Somehow I have never been able to block out three hours in the past 12 or so years to see this classic. I caught about the first half hour or so yesterday, and my thoughts so far are “Holy Cow! This is so cool! It’s like watching ‘It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.’ Who’s gonna show up next!”
It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World is probably the best analogy I have ever heard.
I have never been able to get through more than 45 minutes of JFK–not only am I annoyed by the rivers of made-up-itude Stone drowns us in, but I find the script wooden and ridiculous.
It is a work of total fiction, of course, and no more the truth about JFK than Mel Brook’s “History of the Word” is the truth about the history of the world. It’s less funny, too.
It’s very well done. Great filmmaking, good acting, compelling story, etc. A very enjoyable 3 hours, if you can turn off your brain.
Because the conspiracy theory part of it is completely nuts, and made up of little snippets of a number of different, sometimes incompatible conspiracy theories, all of which have been debunked over and over again.
Oliver Stone seriously needs to lay off the recreational medication. He’s got too much talent to employ it in the pursuit of his particular idiocies.
I found it hard to even try to enjoy the film when so much of it was false, and most of that was maliciously so… if Stone was just making an interesting story, which seems his standard defense, then it’s not cool to pretend it’s factual. And that’s neglecting the fact that it’s 3 hours of Kevin Costner. 
For those of you that are interested in the subject, I’d suggest reading “On the Trail of the Assassins”, and “Crossfire”. “On the Trail of the Assassins” is an excellent read. Take it for what you will, but if this an honest record of Garrison’s experience with his investigation, it’s certainly an interesting record of his time spent on the case. Garrison is a good storyteller, so it’s not a complete waste of time.
“Crossfire” is a bit more tedious, but again, offers a different view of what happened to counter the Warren Commission.
I think JFK is an entertaining movie, but it seems to play better for people who a) understand that it’s not an exact reflection of the events of the Kennedy assassination, but rather Stone’s interpretation of events, and/or 2) don’t completely buy into the Warren Commission.
There are so many conspiracy theories out there regarding the assassination; perhaps Stone’s greatest flaw was to try to combine them all into a three hour movie, making the average (i.e. non-Kennedy assassination buff) viewer’s head explode (back and to the left, of course).
Costner’s first line (upon his Jim Garrison character first learning from a subordinate that JFK had been shot), “Ah naw, Lou,” is IMHO a first-ballot member of the Laughably Bad First Lines in movie history.
For a while, I considered that perhaps Stone was really trying his best to make Garrison look crazy as hell (I’ve never seen the character as particularly heroic, even when I knew not much about the subject), but after reading more on the subject, if that were true Stone would have to be whooshing himself.
It is, though, for the most part a compelling movie. The David Ferrie confession sequence (although pretty much character assassination of a dead man, as is anything relating to Clay Shaw) is pretty gripping, with equal credit going to Joe Pesci and the music in the background.
I agree, it’s one of my favorite movies. I just don’t treat it as a documentary.
I thought it was pretty dull. It lurches between overheated melodrama and turgid exposition. (“Back … and to the left. Back … and to the left.”) Yes, the actors and the cinematography are great. But the story is a shambles (the result of trying to tie in too many conspiracies) and the main character is a bore and the whole thing ends up as a soggy mess.
I thought it was absolutely engrossing; Oliver Stone uses every cinematic technique in the book to great effect.
JFK is best viewed as a mood piece. While it is not an accurate portrayal of the actual events of the JFK assassination, it is an accurate account of the perception conspiracies and the public sense of paranoia that surrounds the Kennedy assassination. For this reason I think the mishmash of conflicting theories and conspirators work to its advantage. JFK does not factually portray what happened on Nov. 22, 1963 but it embodies the fear and gnawing feeling of doubt that has surrounded that day in the public consciousness ever since.
I don’t think you need to “turn off your brain” to enjoy Oliver Stone’s JFK; instead try shifting from a logical to an emotional analysis of the film. On the level of pure emotional resonance I think JFK succeeds – like films such as Mulholland Drive, JFK is a dark dreamlike vision of fear, loss, and paranoia.