Drama / History / Thriller

Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 85%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 88%
IMDb Rating 8 10 129,721


Downloaded 121,204 times
April 14, 2019



Donald Sutherland as John Bell
Gary Oldman as Sid Vicious
Kevin Costner as George Blackledge
900.16 MB
23.976 fps
189 min
P/S N/A / N/A

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by suryabali 10 / 10 / 10

Oliver Stone and his team has done it ! ! !

Oliver Stone, the director of film JFK [1991] has done a great job. He has directed a movie, that truly deserves Oscar in direction too which stone didn't won. The Film won two Oscars in Academy Award (1992), one in editing (Joe Hutshing and Pietro Scalia) and one in best cinematography(Robert Richardson). This Is a mind blowing historic thriller film which you will want to watch it again and again after seen it in first time. Some scenes in this movies are so interesting and amazingly filmed that created goosebumps every time i watch it, specially the assassination scene [2:54:32 to 3:07:30] in 3h 21m Director's Cut. The main key points to watch JFK are: 1. Cinematography: Robert Richardson is the cinematographer of JFK [1991]. The excellent art of photography and camera-work made this movie watchable again and again. 2. Editing: The merging of various shots and soundtracks at the same time is the key point of this film that makes it more interesting after every scene. 3. Soundtrack: The assassination scene demo at the beginning started with a goose bumping soundtrack that actually makes feel the conspiracy work. It is a great thing. 4. Acting: Costner, Oldman, Pesci, Jones, bacon and Sutherland's's great acting lift up the movie to a great height. If you didn't watch it, PLEASE go... take a shower and watch it. I promise you will never be disappointed if you have interest in a thriller movie. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND this movie. 10/10 (Please watch it in 201m Director's Cut on Blu Ray quality)

Reviewed by Matthew Kresal 10 / 10 / 10

Compelling To The Last Frame

Few events in American history stand out quite so heavily as the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Besides the shocking nature of the event with the American president being gunned down in broad daylight in a major city came the psychic scars caused by unanswered questions due to an alleged assassin gunned down before he could ever be tried and an official investigation that was at best botched and, at worst, a whitewash. Perhaps no single film or work of fiction has done more to raise questions about the event than Oliver Stone's 1991 JFK with its exploration of events through the perspective of Jim Garrison, the New Orleans District Attorney who brought to trial of the one alleged conspirators. Stone, along with his co-screenwriter Zachary Sklar, craft a peculiar film around the biggest unsolved mystery in American history. Indeed, JFK as a film owes much both to political thriller films such as Z (which also focuses on the assassination of a government official with multiple versions of the same events seen from the perspective of witnesses brought forth by a determined investigator) and the murder mystery genre. The only difference is that this is a murder with far more scope, far more suspects, and far more consequences than your garden variety murder mystery. It's a tale that takes in a large portion of still recent history and an era in time before distrust in government would reach its zenith (and perhaps has never truly subsided) and when terrible things very likely lurked in the shadows. Incidentally, anyone convinced that Stone's vision is overly paranoid should seek out the published script book for the film with dozens (if not hundreds) of annotations. The film's vision, while leaning perhaps a bit far in cases, turns out to be far plausible a vision than it's often given credit for. The result is at nightmarish with its implications, so perhaps it's no surprise that the film led to an act of Congress to release more of the classified files related to the assassination which is still being released even as I type these words. To bring the story to life, Stone assembled a first-rate team both in front of and behind the camera. Borrowing another trope from some of the better-filmed murder mysteries, the film has an all-star cast of actors in roles both big and small. Leading it is Kevin Costner as Jim Garrison, the New Orleans District Attorney who becomes both investigator and the audience's guide into the twisty world surrounding the assassination. Costner, though quite different from the real Garrison who was taller and more built, was nevertheless a perfect piece of casting as the intelligent everyman armed with a large amount of dignity and a determination to get to the truth no matter where it leads. Costner's performance plays up all of these elements and even the dark side of Garrison's obsession while also creating someone the audience is willing to follow for the three-plus hours the film runs for. The rest of the film's cast is equally as strong. The Garrison investigation turns up a number of fascinating characters, any of whom could very well the protagonist of their own film, ranging from Tommy Lee Jones' quietly menace as Clay Shaw, Joe Pesci's eccentric David Ferrie, John Candy as the ever-shifting lawyer Dean Andrews, and Kevin Bacon as Willie O'Keefe (a composite character, one of several the film uses) among many others. There is also Gary Oldman's Lee Harvey Oswald is not only uncanny in his resemblance but a fascinating portrait in its own right, presenting many different versions of one of modern history's most enigmatic figures. The film also has its fair share of strong female performances from Laurie Metcalf as an assistant DA to Sissy Spacek as Garrison's wife torn between supporting her husband and being drawn into the world he's uncovering. That's without mentioning the effective cameo appearances from the likes of Edward Asner, Jack Lemmon, and Walter Matthau or the scene-stealing monologue delivered by Donald Sutherland as the mysterious insider known as X. Few films can claim to have perfect casts but, for my money, JFK is one of them. Those behind the camera are the other half of the equation. Stone's team includes superb costume and set designs from Marlene Stewart and Victor Kempster which gives the film its sense of time and place. Yet as cerebral as the film is, a thinking person's thriller in many ways, it's also an immensely visual work with Stone often relying on the editing of Joe Hutshing and Pietro Scalia as well as the stunning cinematography of Robert Richardson. The three of them together weave in footage both archive and newly shot together into a tapestry that captures the viewer's eye as well as their brain. Underpinning it all is John Williams' score, perhaps one of his most underrated, that plays up not only the sense of unease but also the sense of what was lost all in the space of the film's opening titles and haunting themes elsewhere in the film. It's a remarkable tapestry all around. Indeed, that is a nice summary of the film as a whole. Stone's JFK is, in essence, a murder mystery. One whose stakes have a firm basis in reality and based on a crime whose particulars are still hotly debated decades after the fact. With his cast and crew, he created a fascinating piece of film-making that crosses genres and time, presenting an incredible and paranoid vision of an earth-shattering event. Except that, if what's in the film is even half true, has deeply disturbing implications. That thought and the fact that the film led to documents being released speaks to the power of film-making and JFK as a film in particular.

Reviewed by chaswe-28402 10 / 10 / 10

Cui bono ? Cui prodest ?

Back to the days of ancient Rome, and Julius Caesar. Brilliant direction; superbly acted and interacted; excellently written. Perhaps slightly too long and complicated, but it keeps you guessing, and makes you return to re-watch it, time and again. It does not provide a definite answer, but it suggests many. Go to youtube to find countless follow-ups. The message is: who stood to gain ? Crimes are committed 20% from passion, and 80% for profit. It is ludicrous to suppose that Oswald killed Kennedy either for personal profit or from passion. This was not motivated for anything but profit, and many people were obviously involved. Like the crimes of the Mafia, it was purely a matter of business. Impossible to believe Oswald even fired a gun. But, in any case, it's perfectly clear, from the way his head was thrown back, that Kennedy was shot from the front. The only thing that gives me pause is, if I was member of a group that wanted to kill the President I would hardly agree to choose a venue where everybody in town had gathered, and was watching. Still, that's how Booth chose to kill Lincoln. Vice-President A.Johnson was involved in some way at that time, it is rumoured. Does Kennedy equate with Lincoln ? Adds to the movie's message. Well, that's the message, and I buy it. Everybody filled their roles to perfection, but I cannot desist from mentioning Gary Oldman. A friend of mine had watched this film, and discussed it with me. He obviously hadn't taken in the full cast list. He was totally staggered when I told him Oldman had played Oswald, and could hardly believe it. The actor completely vanished into his part. Oldman is certainly by far the greatest cineactor of this age, and he's apparently never won an Oscar, although he's fully recognized by his fellow actors. I also liked the British girl reporter from Private Eye. 10 stars.

Read more IMDb reviews


Be the first to leave a comment