tell me otherwise!
Even the “formerly banned upon 2 weeks into release” film, *”EXECUTIVE ACTION,”* which released merely a decade after the event, provided the foundation for what we know today.
This is my favorite Oliver Stone film. That says a lot considering "Platoon" and "Natural Born Killers" which I also love.
As a film, absolutely it holds up. This was Oliver Stone at his most deliberate and focused. He even shot his 2 prior movies (Talk Radio and about half of Born on the Fourth of July) in Dallas just to curry favors with the film community and civic leaders with the eventual goal of shooting in Dealey Plaza. The performances, the photography, the editing, etc. were all the culmination of an extremely talented filmmaker at the peak of his abilities.
Stone is deliberate all right: knowingly and falsely paints a lot of innocent people as traitors and conspirators with B.S. "evidence," to hell with them or the feelings of their families as he does so so long as he can profit off of it.
I'm glad it's out. We need more movies like this. Please make more.
We need more lie-packed movies that knowingly paint lots of innocent people as conspirators and traitors with B.S. "evidence?"
Only this time make them accurate and true.
We need more movies that falsely paint a lot of innocent people as conspirators in narratives packed with demonstrable lies?
Looking back at the line up of the cast, it was incredible 30+ years ago, John Candy, Donald Sutherland, Joe Pesci, Tommy Lee Jones, Gary Oldman, Sissy Spacek, Kevin Bacon, Jack Lemmon etc, we will never see a cast like it again.
Shameful seeing so many respected actors participating in a movie that implicates a lot of innocent people as conspirators in murder and treason.
Spike Lee got inspiration from Oliver concerning the runtime for his film, *"Malcolm X."* Oliver told him he lied to the studio execs that the film will not run for 3hrs for it to get made.
This is one of my favorite movies of all time.
The movie Alexander (by Stone): stars on the cover of Entertainment magazine at the time; Jolie, Farrel, Kilmer... JFK.
Any Given Sunday is underrated to me.
Yes this movie holds up. Even more when the government decided to keep the casefiles closed for another 50 years to the public in 2013.
I have the ultimate Oliver Stone collection on DVD & his memoir
Chasing the light
My favorite Oliver Stone film is the doors
That thumbnail was the scene where Costner tells John Candy “Ima put your fat behind in jail” 😂
I remember watching a Discovery documentary that debunked the conspiracy theories. One interesting explanation they gave was the seating arrangement and seating height of the Lincoln Continental car. According to them, the rear seats were raised in comparison to the front seats..and the front seats were positioned slightly inwards compared to the rear (so shorter in length). These seating positions therefore explained the single bullet theory of both Kennedy and Conelly being hit. I’ve never actually looked into this further..
Stone knew full well the victims were not seated bolt upright at the same height and facing forward; he thinks everyone is a gullible idiot.
Victims' reactions in Zapruder's film clearly demonstrate they are hit by the same bullet, and ergo, from behind.
Victims' wounds demonstrably line up on a perfect trajectory and track straight back to the sixth floor window.
View of the entry wound on Connally's back would have been demonstrably blocked by Kennedy's body, the same bullet has to have gone through both of them.
Bullet recovered from the stretcher is in a condition perfectly consistent with going through Kennedy without hitting bone, slowing and tumbling on leaving him, then broadsiding its way through Connally's ribs, as medical and forensic evidence clearly demonstrate: badly crushed at the nose and flattened down one side.
That bullet was matched to Oswald's rifle.
Hilariously, Stone never bothers explaining how the hell anybody planting a bogus bullet at the hospital within one hour of the assassination could possibly have known a bullet needed planting at all or that he wasn't simply planting one bullet too many into evidence and blowing the whole plot. Again, he has nothing but contempt for our intelligence.
I saw the documentary you’re speaking of, too.
I know people love a good real life conspiracy/mystery, and if people disagree with me, I respect their right to do so, but the actual evidences for the JFK assassination conspiracy theories that have been presented are EXTREMELY flimsy. Emotions aside, it is very likely that Oswald acted alone.
@@patrickc3419 yes, the only thing that makes me doubt the single shooter theory was the History Channel series in late 80s “the men who killed Kennedy”. There appeared to be evidence of man behind the fence on the grassy hill. Also some of the wounds on the president and irregularities around the autopsy notes. Weren’t they supposed to release all the documents that was in a time lock?
That is true about the seats. The governor's seat was a jump seat. It was lower than Kennedy's seat and 6 to 8 inches inboard of where Kennedy was sitting. Also the 3 degree declination of Elm Street helped make the one bullet pass straight through both men at the angle it did, as the car was actually heading downhill itself.
@@franclin0Another thing people miss is that the 6.5 Carcano round was designed to go through a man or barrier and still be lethal. Unlike hunting ammo that expands dumping energy into the target. Personally I think Oswald acted alone, but was provided with Intel and support. His actions post shooting have tradecraft written all over. I also believe the cop killed near his home was killed by one or more of Oswald's handlers who then tipped the Dallas cops as to his location and that he had killed the officer. Or was the officer tipped to Oswald's location or sent there to kill him? Anyway, if Oswald had support, Intel and an escape plan, then the handlers are accessories. And that's conspiracy.
It's good that you are saying how you watch the film now. It would be cool to know if you watch, on dvd, bluray, digital etc. I am slowly edging towards having physical media again.
It was just a cameo, but was this John Candy’s sole dramatic film role?
One of the greatest cinematic achievements ever in terms of virtuoso craft between all creative departments. Not necessarily one of the most historically verifiable. But it wears its highly speculative nature more honestly than most (I'm looking at you Killers of the Flower Moon).
"Not necessarily one of the most historically verifiable..." It tells more than 80 highly relevant and demonstrable lies. Few movies ever made could have legitimately have been called out for committing blatant slander.
@@aaronz7056
Says who? Liars?
@@Geronimo_Jehoshaphat I just listed a mountain of Stone's demonstrable lies elsewhere under this video.
@@aaronz7056
I don't think you've even watched the movie. It presents multiple alternatives theories from differing points of views which often conflict with one another, if you're paying attention and can comprehend sophisticated cinematic editing. Primarily it is attempting to depict Jim Garrisons line of dot connecting. But not even exclusively that. It doesn't state any single idea as definitively the truth. It states that there is reason to doubt the official explanations and pursue different angles for consideration.
So you're the one that's either too myopically biased, outright dishonest, or simply lacking in mental capacity to conceive the actual premise of the movie accurately.
@@Geronimo_Jehoshaphat Yeah, whatever, the movie is packed with more than 80 demonstrable lies, don't insult my intelligence, buddy. The real Jim Garrison was a complete paranoid and a demonstrable liar himself who implicated scores upon scores of people, including Ronald Reagan, Johnny Carson, Bobby Kennedy, lawyers defending people he suspected, the telephone company, Cuban guerrillas, neo-Nazis, and, of course, "the homosexuals," so depicting him as "connecting the dots" is a bit rich.
Donald Sutherland was robbed of a Oscar nod.
Haven't watched the video but the movie holds up. One of my favorite movies.
When a movie is 3 hours and 20 minutes long but feels like 2 ,youknow it's a great film. better than platoon in my opinion.
This is one of my favorite court thrillers of all time. Of course, I take it as historical fiction, emphasis on "fiction". Granted, maybe it's easier for me to do so because I'm not American myself. But still.
As a movie, it's just masterful. The script, the editing, the acting, the music... People talk about Donald Sutherland's show stealing scene, with good reason (probably the best exposition dump in film history), but the entire movie is one banger scene after another.
It's a great film, even if you don't buy the conspiracy. I don't think it's a film that pretends to have all the answers, but it certainly creates more questions, if you're open to them. And it's compelling. Oliver Stone does a great job of combining actual footage with fictional material that, again, creates more questions than answers. And that's what movies like this should do.
Should movies falsely and knowingly paint a lot of innocent people as conspirators and murderers with B.S. "evidence" and portray screwball prosecutors who ruined innocent peoples' lives with crackpot "cases" as heroes?
It's a great film, and should be watched for what it is: The story of a development of a conspiracy theory. As Jim Garrison says in the film "White is black, and black is white." A statement that leads to him arguing that somehow the FBI, CIA, and the Dallas Police were all complicit and but also concedes he doesn't doubt the mob's involvement "but at a lower level". By the end of the film it's a massive convoluted plot. Does he uncover the names of these people? No. They remain shadowy people involved in the execution, and the person he identifies is...by complete coincidence...a businessman in his own back garden.
I've spent a large part of my life trying to explain that a commonly held belief in the UK is entirely a conspiracy. I have an advantage that those who want to talk about JFK don't have. I have the video footage of people saying what many people in the UK believe was never said. Not just one piece of footage, multiple pieces of footage spanning 15 years. You would think at that point, people who believed the conspiracy would concede, but they don't. They naturally look for any thread to grab hold of which allows them to continue to hold on to their conspiracy theory.
Meanwhile when you look at their original evidence, is almost entirely taken out of context or just not understood. Other pieces of evidence are entirely fictitious, and the problem with human memory is people will swear to me that they remember something that simply did not happen.
In my experience, the film JFK is a very good depiction of someone who took the conspiracy path.
The real Jim Garrison, of course, was a paranoid fruitcake whose crackpot "case" against an innocent man whose life he ruined hinged on a witness so unreliable even Stone doesn't include him in his narrative, fell apart within minutes of reaching his hand-picked jury, and got him soundly condemned by the American Bar Association for his crazed actions.
For some reason people have forgotten how to make movies like this. Whether you believe the premise or not it doesn’t matter. It’s a really well made movie that belies its running time. Apart from some ridiculous and overly schmaltzy scenes with Costner, overall it’s a great watch and still holds up today.
There're some great directors and I think the talent is still out there but we can't see it if the studios won't back it.
When Costner summed up at the end...i was floored. It holds up pretty good. A great slow burn
Shame the real Jim Garrison never made that speech...
As a kid, this was the first serious drama movie I ever really got into and it was enthralling.
Even if the historical accuracy of the film is questionable, it was an All Star cast at the time. Gary Oldman, Joe Pesci, Tommy Lee Jones, Kevin Bacon, John Candy, Walter Matthau, Donald Sutherland, Sissy Spacek, etc. I'm not even a big movie person but I know and remember all those names.
People thought Oliver stone was nuts when this movie came out. Now after all these years 95% of the movie really happened
Back when Hollywood knew how to make 3 hour movies. This was a masterpiece.
90’s movies are my favorite decade of movies. Everything about them are amazing. JFK is a tour de force from Oliver Stone and is more relevant than ever.
The movie holds up as entertainment! But it’s 95% fantasy! ❤
It remains a superb piece of filmmaking.
He certainly did want to set both sides up for us to decide.
Very astute summation. Great performances. Prevailing theories writ large, and as you say - very compelling even if you believe Oswald acted alone.
I even think if you know the real story about Jim Garrison, and if you know how he tried to force things in his JFK trail, you can see the movie in a total different light too. ( that he slightly is loosing his marbles )
And yes, this is in fact a very very good movie, even if it plays with facts :)
Yes, very compelling to watch a lot of innocent people being portrayed with lies as conspirators.
Stone's peak after that he went downhill.Maybe Costner's peak too...Stellar cast stellar acting stellar directing and editing Tommy Lee Jones was robbed at the Oscars that year ...if it came out in the 80s or late 90s it would've won Best Picture Best Director easily
10/10
Natural Born Killers, Nixon, Any Given Sunday and U Turn was pretty underrated. I would say he lost it in the 2000's.
@@BishopWalters12 Alexander(2004) is underrated too it came out after several epic films like Gladiator Lord of the Rings Last Samurai Master&Commander Troy and there was an epic movie fatigue,it would have been better if 1st choice Heath Ledger played Alexander and 1st choice Sean Connery Phillip II
Also the inaccurate historically homoerotic undertones doomed any box office success it was a protowoke L
Probably it was the 1st Go Woke Go Broke moment in Cinema
@@BishopWalters12 The Doors that came out that same year as JFK is also underrated.Val Kilmer deserved a nom for his stellar performance as Jim Morrison
@@Constantine_IA I didn't really like The Doors or care about Jim Morrison but it's a well-made movie and Val Kilmer was one of the most gifted actors in his prime.
@@Constantine_IA I watched Alexander one time when it came out, I don't remember much about it overall but I didn't hate it or think it was as bad as some critics made it out to be.
An ardent believer in the lone gunman theory is a frightening individual that I never want to know.
You’re frightened by reality?
In that case why don't you provide your ironclad evidence there was more than one gunman and win everybody over?
Case Closed by Gerald Posner clears up all the nonsense. It’s on TH-cam.
I’d also recommend Patricia Lambert’s book False Witness. There was also a documentary made that’s also on TH-cam. Jim Garrison was anything but the hero Stone portrayed him.
@@DeanStrickson Poser is a contrarian just to sell books
Only the Directors cut is in 4K
That is a great movie. The 3 hour run time just flies by. the suspense throughout film as they go further into investigating the mysteries is off the charts. the MVP would have to be Donald Sutherland as Mr X, that an amazing scene at the national mall.
Pity it's just making pretty much everything up.
@@aaronz7056 LOL! Is there a movie that you THINK was based on certain facts? Or should I say ALTERNATIVE FACTS?
@@robertpolanco1973 Whatever that incoherent question is supposed to mean. I list plenty of Stone's demonstrable lies elsewhere under this video.
@@aaronz7056 Well, I already read your list of so-called "demonstrable lies" and NOT EVERYONE would agree with you, like me! What a pity!
@@robertpolanco1973 You know, you can't just summarily dismiss a long list of demonstrable evidence with a sneering wisecrack without addressing one word of it like that settles the matter. lol
Pick up a copy of JFK: The Annotated Screenplay. it contains the full shooting script and highly detailed notes and references indicating where Stone found the information he used in the script and also admits to mistakes he made or changes for the narrative. He did not just pull things out of thin air, but put a lot of effort into this.
He tells more than 80 demonstrable lies and had the nerve to insist we should be "applauding" that fruitcake Jim Garrison for ruining an innocent man's life with a crackpot case (which Stone didn't even dare portray accurately) that fell apart within minutes of reaching his hand-picked jury. To this day he still parrots the "back and to the left" idiocy so the idea he "admits he made mistakes" is a bit rich.
The movie is beautifully shot and edited superbly. Whether or not there really is a conspiracy is another topic.
There was no conspiracy and don't think the filmmakers were not perfectly aware of that, but they didn't have the balls to walk the walk and base their narrative on the actual evidence.
@@aaronz7056 LOL! Like you are still among others who believe in the verdict of the laughable Warren Commission of 1964 and that Lee Harvey Oswald was the "lone assassin" at all! After all, NOT EVERYONE would agree with people like you on this ongoing issue anyway!
Joe Pesci was awesome in JFK, and in The Irishman. Let that sink in
Of course, the REAL David Ferrie was not rubbed out. He died of Berry aneurysm after failing health, always hotly denied any knowledge of the assassination, and was preparing to sue Garrison for harassment.
He made Salvador and Romero, from my old country El Salvador. I truly appreciate his films.
This is an instant classic! I love that movie!!!
whether you're behind Oliver Stone's politics or this story's theory's now outdated or not...there's NO denying JFK's one of 1990s cinema's BEST.
You also cannot deny Stone lets Kennedy's murderer off the hook and falsely paints a lot of innocent people as conspirators in murder and treason.
Also no denying it's packed with lies and slander against innocent people.
Love the love for this film. It is one of Oliver Stone's masterpieces. This was my favourite film of 91', and that was a great year for movies. Pietro Scalia and Joe Hutshing both won deserved Oscars for Editing, and Robert Richardson won his first Oscar for cinematography. Their work along side the rest of the departments under Oliver Stones direction is marvelous. And side note, this is one of John Williams best scores outside of his most notable works
Thank you. I didn't realize this was out and that I needed it this much!
I love this movie and the last time I saw it was when it was 2 VHS tapes in cases taped together if you know what I mean.
Film is packed with over 80 demonstrable lies and falsely paints a lot of innocent people as conspirators.
Surprised he didn’t mention Nixon as another film tapping the zeitgeist.
It’s Garrison. With a G. Not Carrison. Not Harrison. Someone’s not doing their job properly.
*Salvador, Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July, Wall Street, JFK, Snowden, et al. I'd forgotten about Stone's **_incredible_** body of work. (Where's HIS AFI lifetime award, Hollywood?!)* 🤷♂
As a movie? Yes.
As an examination of historical fact? No.
JFK remains Oliver Stone's finest film.
It's a technically accomplished piece of bravura filmmaking and it takes a real and quite frankly doomed investigation waged by New Orleans DA Jim Garrison and makes it the dramatic and narrative thrust of the film.
Actually JFK is not "talky" per see. It's a highly stylized and visually fast paced movie that admittedly throws a lot of information at its audience .
Also the film was financially successful. It wasnt touted as a box office megalith but It certainly made back it's $40 million dollar investment back both domestically and primarily in overseas markets .
it was a hit.
This financial success is important to note because what isn't noted in the video was the considerable attack campaign -including theft of a script and hit pieces -waged against this movie by sectors of the major media and press at the time.
So it wasn't simply that JFK was a controversial film, it was considered contemptible by certain sectors of the country.
Movie is packed with more than 80 highly relevant lies and Jim Garrison was an equally demonstrable lunatic who bears no particular resemblance to the goody-two-shoes crusader portrayed in the film.
You didn't mention the minor detail that Stone packs the movie with fiction and despicable lies. Garrison was a paranoid con man.
That gold glitter covered leapfrog scene was a bit much.
Brilliant story but factually challenged in almost every scene.
Not only does it hold up, but additional facts revealed since have vindicated his conclusions.
Of course it holds up
It shines the light and there’s still denial about what happened that day after all these years
For pure filmmaking purposes, it’s an important film.. Great film, even.. The problem is and always has been it’s an amalgamation of nonsensical conspiracy theories, most of which contradict each other..
The cop killer did it.. And Stone wouldn’t even talk about that?.. Which was odd..
Saw it for the 5th time a few weeks ago...bet your ass it still does!
Trivia; Oliver Stone calls JFK “a counter myth,” which this video also quotes (I wrote this before I heard it here). For the channel: how did u not mention Nixon (1995) when recounting his post JFK films?
I’m planning something else on Nixon. Needs a whole video of its own.
That was one of Stone's most arrogant moves, coming up with that "counter myth" slogan since all credible evidence points at Oswald while he himself was pulling dozens and dozens of demonstrable lies out of thin air.
@@aaronz7056 How amusing of you to say such a pathetic amount of bullshit!
@@robertpolanco1973 I list plenty of Stone's lies elsewhere under this video.
@@aaronz7056 Oh, really? Well, I read your alternative facts elsewhere in the comments section of TH-cam here and I DO NOT find them to be credible at all!
One of the best movies ever....very important to show aspects of what really happened that fateful day in Dallas. Like for example, Oswald being seen in the book depository canteen by witnesses at the time of the shots being fired...
No one testified that they saw Oswald at the time the shots were fired.
Only person to place Oswald in the canteen at that time was Oswald and the people he claimed he was with flatly denied ever seeing him. Stone tells more than 80 demonstrable lies in this film, lets Kennedy's murderer off the hook, turns a crackpot, lunatic prosecutor who ruined an innocent man's life into a hero with his fictional portrayal of him, and falsely and knowingly paints a lot of innocent people as conspirators, murderers and traitors with B.S. "evidence."
My wife & I saw this in the movies in 1991
Donald Sutherland played Col. PROUTY
Excellent, very good film and the soundtrack was amazing ..scary and literally after many years still watching this film . I don’t know how to describe it except the fact it’s scary in a good way that scene when the generals are talking in black and white with the smoke with the sounds of their drinks was very creepy that’s why it’s a good film & the production 👍
Fortunately the film is complete fiction.
A hallmark of a masterpiece is that it still holds up many years after its creation. This is indeed the case for Oliver Stone's "JFK".
The case is the more than 80 demonstrable and highly relevant lies Stone tells as he despicably paints a lot of innocent people as conspirators.
@@aaronz7056 we keep hearing about all these MORE THAN 80 intentional lies but we never get to see them . firstly you are claiming stone intentionally lied , prove it . secondly provide examples of these supposed intentional lies along with your PROOF that they are intentional lies .surely as you claim to have 80 im sure you can post a few for us .
I listed dozens of them elsewhere under this video, can you not see them? Then again, you've spewed countless uncorroborated accusations against innocent people so long as it suits you... To reiterate just a few:
Stone: Oswald a lousy shot.
Truth: Oswald scored 18 out of 20 in rapid fire at targets 200 yards away as per his Marines scorebook.
Stone: Mayor Cabell changes parade route to assist assassins.
Truth: Parade route was never changed, accurately described in the newspapers from the beginning.
Stone: Conspirator has fake seizure in plaza, disappears.
Truth: Jerry Belknap went to Parkland Hospital after recovering from real seizure.
Stone: 2 actors seated bolt upright, facing forward, demolish "gross lie" of single bullet theory.
Truth: Connally was seated lower, inboard and turned sharply to his right, strengthening single bullet theory.
Stone: 3 shots over 5.6 seconds.
Truth: Victims' reactions in Zapruder's film clearly demonstrate 3 shots over 8-9 seconds.
Stone: Limo full of bullet holes.
Truth: Only damage is a crack in the windshield caused by a bullet fragment from the inside.
Stone: Jean Hill sees knoll shooter, is immediately seized, sequestered and menaced by sinister agents.
Truth: Hill was making no such claims in the 1960's, nor does she mention one word about any of it when interviewed on live TV the day of the shooting.
Stone: 3 fake tramps fake arrested, disappear.
Truth: Harold Doyle, John Gedney and Gus Abrams were ID'd that same day, cleared and released with no evidence against them, their arrest records existing to this day, and Doyle was interviewed on camera more than once.
Stone: Depository employees never see Oswald coming downstairs, thus clearing him.
Truth: Those employees, who couldn't even agree on their own timing, came downstairs after he did and hilariously Stone never explains how the "real assassins" escaped downstairs because nobody ever saw them either.
Stone: EVERYTHING pertaining to Beverly Oliver character.
Truth: Oliver has been notorious for decades as a lying grifter who could not have been the Babushka Lady.
Stone: Bogus bullet planted at Parkland Hospital (by Jack Ruby, no less).
Truth: That bullet was matched to Oswald's rifle and hilariously Stone never explains how anybody planting a bullet within one hour of the shooting could possibly have known a bullet needed planting at all or that he wasn't simply planting one bullet too many into evidence and blowing the whole plot.
Stone: Lee Bowers murdered.
Truth: Bowers' words make it clear enough he saw nothing that would threaten any conspiracy, he didn't die until some two years after he had already testified, and his car accident was investigated by the police, HSCA and researcher David Perry, none of whom found any evidence of foul play.
Stone: Officer Tippit shot by two shooters.
Truth: Clemons' words make it clear enough she saw at best a shooter and bystander who was almost certainly Cimino or Benavides, and Stone oddly doesn't tell us that in fact other witnesses much closer to Tippit than Clemons firmly said there was but one shooter and that Oswald was ID'd by nearly a dozen witnesses.
Stone: Police arrive at Texas Theater to arrest a man for not paying admission.
Truth: The man was a good match for the suspect just seen murdering a police officer nearby.
Stone: Mean cops rough up Oswald as he defends himself in theater.
Truth: Oswald drew his gun and tried to shoot the first officer to approach, fighting so violently 3 officers were injured just disarming him, and he observed, "Well, they say it only takes a minute to die" after asking about the penalty for cop-killing. Those officers risked their lives to capture their suspect alive as per their duty but Stone couldn't care less who he gives his middle finger to.
Stone: Clay Shaw admits to alias Clay Bertrand during booking.
Truth: Flatly contradicted by other witnesses and story is implausible anyway.
Stone: Justice Department "does nothing" in regards to HSCA's conclusions of "probable conspiracy."
Truth: HSCA was all set to conclude Oswald acted alone until those acoustics experts came forward at the last minute with their dictabelt recording... which the J.D. investigated and found to be erroneous and invalid as evidence, completely debunking it more than 40 years ago.
Stone: Guilt-ridden David Ferrie starts cooperating with Jim Garrison, is murdered.
Truth: Ferrie died of Berry aneurysm after failing health, always hotly denied any knowledge of the assassination, and was preparing to sue Garrison for harassment. Who killed him? Garrison?
Stone: Garrison advised by mysterious Mr. X.
Truth: Mr. X never existed, he was based on notorious lunatic Fletcher Prouty, the man who lectured Roosevelt was poisoned at behest of Churchill and that flying saucers are real.
Stone: 112th Military Intelligence Group ordered to "stand down."
Truth: Flatly contradicted by sworn HSCA testimony of C.O. of Group, which provided extra men to assist Secret Service in Dallas.
Stone: Garrison unmasks Shaw as a conspirator.
Truth: Garrison's "case" against an innocent man whose life he ruined hinged on a witness so unreliable he barely figures in the movie, it all fell apart within minutes of reaching his hand-picked jury, and Garrison was soundly condemned by the American Bar Association.
Stone: Garrison uncovers conspiracy at highest levels of government.
Truth: Garrison in fact implicated the FBI, CIA, Dallas PD, Secret Service, lawyers defending people he suspected, NBC, CBS, Washington Post, L.A. Times, Newsweek, Governor Rhodes of Ohio, Governor Tiemann of Nebraska, Ronald Reagan, Bobby Kennedy, Johnny Carson, a Marine buddy of Oswald's Garrison decided was an Oswald "lookalike," the John Birch Society, the entire Warren Commission staff, the 13 State Regional Democratic Organization, a man who'd made inflammatory comments about Kennedy and had been in El Paso during the assassination, neo-Nazis, Cuban guerrillas, White Russians, President Johnson, Chief Justice Warren, the oil and aerospace industries, NASA, the telephone company ("an extension of the U.S. government"), and, of course, gays and masochists pulling off a "homosexual thrill killing..."
@@aaronz7056 i guess you did not understand a very simple question . i will ask again .
"we keep hearing about all these MORE THAN 80 intentional lies but we never get to see them . firstly you are claiming stone intentionally lied , prove it . secondly provide examples of these supposed intentional lies along with your PROOF that they are intentional lies .surely as you claim to have 80 im sure you can post a few for us ." fobrien1
there are many jfk assassination movies , both for conspiracy or anti conspiracy . all of them have problems , including the more recent movie parkland which has zapruder on the pedestal alone . which attempts to make oswalds mother look a loon at the police station where they have her character utter the words MY SON , LEE HARVEY OSWALD , HAS DONE MORE FOR HIS COUNTRY , THAN ANY OTHER MAN . the line in question was not used as the movie depicts , it was not even used by oswalds mother at the police station , and the movie INTENTIONALLY omitted some very important words from that line . they had to because they could not make that scene trying to make her look like a loon otherwise . this was INTENTIONAL deception . she in fact uttered the line after oswalds death while stood crying over her dead sons grave , and this can be seen on youtube . and what she said was MY SON , LEE HARVEY OSWALD , EVEN AFTER HIS DEATH , HAS DONE MORE FOR HIS COUNTRY THAN ANY OTHER LIVING MAN .
the important words there being
EVEN AFTER HIS DEATH
LIVING
what else did they intentionally deceive us about ? . oh yes . they state that the hosty note (which he destroyed ) said in it that oswald threatened to blow up the fbi building . and they do so by using the say so of a secretary at that office who claimed they read the note , and who gave multiple different versions of what that note supposedly said . when asked about her hosty made clear she was not reliable and asked in essence WHICH VERSION OF HER LIES DO YOU WANT ? . he maintained to his death and again at the time mentioned just above that the note simply said that he was not to speak to marina without oswald being there as she was not a US citizen . yet that movie has oswald threatening to blow up the fbi building .this is the nonsense we have to put up with , but of course also movies dramatize , they invent stories and characters and scenes even in true stories because often truth is not as interesting as they would like .
the difference between that movie and JFK ? .well its worlds apart . you see even in 1991 when the movie jfk was released stone was recorded on film (its out there for anyone who wants to view it ) telling the media his movie was dramatized , mixing fact and dramatization . that it was HIS COUNTER MYTH to what he saw / sees as earl warrens warren commission myth . meaning simply that if earl warren can invent a version of events so can he . so Aaron here cant possibly argue that stone lied , its a pointless exercise and he will always fail . he can argue that scenes in the movie are not accurate , or not true , but then that would be just stating the obvious lol . and stating what stone essentially admitted as far back as 1991 as the movie was released .but as often as Aaron is reminded of the above facts he choose to ignore them .
"Then again, you've spewed countless uncorroborated accusations against innocent people so long as it suits you" Aaron
i invite you whole heartedly to provide quotes by me (verifiable quotes , meaning you provide links to those quotes ) in which you claim i falsely accused innocent people , i shall be waiting . quite a few have tried falsely accusing me . give it your best shot .
"you've spewed countless uncorroborated accusations against innocent people so long as it suits you... To reiterate just a few:" Aaron
by the way you accused me of making false accusations against innocent people , then proceeded to post a very long list of claims etc .all of which you clearly have and highlight stone making the claims . so clearly if stone made the claims you list I DID NOT .
It sure does
This is the most important Hollywood movie ever made
Hollywood...that's a pretty low bar to set, but even at that, I could name many, many movies that I consider to be more important than this trainwreck.
I loved when I first saw it. Then years later I thought.... MMmmm?
It does Not hold up.
One of my favourite movies of all time. For my money, its the best political thriller ever made
How does the director's cut differ from the theatrical release? Is it significant?
The movie's horseh*t already, so I can't imagine any difference being significant.
you get an extra 15 minutes of the movie that was originally unseen . on youtube there is about a 45 minute video showing more unseen footage that was cut out . he had i believe over 5 hours of footage . it was not possible to fit all that he wanted into the movie . i think she should put it all together on two dvds in a special boxset so the movie can truly be sen as he wanted it to be seen .
there is a scene in the directors cut for example after garrison had appeared on the carson show , he was at the airport returning home . he goes to the bathroom , while there reads a magazine for a few minutes . he then notices something is not right . he fears he is being set up as a gay in a toilet looking for sex . he tries to quickly leave and finds he may just be right . then he meets bill broussard at the airport . bill was a character based in main on an unsavoury character called pershing gervais that worked for garrison and who later admitted setting garrison up .
would i say the 15 minutes later added is significant to the movie / story and the over all understanding of the jfk assassination ? perhaps no . would cast a bit more light on the treatment of garrison and his family ? and the attacks on him and his case ? yes .