I feel like I'm in the minority in liking JFK. I don't know if the movie is great but I think there are some great ensemble performances, specifically Jack Lemmon, Donald Sutherland, Walter Matthau, Ed Asner, Kevin Bacon, and a way-too-cool John Candy.
-
You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.
HuskerMax readers can save 50% on Omaha Steaks .
Terrible movie reviewers
- Thread starter Hooked on Huskers
- Start date
JFK assassination conspiracy theories continued .....
and I'm not real sure what you are trying to say.
My outrageous theory, one lucky shot (Lee Harvey Oswald) but the root cause, LBJ. I believe no LBJ conspiracy in Oliver Stone JFK movie. And IMO, no way Fidel, mafia and KGB was to blame.
Last edited:
I got through about 40 minutes then changed it up. It was a little too busy for me. I may try again over the holidays. The plot plays out like the producers figured out all these really cool graphics on how to make wild accidents look real and then we'll cobble a plot in there somewhere.
It may be a fun movie watch in a fraternity house after the 10th viewing where everyone is drinking and pointing out the cool deaths.
I would agree. I thought the drama and the play on conspiracies from other angles made it fun to watch.
Same here. I don't necessarily buy into all the conspiracies proposed, but from a artistic/performance/story/entertainment/drama standpoint, its a good movie. As strummer said, great ensemble cast.
Last edited:
I need to cure movie habit. Addiction. Almost every day, I had watched at least one movie. Couch Potato disease. Damn NetFlix and Prime Video .... need to cancel subscriber !!
And numerous movie repeats ...... minimum of 3 or 4 or more times
And numerous movie repeats ...... minimum of 3 or 4 or more times
- Forrest Gump
- Back to the Future
- Caddyshack
- Rocky 1
- Wizard of Oz
- 2001 Space Odyssey
- Terminator 2
- Apocalypse Now
- Full Metal Jacket
- National Lampoon Christmas Vacation
- ......... and many many more
I thought it was a great example of dishonest film making, propaganda. Several of my peers thought the same. It was a vehicle for Oliver Stone’s nutty world views. One of the classics was that Stone publicly stated he hoped it would “turn” John Connally and he would come out in support of any number of conspiracy theories. Connally saw the movie and denounced it as evil and that it was created by people who would have you believe the worst of our government.
Let’s just say I think the movie is evidence cocaine is bad for you, and worse for someone like Stone. Stone is actually entertaining if you realize his movies are about his crazed fantasies. So from that perspective, I liked it and think it should be watched.
Also, my elder, whose views I most respect, who followed the Garrison situation intently at the time (I was in late grade school - so it was my first introduction to the conspiracy theories), thought he was a nut and also greatly disliked the movie.
At the end of the day, I subscribe to the “Crash” Davis creed of belief. I ask myself do I believe Earl Warren (led commission) or the conspiracy theory du jour?
Last edited:
To the bolded: that's why we should watch and enjoy movies. Hollywood is about suspending belief. JFK shouldn't be viewed as a historically factual account, neither should The Longest Day, Sitting Bull, Patton, or The Right Stuff. Really, the only Hollywood film that should be viewed as historically accurate is Capricorn One.
My problem is I have watched a couple too many interviews with Oliver Stone and I just can't get over his weird view on things. He is a guy raised very rich and is still very rich, but fancies himself some sort of Che Guevara, anti-government man of the people.
He's a weird dude. However, generally speaking, I enjoy art made by weird people.
Yeah, I guess I like Quentin Tarentino weird better than Oliver Stone weird.
I like em both and throw in some Peckinpah and Cassavetes for good measure.
Last edited:
I disagree with you. I think movie makers should strive for historical accuracy. I came across one recently that quite frankly, I was somewhat disappointed, that it seemed to be highly made up out of whole cloth. But I think it needs to be in Hot Topics, and not here. Biographies, really need to be historically accurate.
Regarding your list, I have seen three and also read the books they are based on (Sitting Bull the only exception). The Right Stuff is the one that had the most liberties taken, and they are more to create the narrative regarding Test Pilot culture. Much of this also existed in Tom Wolfe's book.
Patton is an interesting case. I read the book by Ladislas Farago. I've read other books on Patton, and other books on various Western Europe campaigns. I've not seen much that indicates much in the movie did not happen or that Patton was unfairly portrayed or over venerated. Farago also wrote the book that was the basis for Tora, Tora, Tora. At the end of the day, I will put it over any of the subsequent movies made on Pearl Harbor for depth, breadth and accuracy. (I am curious as to the lack of links and discussion of any of Farago's books on Wikipedia).
The Longest Day was for the most part a straight historical story based on the book by Cornelius Ryan. As was A Bridge Too Far. I've not seen anything that questions Ryan's work.
Recently, I had some small but real issues with Eastwood's "larger" story regarding Iwo Jima. More questioning his "state of America" narrative in parts of the movie. Some selective presentation of historical facts that most people do not know that were effective misrepresentations. I am debating seeing Midway for the same reasons.
Last edited:
