It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

The acting in this movie is really good.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

one of films changing, at the first sigh, everything. reminding the role of cinema as detective about obscure files. becoming, again, provocative, direct, fresh and tool for remind the force of question. Oliver Stone is a master of challenges. this film is a real good demonstration. because JFK represents, first, the pretext for explore the profound political America. without the desire to give verdicts. or answers. only as a chain of questions for remind a form of civic duty who seems part of a reduced group.nothing to demonstrate. only fine manner for not ignore.

Oliver Stone is well known for his political filmmaking. Whatever your opinion of the American government, the assassination of John F Kennedy and the war lobbying, "JFK" is an fine example of great acting by Costner and impeccable screen writing, in a highly engaging movie. It is thrilling enough to keep you watching through the 189 minutes.

The fact I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone doesn't reduce my sincere admiration for this involving, brilliantly packaged indictment of the processes used to affirm his guilt. As a movie, "JFK" rises above any duty to history to develop what director- writer Oliver Stone calls a "countermyth" to what he calls the myth of the Warren Report.In short, it became a template for inculcating what I would call "paranoid chic," a desire to question comforting ideas that goes beyond all rational objections to fashion a mesmerizing if flawed piece of entertainment. "JFK" is, in more than one way, revolutionary.New Orleans, November 22, 1963. While news of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy filters through barrooms and reaches the office of district attorney Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner), an argument between right-wing hothead detective Guy Banister (Ed Asner) and his alcoholic gopher Jack Martin (Jack Lemmon) over strange goings-on in their office escalates into a violent assault. In time, this becomes the lynchpin of an investigation Garrison undertakes that becomes a re-investigation of the Kennedy murder, one that will lead to the only indictment of anyone accused of the president's killing.Garrison spends much time trying to unravel the "tangled web" at the heart of the killing, with much attention paid to the unique character of New Orleans, a city where accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald spent much of his life. With a flair for detail and a pregnant line, Stone puts us at Garrison's side as he closely questions a bizarre character named David Ferrie (Joe Pesci) who drove to Texas on that fatal day, he says for some ice skating and geese shooting. Big Jim shakes his head."I find your story simply not believable," he says."Really?" Ferrie responds amiably. "What part?"It's a welcome moment of levity that demonstrates Stone's complete command of the material. For more than three hours, he brings up a slew of bigger-than-life witnesses who either convince us with their honesty or repel us with their sinister indifference to what happened. In time, Garrison is mocked on national television, betrayed like Jesus by one of his closest aides, and faces divorce before getting the chance to make the case he has built to a jury in a lengthy yet gripping courtroom sequence, one of the finest ever made.The sequences work as vignettes, many of them worth watching over and over. Lolita Davidovich shines in a brief turn as Beverly Oliver, a self-described "two-bit showgirl" who once saw Oswald at a club with his future killer, Jack Ruby (Brian Doyle-Murray). Tommy Lee Jones oozes southern charm as the man Garrison eventually brings to trial, Claw Shaw.Only a couple of sequences hint at a larger truth, that Stone is throwing up a lot of clay pigeons in his attempt to fashion his countermyth. One witness, Jean Hill, is ridiculously dragged screaming from the murder scene to be told by officials in a ludicrous scene that she didn't see or hear what she, and we, just did. There is also some misdirection thrown in the direction of three tramps picked up at the scene, which Stone in his 2001 director's commentary admits turned out not to be the assassins the movie paints them as being.But in the main, the film holds together very well by keeping the focus on Garrison, who speaks forthrightly about what he believes. As in his performance in "The Untouchables," Costner is a master of understatement who saves his passion for the final summation in court. It's hard to keep a dry eye watching him go.After, you can shake your head all you want. I surely do. But "JFK" has left a mark on the American consciousness that feels well-earned when watching it. By enshrining skepticism as not only patriotic but a citizen's duty, the film successfully pushes a less comfortable view of what life is really all about that has become its most lasting legacy, and does so in a way that makes three and a half hours feel like a handful of minutes. Truly epic, however mistaken.

This is a well-made, suspenseful movie--in spite of it being about the most famous murder in history. When I watched the movie--most of which narratively was told in retrospect--I felt the knot of suspense that I feel while watching a fictitious thriller---even though I know what's going to happen because it's historical! I'm also an amateur historian, a trial attorney who deals with the problems of reconstructing past events by using various types of evidence. Over the years I've read most of the Warren Report; I've read the conspiracy books. I find flaws in the former--and serious error in logic on the latter. Long ago, I concluded the evidence available was overwhelmingly demonstrative of Lee Harvey Oswald's factually causing the death of the president by shooting him with the rifle found. How that would have played forensically in a real trial is impossible to say. The conspiracy writers have no evidence of anything, just holes in the evidence presented by the Warren Commission. From these holes come theories that devolve into circular arguments where they end up proving the theory by assuming to be true. If the conspiracy writers could have been able to assist Oswald's defense counsel (hypothetically), they could have created reasonable doubt, which may have acquitted Oswald--or gotten him on reduced charge of manslaughter. But enough reasonable doubt to prevent a conviction is NOT the same thing as proving beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of other alleged culprits.But this is a movie website, made for movie buffs like myself, who enjoy reading about movies and discussing movies and reading what other film buffs have to say about movies. As a movie, JFK is something I have watched a few times because it is so well crafted. I suspect Oliver Stone must be tough as a director because he also got performances out actors I didn't think possible--even known talents. It's editing, the music, the sound, the sets--everything creates this bizarre, paranoid effect, where nothing is as it seems. Like one of the legendary conductors that can move an entire orchestra to great climactic crescendos, Stone creates a thriller set withing a courtroom drama. It's a virtuoso work, that also shows mastery of narrative technique, such as shifting point-of-view, retrospect and foreshadowing, story-within-a-story, building to devastating and heartbreaking ending of JFK's death and of a traumatized nation left with fear, uncertainty and unanswerable questions in the middle of a nightmarish Cold War.As an historian, I am not moved very much from what I still believe to be the sad, absurd and unspectacular truth. As a lawyer, I am impressed with the way reasonable doubt can be generated by working up facts more likely to be deemed irrelevant at a trial; equally, I am relieved to see that reasonable doubt to prevent a guilty verdict in the trial of one person (which never happened) is not sufficient to prove conspiracy in the trial of another. As a movie fan, I am awed with what a great director can do with historical material and a good cast and crew. As an American, I am also glad that movies like this can be made. It is the mark of a society free enough to express such withering criticism of the government without fear of punishment.I strongly recommend this movie to anyone who has not seen it yet, and that it be seen repeatedly by those who have already seen it. The mark of a classic is it that can speak to people of all generations--and differently to the same person moving through life into older generations.