Of all the films I've reviewed, JFK probably offers me the most difficult dilemma. Is this because it's a bad film? Heavens no - it's a tremendously effective piece of cinema. I've never been particularly wild about Oliver Stone but this is one film of his that I feel really worked. It's well-paced and so powerfully done that you almost never notice that it's almost 3 and a half hours long.

My problem stems from the fact that it's a piece of propaganda akin to the work of Leni Riefenstahl. That may sound like hyperbole but it's not. From start to finish, Stone weaves a web of lies, half-truths, and questionable data that all sounds great on the surface but doesn't stand up to the historical record for longer than the blink of an eye. To call JFK historically irresponsible is a vast understatement; it offers a view of the Kennedy assassination much more flawed than that of the conspiratorial "establishment" he seeks to discredit.

Not for a second will I pretend to be any kind of expert on the Kennedy assassination. For many years, my knowledge swirled around the usual bits and pieces; grassy knolls, magic bullets, etc. When I first saw JFK during its theatrical run in 1991, I was quite impressed; I was one of those "if even half of this is true, it's obvious Oswald didn't do it" kind of people. I got my thimbleful of knowledge and away I went!

Unfortunately, I've since learned that the thimble contained poison, not knowledge. I've done some reading and the vast majority of the "facts" touted in JFK can be refuted fairly easily. Most of the witnesses it and other pro-conspiracy works use to support their theories have changed their stories repeatedly over the years; Stone and the others conveniently choose the tales they find most pleasing. And despite all the "data" Stone cites to prove the "impossibility" of many of the events of November 22, more reasonable sources do confirm the reality of these occurrences.

Facts mean little to Stone and others of his ilk. In reality, it's virtually impossible to prove them wrong because they so selectively pick and choose what they will believe; all that matters is that the data support their conclusions. Throughout JFK we hear how corrupt and evil the US government has become, and Stone tells us that the Warren Report was simply a cover-up. Yet at the end of the film he offers the fact that the House Select Committee on Assassinations - using some very questionable data - concluded in the 1970s that a second gunman probably was involved. Why does Stone trust one governmental authority but not the other? This is Stone's MO from beginning to end; use what he likes, discredit what he doesn't, no matter how irrational and subjective these choices may be.

Sometimes you tell a lie often enough that you ultimately accept it as truth. The sad irony of the Kennedy assassination is that the lies about it have gained such wide exposure that they've gained the status of virtual common knowledge. It was a conspiracy, the Warren Report was a cover-up, etc. Insidiously, Stone and many of the others have worked to almost make Oswald a martyr, a tool of the military-industrial complex. Just as Oswald says in the movie: he was a "patsy."

What the conspiracy buffs neglect to tell you is that Oswald really was a pretty screwed-up guy. He quite perfectly fit the now-cliché model of the quiet loner who goes off, except he offered plenty of warning signs. Does JFK notify us that Oswald attempted to shoot a right wing leader only a few months prior to the Kennedy assassination? Or that the same gun found in the Book Depository was also used in that earlier attempt? Of course not; this information might actually lead some people to - gasp! - think that Oswald did it!

As I mentioned earlier, it's almost impossible to get conspiracy theorists to acknowledge facts that refute their beliefs. These assassination buffs have become a virtual Flat Earth Society; all evidence that contradicts their thoughts must be tainted. Check out the reader comments about anti-conspiracy books like Gerald Posner’s Case Closed or Vincent Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History on Amazon; many of those who didn't like the books deem them to be propaganda or simply full of it. The feelings of the true believer cannot be altered.

JFK doesn't limit its distortions and lies to Oswald and the technical aspects of the assassination. We also get the deification of sleazy crackpot Jim Garrison and additional scorn heaped upon an innocent man, Clay Shaw. All of this is well and good for a movie, but unfortunately it completely distorts the historical record. It seems fairly clear that Shaw did not have any involvement in anything other than having the wrong first name and sexual orientation, and that Garrison was not quite the earnest truth-seeker he seems as played by Kevin Costner; most reports depict him as a fairly obsessive paranoid nutbag.

Not much sign of that in JFK, however. Actually, we do get the occasional glimpse of other opinions of Garrison and his witch-hunt - for instance, bits of an NBC TV special are shown - but these notions are quickly discarded by the audience because we've seen the "truth." Stone depicts fact and fiction so that they are interchangeable. An irrefutable fact such as Kennedy's drive through Dallas is not distinguishable from wild-eyed conjecture like LBJ's possible involvement in the "plot"; Stone never offers the audience any caveats to know the difference between levels of reality.

Why would he? He wants to present his insane case, and he does so remarkably well. JFK honestly is something of a masterwork. It's tremendously entertaining and compelling and displays terrific craftsmanship in all areas. Never does it fail to intrigue the viewer. Obviously, the film works better if the audience lacks knowledge about the assassination, but even a semi-educated viewer such as myself still finds it fascinating. I know it’s all a crock, but it’s a damned watchable crock.

Stone's style clearly helps him establish his theories, since the viewer rarely gets time to catch his breath and consider what has been posited. So much information gets aired during JFK that it really takes two or three viewings to absorb it all. Actually, if you want to best study the ideas Stone raises, you do need to watch the movie a few times so you'll better be able to remember his absurdities when you learn the truth.

Much of the credibility of JFK is bolstered by its terrific cast. Costner plays a variation of his usual bland self, but in this case, that's probably a good thing; since Garrison was such a mess in real life, Costner's Gary Cooper routine gives the character a grounded presence that he sorely needs. On the other hand, I found Tommy Lee Jones' flamboyant portrayal of Shaw to be excessive; we are told early on that Shaw was a "butch" homosexual, one you'd never suspect of being gay, but that's certainly not in line with Jones' swishy performance.

The remaining actors do well in roles of varying size. Subliminally, the number of well-known actors present works to support Stone's version of the events; it gives the piece much more credence than it would otherwise possess. Sissy Spacek plays Garrison's wife, and she's adequate, but it's a poor role that leaves her little to do other than whine at Garrison as he neglects his family. (Okay, "whine" is probably unfair, since she's correct to feel the way she does, but Spacek doesn't earn the sympathy of the audience.) Probably the best portrayal in the film comes from Gary Oldman's turn as Oswald. Oldman possesses an extremely strong ability to lose himself in a character, and rarely has he done so as completely as he does here. He fully inhabits Oswald to a degree I wouldn't think possible.

As a film, JFK remains a rousing success. As an honest discussion of the facts behind the Kennedy assassination, it fails to do anything than propagate a series of tired old lies. While filmmakers aren’t bound to absolute factual accuracy, the manner in which this story is told makes it look much more truthful than it actually is; the degree to which fact and speculation are intermingled tears down any distinctions. I like JFK as a work of art but despise it as a source of information. This may be the most intellectually dishonest film ever made.

JFK appears in an aspect ratio of approximately 2.35:1 on this single-sided, double-layered DVD; the image has been enhanced for 16X9 televisions. Expect mediocre visuals here.

JFK combined archival footage - mostly from the Sixties - and new shots that were intended to look old in addition to the expected material that appeared appropriately clear and fresh. Because of the mixture of film elements, an accurate grade became difficult to issue. Nonetheless, I thought the DVD suffered from a few more flaws than were necessary.

Sharpness was usually fine. Moderate edge enhancement gave wide shots a slightly blurry look at times, but most aspects of the movie showed good clarity and definition. I noticed no issues with jagged edges or shimmering, but artifacts created some distractions. The movie took on a gauzy look that made it look like it was shot through a thin screen. As with the edge enhancement, this wasn’t a major concern, but it wasn’t a good thing.

Print flaws largely were restricted to film grain, much of which was manufactured for the movie; whenever Stone used black and white footage, he added grain to give it that “aged” appearance. There were also some scratches and blotches placed in the new material to make it seem older. For the other scenes, however, the movie looked clean and fresh. I saw a few speckles and a tiny amount of grit, but otherwise the film was free from defects.

Most of JFK featured a fairly restricted palette; the movie mainly offered a brownish tiny that makes sense for this kind of subject. These tones looked clearly replicated and were accurate and full. Whenever the film was allowed to display brighter hues - such as during the Easter parade - the colors were brighter and bolder, with no saturation or bleeding problems. Black levels seemed dark and deep, and shadow detail was appropriately heavy but usually avoided any excessive opacity; a couple of scenes looked slightly too thick, but these were rare. Ultimately, JFK mixed ups and downs to earn a “C+” for its visuals.

This DVD’s Dolby Digital 5.1 improved upon the material heard on the original disc and replicated what appeared on the 2001 special edition. The first release offered Dolby Surround 2.0 sound, and the 5.1 track definitely opened up the mix. Not surprisingly, the forward soundstage dominated the audio, but I was pleased to hear the breadth of the work. John Williams’ effective score spread neatly across the front channels and added depth to the film. Quiet a lot of ambient audio also appeared in the forward speakers; most of this stayed fairly subdued - such as cars passing in the background - but I found the audio to seem natural and well integrated.

The surrounds largely contributed atmospheric sound, with their main impact resulting from the dramatic impact of gunshots. Some good ambiance appeared as well through music and general background effects. Split-surround usage was limited but adds occasional substance to the track.

Audio quality always appeared strong. Dialogue seemed natural and distinct, with no signs of edginess or problems related to intelligibility. Effects occasionally displayed some minor distortion - exclusively during gunshots - but they usually seemed clean and crisp, with good realism and clarity. Williams’ score came across best of all, as the track played it with excellent smoothness and depth. The martial drums seemed particularly good, as they beat clearly and display tight bass. Although JFK wasn’t an action-extravaganza, the soundtrack supported the material and added a nice touch.

When we head to the set’s extras, we start with an audio commentary with director Oliver Stone, who offers a running, screen-specific track. The emphasis is upon the “facts” told during the film. On some occasions Stone mentions the actors and their efforts, but for the majority of the commentary, we hear Stone tell us the “truth” of the matter.

That makes the commentary a tough listen. Stone throws out tons of the usual nonsense, a fact that meant I worried my eyes would be stuck in permanent roll. I don’t think I’ve ever yelled at a commentary before, but that happened here, as I couldn’t help but shout in disbelief at the idiocy spewed by Stone. The director tosses out so many lies and half-truths that I wasn’t sure I believed him when he stated his name!

At times you might wonder if you’re in Bizarro World. For instance, Stone talks about Perry Russo – the main inspiration for the composite character played by Kevin Bacon – and refers to him as a powerful, honest man. Really? That’d be the same Russo who flip-flopped on his story multiple times over the years?

Stone also tells us that witness Jean Hill never changed her story. Really? Would that be the same Jean Hill who embellished her tale every few years, changes that made her version of events more and more fantastic? On November 22, 1963, she stated she didn’t see anyone fire a weapon. By 1989, Hill averred that she did witness shooting from the grassy knoll. That’s a pretty big change for a story that Stone says remained the same.

And so on, and so on. When Stone talks about the film’s creation, the commentary becomes more involving and purposeful. Unfortunately, those moments emerge rather infrequently. Instead, Stone regales us with his pathetic defense of his idiotic, radically inaccurate film. It’s entertaining in a sad way, but you shouldn’t take it as anything remotely close to the truth.

The first disc includes a few other minor extras. We find a Cast and Crew section that provides filmographies for actors Kevin Costner, Tommy Lee Jones, Laurie Metcalf, Gary Oldman, Jay O. Sanders, Sissy Spacek and Joe Pesci plus a brief biography of Stone. Awards details some of the prizes taken by the film.

On the second DVD, we find a slew of Deleted Scenes. There are 12 in all - half of which are actually extended versions of existing scenes - and they run for a total of 54 minutes and 40 seconds. Not surprisingly, the completely new segments are the most interesting, as a few of the extensions are rather brief and don’t add much. The fresh scenes are more fascinating, especially an odd dream sequence that features a dead Oswald. This may be hard to believe, but had these snippets appeared in the final film, they would have made Stone’s theories even more clear; with shots of the government poisoning Jack Ruby and Oswald’s near-deification, the propaganda factor ratchets up another notch.

Nonetheless, it was interesting to view the excised footage, especially since all of the scenes can be watched with or without commentary from Stone. His remarks here expand upon the same topics covered in the feature track, though he focuses a bit more on the filmmaking process since he discusses the reasons the various clips were left out of the movie.

“Multimedia Essays” presents two different video features. Meet Mr. X: The Personality and Thoughts of Fletcher Prouty offers interviews with the man upon whom the film’s Donald Sutherland character was based. This 11-minute piece was surprisingly dull. Prouty mainly discusses his career and some aspects of the assassination, but I didn’t learn anything new or informative from his comments. It’s interesting to see the real man, but I didn’t gain anything from the experience.

In addition to the film’s trailer, we end with Assassination Update - The New Documents. This takes a look at the aftermath effected by the film. For all its flaws, JFK did create renewed interest in the assassination and put pressure on politicians to open up sealed films. This program discusses the actions of the Assassination Records Review Board, a governmental group put together in the mid-Nineties to examine and release much of the previously unavailable records.

If you’re looking for any revelations, you’ll need to search elsewhere, as the material covered here seems pretty unspectacular. Narrated by conspiracy buff Jim DiEugenio, the 29-minute and 40-second program rehashes some of the same old material under the guise of fresh and exciting new details. To quote from the film, that dog don’t hunt, and I found this piece to be disappointingly drab as well.

To date, Oliver Stone has yet to make a better film than 1991’s JFK. His investigation of the Kennedy assassination makes for an absolutely riveting and thrilling experience that manages to compress almost three and a half hours of material into a timeframe that seems much shorter. However, Stone abuses his power so egregiously that I have a difficult time appreciating JFK because it’s such a load of hooey; the film combines fact and fiction in a reckless manner that makes the entire movie intellectually dishonest.

The DVD offers average picture with good sound and some fine extras. Ultimately, I have to recommend JFK just because it’s such a strong film, but I urge you to check out other sources of material on the assassination and not just accept Stone’s blather without question.

To rate this film, visit the 2003 Special Edition review of JFK