GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

njmollo Oswald's Ghost (2007) is a disturbing documentary mainly because of the important information it chooses to leave out.The idea that "Oswald acted alone" has been surprising popular in recent documentaries. It seems that this appalling event in American history still has important resonances today that require the message of "Oswald acting alone" to be frequently regurgitated. The wealth of misinformation concerning the assassination of John F. Kennedy continues unabated with documentaries like Peter Jennings' Beyond Conspiracy (2003), Oswald's Ghost (2007) and The Kennedy Assassination: 24 Hours After (2009) all of which promote the lone assassin theory as fact.The problem with these documentaries is that the wealth of information pointing to a conspiracy is strictly ignored or derided. Information is cherry picked, manipulated and fabricated to lead the viewer to the conclusion that Oswald acted alone. Why it is still so important to promote this version of events in the face of other more disturbing evidence?The Zapruder film is the "thorn in the side" for anyone promoting Oswald as the lone shooter. Some "documentary" films such as The Kennedy Assassination: 24 Hours After, simply ignore the fact that Kennedy's head is seen to jerk backwards as a bullet strikes, as if there is a general consensus that the official version of events is undisputed. Peter Jennings' Beyond Conspiracy states that Kennedy's head jerking backward is no sign of where the bullet came from. Remember that before the Zapruder film was finally released to the public, the official story, confirmed by Dan Rather and others, was that Kennedy's head jerked violently forward so as to indicate a bullet hitting him from behind. This official description of the Zapruder film, tailored for public consumption, is the exact opposite of what is clearly seen in the Zapuder film.Peter Jennings' Beyond Conspiracy almost reaches the hysterical in its attempt to prove conclusively that conspiracy theorists like Oliver Stone are wrong. What is clear, is that Peter Jennings' Beyond Conspiracy is poorly disguised propaganda. It is as objective as NBC's infamous hit piece made to discredit Jim Garrison and his investigation into the Kennedy assassination.Documentaries that promote "Oswald as the lone assassin" seem to have greater budgets, audience exposure and production values when compared to the numerous "home-made" documentaries that support a conspiracy.One of the most compelling documentaries that supports a massive conspiracy to have Kennedy assassinated is JFK II or Dark Legacy. While some of the suppositions contained in the documentary are theoretical, the filmmaker has without doubt presented a version of events, supported by available material, that points to high-level Government/Military/Covert involvement in the murder of John F. Kennedy. Another piece of remarkable footage, too rarely seen, is the removal of Kennedy's secret service bodyguard from his open top limousine. The secret service officer is seen to be surprised at being ordered to "stand-down" by a superior officer and raises his arms in an unmistakable gesture of incomprehension. This telling piece of footage is not shown in any documentary supporting Oswald as the lone assassin.It is public record that Oswald was an American Government asset. He had an FBI employment number S179. This information again is never sited in documentaries that promote Oswald as the lone shooter.It seems that much has been learnt by American covert agencies in regard to "cover-stories" put out in the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination. It certainly helps to have a compliant and malleable Corporate Media to preach your message. Even if truthful information is unintentionally made available it can be easily undermined with misinformation, lies and propaganda. As is the case with the attacks on 9/11, any relevant information can be withheld, subverted, altered or swamped in a sea of misinformation.

wulfstan That is about the extent of this film's contribution. If you think Todd Gitlin, or Tom Hayden know beans about any of this, their participation will disabuse you of that notion. And if you have forgotten how Mark Lane got rich off his speculations on the assassination, here is a reminder.If you think polling a subset of less than 2% of the US population is key to understanding an issue in which Stone tells us more than 70% of the US population is united in having no faith in the Warren Report, you will love the wacky logic of OSWALD'S GHOST.A LOT of opinion and very few facts. I find the musings of an Mailer on his last legs interesting because I find Mailer's thought processes interesting, but he adds nothing to the issues here either. One might as well hear yet another actor tells you what he/she "thinks" about politics. They do better when someone writes their lines.The objective of this documentary is to show how "dark revanchist forces" (AKA Republicans, generals, intelligence folks, corporate types etc), as opposed to the good old-time lefty Marxist doctrine, resorted to assassination in the cases of JFK, Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy, and the like to hold back "the future." If you have somehow missed out of on the many "documentary" efforts of film makers like Stone to get this point across, here is another chance.Case in point, it is useful to have Edward Jay Epstein's send up of Garrison's numerological idiocies, but whatever viewers think about "who dun it," and we have a lot of evidence here on IMDb that there are a lot of opinions about that, Stone intentionally ignores the hardest evidence of what really counts right under his nose.The key point is that there is no evidence as yet that ANY single assassin can have pulled off the JFK assassination... Oswald or anyone else. Trying to aim and fire all those shots and make two hits with a piece of crap like a Carcano bolt action with that scope... just hasn't worked.Any fair minded analyst must concede THAT makes a lot of difference to evaluating a film like OSWALD'S GHOST which is more agitprop than Doc.EVERY attempt to duplicate the marksmanship required of the "one assassin in six seconds" theory over the past 40 years has failed. One of the most detailed attempts to duplicate it was put together by CBS News a few years after the assassination. Stone carries a few feet of film showing the test underway. But Stone never tells us that CBS couldn't duplicate it either.It does matter. Stone is just another tourist, putting together his idea of pretty faces that the PBS PC will find acceptable and same-old same-old commentary with no context and no understanding of what he is dealing with. Hey, they paid him and ran it.Too bad that was enough for him

Joe Stemme OSWALD'S GHOST got a brief theatrical release on it's way to an American EXPERIENCE broadcast on PBS. There is little to recommend for seeing it on the big screen as most of its footage is either archival stock that was meant to be shown on TV in the first place, or typical talking heads interviews from the present day.The film goes over familiar territory for anyone even vaguely familiar with the JFK assassination. Some of the talking heads such as Mark Lane and Dan Rather trot out stories most have seen before. More interesting are individuals like former Presidential Candidate Gary Hart and Norman Mailer who, rightly or wrongly, give us their insights into the matter (more on Mailer later). For the first hour or so, Director Robert Stone tries to portray a sort of kaleidescope (a word used in the documentary) of the Assassination, the official and conspiracy theories and a view of how it affected people of the immediate and subsequent generations. On that level, it sort of keeps one's interest. Some of the footage is less familiar than others, and it's edited together competently enough. Gary Lionelli's music itself is evocative, but, unfortunately, Stone mixes it too high and he drowns out some of the dialog in the process. Worse, much of the archival footage would be more effective without the intrusive music. *** Possible SPOILER AREA ***And, then, in the last 20 minutes, Stone completely flips the film on its end. Gone is the dispassionate, relatively even-handed approach and he gives the film over completely to one side of the argument. Norman Mailer and HIS theory of the assassination come to dominate the final section of the documentary. Mailer's conclusions become the film's conclusions. In light of Mailer's subsequent death, the film could just as easily been called, "Mailer's Ghost". And, then, it ends abruptly.Without knowing more about Stone (his surname an irony in itself that even he can't avoid as he includes behind-the-scenes footage of OLIVER Stone directing his film JFK!), it's impossible to know if this method of seemingly pulling the rug out from the viewer was an intentional act of the old in-and-out sucker punch, or if it naturally evolved that way through the editing process. In either case, it considerably weakens the film - setting all prejudice one way or another about one's particular view of the JFK assassination aside. Not only does it come out of nowhere, but it tarnishes what was good about that first hour.

chasmilt777 I has hyped up in seeing this documentary, only to find disappointment after rushing across Dallas during rush hour traffic to see a special viewing at the Texas movie theater.Even though Robert Stone said that he tried to present both sides in his documentary, the end suggested that Oswald acted alone. Stone did not convince me of this, instead he only angered me into thinking that I wasted my time in watching his film.Stone only showed the members of the Warren Commission and never mentioned them by name. These Commission members would have been happy to know that their deception is still being presented today. Gerald Ford, the only man to ever hold the position of President that was never elected by the people, and Robert Dulles, the ex-director of the CIA who was fired by JFK, are two of the men in American history that helped cover-up the true events that happened that dark day in Dallas.Stone points to Oswald as being the man who shot at General Walker in Dallas before the assassination of JFK. This was never confirmed. If this was true, it only proves that Oswald was not a very good shot or marksman. In the cover of night, Oswald misses Walker, but yet at high noon and in broad daylight, Oswald hits President Kennedy three times in six seconds. No sniper in our special forces could pull off this feat. Not with a single bolt action rifle. Oswald has no Davy Crockett nor Daniel Boone. This film brought up none of Oswald's military training or rifle skills.How did the Warren Commission get away with thinking that the American people are stupid enough to believe that Oswald acted alone ? It seems that the director of this documentary thinks the same. I was very disappointed to find out that Norman Mailer believed in this deception too.