3 ms·

Having watched "JFK" I'm not really interested in anything Oliver Stone has to say.

atleastoptimal 4y ago
regardless of whether you agree with the message it was a great movie
karaterobot 4y ago
Why not? I thought the movie was excellent, even if I'm not persuaded by it. I don't want to assume you're saying "I don' want to listen to people I disagree with", but that was my first reaction.
- flangola7 4y ago
  People who have a history of deeply irrational thinking can be safely presumed will continue being irrational, until proven otherwise. If someone derails a serious work project and is combative and doubles down when the boss tells them what they did wrong, they don't get to lead the next one.
jMyles 4y ago
I think JFK is a great movie with a few flaws. Things that are covered well and faithful to the evidence: * Basically all the parts of the movie which are set in Dealey Plaza (reconstructed like no other film has done before or since) * Oswald's background and enigmatic lifestyle * The activities at the Carousel Club * Dean Andrews * Sylvia Odio and the Mexico City incident * Guy Banister, Jack Martin, and the 544 Camp Street leaflets * Vernon Bundy * The voter registration witnesses * The apparent Oswald impersonations * George de Mohrenschildt * The autopsy Things that aren't covered so well: * Claw Shaw (some of the evidence against him is just fabricated in the film, which is very frustrating) * David Ferrie (some parts good, others not) * Jim Garrison's personal life (eg incorrectly depicting the Shaw interview as happening on Easter Sunday to win personal favor - nauseating) * "Janet and Bill Williams", obviously the Paines * "Mr. X", while an accurate portrayal of Fletcher Prouty, it gives an inaccurate impression of the timeline of the case Many people object to the composite character ("Willie O'Keefe") played by Kevin Bacon, but this doesn't bother me. I think it's about as good as you can do with those characters without making the film another hour longer to tell each of their backgrounds. Overall, I think that JFK does a good job of presenting the most important evidence that Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy (something I assert is very likely), and does so in a way which is likely to prompt viewers to do additional research. It's not as hard on every fact as I wish it were, but it's still way above the mean for a historical film. Stone has also published a 600 page book in response to the hullaballo surrounding the film, inviting and platforming his strongest critics (and responses to them), along with a painstaking bibliography of essentially every fact asserted in the film. [0] I think that deserves commendation; commitment to this degree of dialogue is very rare for a Hollywood film. 0: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/430224.JFK https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/430224.JFK
euroderf 4y ago
The book it is based on is important. It carefully reviews the evidence, from the viewpoint of a prosecutor.
simonebrunozzi 4y ago
Can you elaborate?

regardless of whether you agree with the message it was a great movie

Why not? I thought the movie was excellent, even if I'm not persuaded by it. I don't want to assume you're saying "I don' want to listen to people I disagree with", but that was my first reaction.

flangola7 4y ago
People who have a history of deeply irrational thinking can be safely presumed will continue being irrational, until proven otherwise. If someone derails a serious work project and is combative and doubles down when the boss tells them what they did wrong, they don't get to lead the next one.

jMyles 4y ago

I think JFK is a great movie with a few flaws. Things that are covered well and faithful to the evidence: * Basically all the parts of the movie which are set in Dealey Plaza (reconstructed like no other film has done before or since) * Oswald's background and enigmatic lifestyle * The activities at the Carousel Club * Dean Andrews * Sylvia Odio and the Mexico City incident * Guy Banister, Jack Martin, and the 544 Camp Street leaflets * Vernon Bundy * The voter registration witnesses * The apparent Oswald impersonations * George de Mohrenschildt * The autopsy Things that aren't covered so well: * Claw Shaw (some of the evidence against him is just fabricated in the film, which is very frustrating) * David Ferrie (some parts good, others not) * Jim Garrison's personal life (eg incorrectly depicting the Shaw interview as happening on Easter Sunday to win personal favor - nauseating) * "Janet and Bill Williams", obviously the Paines * "Mr. X", while an accurate portrayal of Fletcher Prouty, it gives an inaccurate impression of the timeline of the case Many people object to the composite character ("Willie O'Keefe") played by Kevin Bacon, but this doesn't bother me. I think it's about as good as you can do with those characters without making the film another hour longer to tell each of their backgrounds. Overall, I think that JFK does a good job of presenting the most important evidence that Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy (something I assert is very likely), and does so in a way which is likely to prompt viewers to do additional research. It's not as hard on every fact as I wish it were, but it's still way above the mean for a historical film. Stone has also published a 600 page book in response to the hullaballo surrounding the film, inviting and platforming his strongest critics (and responses to them), along with a painstaking bibliography of essentially every fact asserted in the film. [0] I think that deserves commendation; commitment to this degree of dialogue is very rare for a Hollywood film. 0: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/430224.JFK https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/430224.JFK

euroderf 4y ago

The book it is based on is important. It carefully reviews the evidence, from the viewpoint of a prosecutor.

simonebrunozzi 4y ago

Can you elaborate?