I feel this way mainly because I have seen alot of films... and not just 'recent release section' stuff, have studied film production and criticism and have made films, and, based on my experience the people who tend to think that it is a good film, and especially those who think that it is 'great', have very little acquaintance with the huge variety of film styles and qualities out there . . . .
pompous ass.....and then some.
from roger ebert ("who knows a little bit about film and not just the recent release stuff")
Quote:
Stone's film is hypnotically watchable. Leaving aside all of its drama and emotion, it is a masterpiece of film assembly. The writing, the editing, the music, the photography, are all used here in a film of enormous complexity, to weave a persuasive tapestry out of an overwhelming mountain of evidence and testimony. Film students will examine this film in wonder in the years to come, astonished at how much information it contains, how many characters, how many interlocking flashbacks, what skillful interweaving of documentary and fictional footage. The film hurtles for 188 minutes through a sea of information and conjecture, and never falters and never confuses us.
i'm surprised someone who "knows a lot about film" can't see why this is a great one.
Oswald getting shot in a police garage at point blank with like 30 officers around by a sleazy nightclub owner with alleged mob ties is another thing that makes the whole thing seem strange.
I've never seen a "smoking gun" that convinces me of involvement by someone beyond LHO, but again, just so many things that seem odd.
i know, if an irate lawman would have shot him i'd of understood, but a sleazy night club owner? what was he doing there?
the dallas police department didn't come out of this whole affair looking to swell.
which reminds me, in the late 80's i was in dallas on business and my boss took me on "the drive" and didn't tell me, i was just looking out the window and suddenly i realized.......it was very eerie.
i know, if an irate lawman would have shot him i'd of understood, but a sleazy night club owner? what was he doing there?
the dallas police department didn't come out of this whole affair looking to swell.
which reminds me, in the late 80's i was in dallas on business and my boss took me on "the drive" and didn't tell me, i was just looking out the window and suddenly i realized.......it was very eerie.
In the commentary for the movie Stone mentions that the plaza looks much the same as it did then. I'd like to go there sometime.
there is a story in the chicago sun-times today about the chicagoan who sold lee harvey oswald his gun.
Quote:
It was Milt's problem. Milt Klein believed in the rule of the hunter -- you eat what you shoot -- and his connection with Kennedy was a fact. "He had to eat that fact every day,'' his son said.
In the commentary for the movie Stone mentions that the plaza looks much the same as it did then. I'd like to go there sometime.
Jeff
One of the weirdest things happened to me in Dallas:
Wanted to see my first NFL game in my favorite teams' stadium (Don't hate me, at least I'm loyal thru the good and bad. 'Boys fan for 32 years).
Anyway, after the game and leaving the staduim, we asked some people where to go for some food and drinks and someone suggested the "West End" (I think that's what it's called).
So, when driving along, it feels and looks really familier to me. We go under this overpass and around this loop and I realize that we are in Dealy Plaza!
It was such a weird feeling as we realized where we were driving and what had occured there.
Even more trippy was the fact that it was Nov. 22, 1998 - 35 years to the day of the assassination.
Kinda cool to experience that area though after seeing the pictures for years.
Don't laugh at me. I haven't read much of the thread, but there was a program on this in Japan recently (yes, I'm in Japan).
The footage you have in your mind has been cut...not much...and who knows for what reason...it was picked up by the techs on television here when they went to digitize the film...
Anyway, the section cut (yeah, the Japanese media found it, digitized it and, so they reckon, were the first to ever show it on public television) shows someone opening a black umbrella on the pavement...soon after which the bullet takes JFK's brains out. Hot, sunny afternoon...the guy is wearing a black trenchcoat...and opens a black umbrella as the vehicle comes level...
Next time you watch the film...watch closely the section where the car goes in behind the sign in the foreground...it is at this time the film is cut. The car comes out as far as the bumper...and then its suddenly out as far as the windscreen...the film is old, so you think it's just the film playing up. During the frame-by-frame digitization in Japan, you can clearly see the glue patches where the two cut ends have been re-affixed.
So...why, and who would want to cut out the umbrella-opening scene from the film?
there are a few JFK TV specials scheduled for the anniversary this week.
Peter Jennings is hosting one on ABC, and i've seen promos for others.
interestingly, at least one is hyping the CSI angle with "state of the art forensic computer animation" promising to take viewers on a virtual ride down the plaza to "reveal new information"
there are a few JFK TV specials scheduled for the anniversary this week.
Peter Jennings is hosting one on ABC, and i've seen promos for others.
interestingly, at least one is hyping the CSI angle with "state of the art forensic computer animation" promising to take viewers on a virtual ride down the plaza to "reveal new information"
That may be the ABCNews special airing on Thursday. I read an article on the special yesterday that included similar language.
Incidentally, they let the cat out of the bag: the new information supposedly supports the lone gunmen theory (no, not the "Lone Gunmen").
On November 20, FRONTLINE marks the 40th anniversary of President Kennedy's assassination with an encore broadcast of "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?"--an investigative biography of the man at the center of the political crime of the 20th century. The three-hour documentary special traces Oswald's life from his boyhood to that fateful day in Dallas on November 22, 1963, posing a number of questions: Was Oswald the emotionally disturbed "lone gunman?" Was he one of two gunmen that day in Dallas? Or was he an unwitting scapegoat for the real assassins?
Following broadcast, explore the web site for this program on Lee Harvey Oswald which will feature:
·_a Web Exclusive forum with prominent authors and investigators discussing the portrait they draw of Oswald based on what they've learned and written about him;
·_a full chronology of Lee Harvey Oswald's life;
·_some of Oswald's most revealing writings, photos and letters;
·_analysis of U.S. intelligence documents released over the past decade and what they reveal about a cover-up on Oswald;
·_the extended interviews with those who were closest to Oswald or had carefully investigated his life;
·_plus: links and readings, a forum on the controversial "JFK" movie and more...
non-tv owners or foreigners will be pleased to know PBS archives the entire show for web view
Comments
Originally posted by Northgate
But, hey, it's my duty to point out hypocrisy when it's sooooo f*cking blatant.
Yep, it's always easy to talk mess from the sidelines
too lazy to start a "gangster film" thread given the Tarantino groundwork already laid here
just watched "Gangster No. 1"
mebbe just the Malcolm McDowell connection, but the ultra-violence had me describing it as a mix of:
Clockwork Orange, Reservoir Dogs, Sexy Beast, and Good Fellas
very stylish, disturbingly violent, and a fascinating psychological study
back on the JFK Topic...
evidence of conspiracy?
Originally posted by pfflam
I might come off as a pompous arse but . . .
I feel this way mainly because I have seen alot of films... and not just 'recent release section' stuff, have studied film production and criticism and have made films, and, based on my experience the people who tend to think that it is a good film, and especially those who think that it is 'great', have very little acquaintance with the huge variety of film styles and qualities out there . . . .
pompous ass.....and then some.
from roger ebert ("who knows a little bit about film and not just the recent release stuff")
Stone's film is hypnotically watchable. Leaving aside all of its drama and emotion, it is a masterpiece of film assembly. The writing, the editing, the music, the photography, are all used here in a film of enormous complexity, to weave a persuasive tapestry out of an overwhelming mountain of evidence and testimony. Film students will examine this film in wonder in the years to come, astonished at how much information it contains, how many characters, how many interlocking flashbacks, what skillful interweaving of documentary and fictional footage. The film hurtles for 188 minutes through a sea of information and conjecture, and never falters and never confuses us.
i'm surprised someone who "knows a lot about film" can't see why this is a great one.
Originally posted by pfflam
'rober ebert' . . . . *heehee*
that speaks volumes
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
I always liked that band. Too bad the lead singer died.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
i especially liked the hit single "i'm just a patsy"
Yeah, that was a great one.
You can hear the acapella here (the chorus "I'm just a patsy" is at the end): http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RA.../JFK/patsy.wav
I've never seen a "smoking gun" that convinces me of involvement by someone beyond LHO, but again, just so many things that seem odd.
Jeff
the dallas police department didn't come out of this whole affair looking to swell.
which reminds me, in the late 80's i was in dallas on business and my boss took me on "the drive" and didn't tell me, i was just looking out the window and suddenly i realized.......it was very eerie.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
i know, if an irate lawman would have shot him i'd of understood, but a sleazy night club owner? what was he doing there?
the dallas police department didn't come out of this whole affair looking to swell.
which reminds me, in the late 80's i was in dallas on business and my boss took me on "the drive" and didn't tell me, i was just looking out the window and suddenly i realized.......it was very eerie.
In the commentary for the movie Stone mentions that the plaza looks much the same as it did then. I'd like to go there sometime.
Jeff
there was no sign, (obviously) or any kind of marker saying what happened there. maybe there is now.
It was Milt's problem. Milt Klein believed in the rule of the hunter -- you eat what you shoot -- and his connection with Kennedy was a fact. "He had to eat that fact every day,'' his son said.
the whole story can be found here
Originally posted by jeffyboy
In the commentary for the movie Stone mentions that the plaza looks much the same as it did then. I'd like to go there sometime.
Jeff
One of the weirdest things happened to me in Dallas:
Wanted to see my first NFL game in my favorite teams' stadium (Don't hate me, at least I'm loyal thru the good and bad. 'Boys fan for 32 years).
Anyway, after the game and leaving the staduim, we asked some people where to go for some food and drinks and someone suggested the "West End" (I think that's what it's called).
So, when driving along, it feels and looks really familier to me. We go under this overpass and around this loop and I realize that we are in Dealy Plaza!
It was such a weird feeling as we realized where we were driving and what had occured there.
Even more trippy was the fact that it was Nov. 22, 1998 - 35 years to the day of the assassination.
Kinda cool to experience that area though after seeing the pictures for years.
Originally posted by Harald
Don't laugh at me.
Don't laugh at me. I haven't read much of the thread, but there was a program on this in Japan recently (yes, I'm in Japan).
The footage you have in your mind has been cut...not much...and who knows for what reason...it was picked up by the techs on television here when they went to digitize the film...
Anyway, the section cut (yeah, the Japanese media found it, digitized it and, so they reckon, were the first to ever show it on public television) shows someone opening a black umbrella on the pavement...soon after which the bullet takes JFK's brains out. Hot, sunny afternoon...the guy is wearing a black trenchcoat...and opens a black umbrella as the vehicle comes level...
Next time you watch the film...watch closely the section where the car goes in behind the sign in the foreground...it is at this time the film is cut. The car comes out as far as the bumper...and then its suddenly out as far as the windscreen...the film is old, so you think it's just the film playing up. During the frame-by-frame digitization in Japan, you can clearly see the glue patches where the two cut ends have been re-affixed.
So...why, and who would want to cut out the umbrella-opening scene from the film?
Peter Jennings is hosting one on ABC, and i've seen promos for others.
interestingly, at least one is hyping the CSI angle with "state of the art forensic computer animation" promising to take viewers on a virtual ride down the plaza to "reveal new information"
set your Tivos as appropriate.
tin foil hats optional.
Originally posted by curiousuburb
there are a few JFK TV specials scheduled for the anniversary this week.
Peter Jennings is hosting one on ABC, and i've seen promos for others.
interestingly, at least one is hyping the CSI angle with "state of the art forensic computer animation" promising to take viewers on a virtual ride down the plaza to "reveal new information"
That may be the ABCNews special airing on Thursday. I read an article on the special yesterday that included similar language.
Incidentally, they let the cat out of the bag: the new information supposedly supports the lone gunmen theory (no, not the "Lone Gunmen").
Originally posted by LudwigVan
(no, not the "Lone Gunmen").
I miss those guys.
I thought their spin-off sucked, though.
Jeff
Originally posted by LudwigVan
That may be the ABCNews special airing on Thursday. I read an article on the special yesterday that included similar language.
Incidentally, they let the cat out of the bag: the new information supposedly supports the lone gunmen theory (no, not the "Lone Gunmen").
one of the other specials worth noting is the Nov 20 episode of
Frontline: Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald
On November 20, FRONTLINE marks the 40th anniversary of President Kennedy's assassination with an encore broadcast of "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?"--an investigative biography of the man at the center of the political crime of the 20th century. The three-hour documentary special traces Oswald's life from his boyhood to that fateful day in Dallas on November 22, 1963, posing a number of questions: Was Oswald the emotionally disturbed "lone gunman?" Was he one of two gunmen that day in Dallas? Or was he an unwitting scapegoat for the real assassins?
Following broadcast, explore the web site for this program on Lee Harvey Oswald which will feature:
·_a Web Exclusive forum with prominent authors and investigators discussing the portrait they draw of Oswald based on what they've learned and written about him;
·_a full chronology of Lee Harvey Oswald's life;
·_some of Oswald's most revealing writings, photos and letters;
·_analysis of U.S. intelligence documents released over the past decade and what they reveal about a cover-up on Oswald;
·_the extended interviews with those who were closest to Oswald or had carefully investigated his life;
·_plus: links and readings, a forum on the controversial "JFK" movie and more...
non-tv owners or foreigners will be pleased to know PBS archives the entire show for web view