I originally intended to watch JFK after watching both Air Force One and In The Line Of Fire. But due to the 3 1/2 hour run time of the movie, I just didn't have the available time to knock this one out. But leave it to an episode of Mad Men that had an entire episode devoted to that fateful day in Dallas to prompt me to get this one into the DVD Player ASAP. I actually delayed watching the final episode of Season 3 of Mad Men because I wanted to flesh out what was shown in that particular episode.

So, why am I doing it this way? Well, a little background is in order. The movie JFK is one of only two movies to ever get me to run out and buy a book that the film is based on. After seeing the movie I immediately snapped up a paperback version of On The Trail Of The Assassins by Jim Garrison, who is portrayed by Kevin Costner in the movie. I got so into the conspiracy of what did and didn't happen in Dallas. I'm talking about being obsessed with this stuff. I ended up seeing JFK 3-4 times in the theater and I read On The Trail 3 times, cover to cover that year. Not just Jim's book, but other books on the subject matter as well. So, you can see how easy it for me to slip on the conspiracy shoes and want to re-watch this movie, which I haven't watched in probably 5 years.

Onto the movie. Having done my own personal extensive research into what did and didn't happen, I get and understand the criticism of Oliver Stone's interpretation of said conspiracy. There really is no need to dive into those waters because at the end of the day, does the movie work or not? In this case, it absolutely excels in sucking you into the story-line and getting completely ensnared with what is going on...fact or fiction. It's escapism at it's finest and I applaud what Oliver Stone was able to create using the backdrop of the Assassination Conspiracy. And what a hell of a cast too! Wow, so many HUGE names are in this and each barely gets more than 5 minutes of screen time on average. Each one brought their A-Game for sure. But the best part for me, besides the story, is the way the film is edited. The pacing was perfect and it really had to be in order to cram so much information into 3 hour 20 minutes and have it sail by instantly. Can you imagine if the same script was made by another director? The movie would have had extended scenes with long-winded expositions that would have felt like 30 hours.

This is definitely a Buy. I own it and any movie fanatic and history buff is wise to do the same. Keeping in line of some other JFK Assassination stories you may find interesting, you definitely need to check out Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man from The X-Files which posits that CSM was the one that fired the kill shot. It's one of my all time favorite episodes from the series. Also, another amazing Two-Parter called Lee Harvey Oswald from Quantum Leap. Awesome story and amazing performance by Scott Bakula.

FYI, the other movie that made me run out and start reading up on a character that was the centerpiece of a film was Young Guns. Read everything I could find on Billy The Kid. But that's another story for another day.........

I totally enjoyed this movie the last time I saw it (I don't remember when that was, though) but it still strikes me as weird that the movie called JFK is not a biopic... it seems like that's what that title should be reserved for, telling the life story.

And it just now occurred to me that I never finished "Nixon," the blu-ray I rented ages ago wouldn't get past a certain point-- Sam Waterston's intro, I think-- and I never sent for the replacement.  And I keep forgetting about that.

I was getting really into it when the bloody BD crapped out on me.

Regardless if you have seen JFK or other similar types of films, what are your theories regarding the 'Lone Gunman'. Acted alone? 2 Shooters? 3? Major government involvement? Lyndon Johnson the puppet master? Curious to hear everyone's thoughts on this are.

My opinion on the lone gunmen is they should have gotten a second season.

Agreed.

As for who killed JFK, I got no idea, everything's been overexamined into incredulity.  The whole thing is too tainted to feel secure in any knowledge.

Agreed. I do believe that this was bigger than Oswald. There is just too much evidence that contradicts that he acted alone. But there is so much "evidence" out there that it's kind of hard to separate fact from fiction. So many people say so many things, it gets lost and distorted over time. Gah!!