JFK Revisited currently has a Rotten Tomato score of 55%

[John Mytton]

EDIT with the recent influx of what seems to be mainly overseas reviews from apparently less JFKA educated observers, the score is on the rise, Good Luck Jimmy boy.

Poor old DiEugenio, from the established more reliable critics his latest film is receiving a pounding. Endless paranoid speculation based on minor discrepancies that goes nowhere is just tedious, people want answers (as Otto is learning on another thread), either name some names or shut the heck up.
When the time comes when CT's can definitively say what happened and why, then you may capture the publics attention but otherwise you're all just boring the pants off everyone.

2 stars out of 5
The Times UK

But if a pattern emerges, it's that the arguments in Stone's film almost always start by assuming the most paranoid possible interpretation of events, then work their way backward to the evidence.
..."Conspiracy theories are now conspiracy facts," Stone, who appears in the movie, says at one point. Whatever that means.
Rogerbert.com

Stone says that the president was killed in a “crossfire.” But how could there have been a crossfire if Oswald wasn’t even in the book depository? Was there another shooter in the book depository using Oswald’s rifle? Was there a shooter across the street? The film barely even explains its theory. Talk about skimping on details! In “JFK Revisited,” Oliver Stone leads us through the looking glass, all right, but the real question is whether he’s found the truth or an even more hypnotically spectacular lie.
Variety

‘JFK Revisited’ Film Review: Oliver Stone Keeps Digging, But He Still Doesn’t Have the Answers
Of course, Oswald can’t have acted alone. At least, that’s what I’ve always thought. But now, I’m not so sure, which surely can’t have been the intention of the documentary.
Yahoo Entertainment

...sees the veteran director, in a voice of utmost sententiousness, present reams of turgid documentary evidence to support his contention that JFK was… killed by… it’s unclear exactly, but anyway, the reason for the assassination is… never really given to us. But there was a big conspiracy! Look at this graph!
The Daily Beast

but Stone’s refusal to draw from a single consenting voice or make room for any alternative readings makes the film much more easy to shrug-off as an entertainingly crackpot diversion.
Little White Lies

In the following JFK Revisited trailer they show Specter lining up the wounds on Kennedy and Connally and proving the single bullet fact. Thanks!

JohnM

[Jerry Organ]

Well, Richard will point out that those reviews from liberal media are "fake news"!    (Just "The Times" review is accurate).

The Rotten Tomatoes Rating will go up astronomically as the ratings from reviewers less familiar with the JFK case are added. "Rotten Tomatoes" sounds like it would be critical all the time, but the opposite is true.

"15 Terrible Movies With High Rotten Tomatoes Scores" ( Link ) "Sharknado" has 83% rating. The site seems to be a promotional vehicle since Comcast Universal bought it in 2016.

[Jerry Organ]

"JFK Revisited" is now at 43% on the "Tomatometer". You can expect some of the reviewers to give Stone kudos just on technical skill, editing and score, rather than the legitimacy of his subject matter. Excerpts from the Variety review:

    "The JFK assassination launched the Age of Conspiracy, and many
     conspiracies followed — Paul is Dead, the fake moon landing, the
     cover-up of alien abductions, the murder of Princess Diana, 9/11
     as inside job. That a good portion of the American public now thinks
     Joe Biden stole the election, and that QAnon is something other
     then organized media psychosis, shows you just how far through
     the looking glass we’ve gone."

Here's some of the conspiracy claims Stone presents, all pretty-much debunked on the Forum:

    "when you’re staring at a declassified page from the Warren Commission
     Report in which Gerald Ford, with a few penciled-in words, literally shifts
     by six inches the place where the first bullet entered JFK. At moments
     like that, you feel the frisson of the junkie-hit injections that conspiracy
     theory is built upon."

    "Stone directs our attention to contradictory versions of where the rifle
     rifle strap was supposedly attached (on the side or the back?)"

    "The movie fills this in by going into the records to explore the testimony
     of Vickie Adams, who knew Oswald from the book depository."

(The Variety reviewer notes: "But might not Oswald have heard them and hung back for 10 seconds? Why does this idea — that the two women never saw Oswald — prove anything?")

    "[Whoopi] Goldberg, in the narration, says of Oswald, 'The underlying
     mystery remains: Why would anyone use a rifle in an assassination
     knowing there was a paper trail that would lead right back to them?'
     Is that so hard to fathom? ,,, Why would Oswald have left a paper trail?
     Because he never expected to be caught."

    "Well, when I look at the Zapruder film, what my eyes see, at that horrific
     moment, is that the back of JFK’s head is intact. There is no occipital
     wound. The bullet tore through the side of his head."

What a difference not having Joe Pesci in a wig.

[Jerry Organ]

The "Caiman Movie Magazine" of Madrid nudged the Tomatometer to 50%. Google Translate ...

    "It is an attempt to revisit the case, in order to be a little more
     precise than the final hypothesis that the fiction wove"

    "the CIA had information about the existence of three previous
     and hypothetical attempts to attack President Kennedy."

    "On the day of his assassination, when Lyndon Johnson came
     to power, he changed some documents so that the progressive
     withdrawal from Vietnam was not possible."

Doesn't seem to praise Stone for technical skill at all; more is made of the conspiracy "facts". The reviewer just isn't that knowledgeable about the conspiracy claims and the counter evidence. I think we've gone through half of the movie reviewers who are on to the CTs. I figure 90% of the reviews from here on will be from reviewers who assume Stone is trustworthy and has some "insider" grasp of the JFK research.

The documentary will easily attain 80% or more. Stone (who says he got picked on supposedly for no good reason) is like Oswald, innocently going about his business when something unanticipated happens, like someone in an elevator handing Stone a copy of "On the Trail of the Assassins". And poor Oswald; in the vicinity of the first Dallas policeman slaying in years and his jacket blows off but he makes it to the theater only to have the police show up.

Richard shrewdly highlighted this with his comparing of Oswald to "Mr. Magoo".

[Jerry Organ]

The London-based "Screen International" Chief Critic Fionnuala Halligan, dear soul, is full-out delusional.

    "You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to realise that the Warren
     Commission’s report on the cold-blooded murder of this popular head
     of state was a whitewash"

    "this isn’t a dispatch from the tin hat brigade but a holding-to-acount
     for the brutal murder of a man who stood for change"

     "his may be the last chance for audiences to appreciate the scale
     of the deception involved"

    "This documentary does not sink down the what-might-have-been
     trap, but holds itself to the facts throughout."

    "Even though so many questions can’t be fully answered, credible
     scenarios swim into view"

Wow. And she thinks she's a step above the tin hat brigade. What? She rejects Greer shot Kennedy?

This is interesting ...

    "[Stone will] have to overcome his dilution of his own reputation
     underlined by the currently-airing 10-part series on Kazakh dictator
     Nursultan Nazarbayev in order to convince audiences to tune in"

[Jerry Organ]

The Mexico-based "Butaca Ancha" (Wide Armchair) movie review blog site just prodded "JFK Revisited" to 56% and thus through the looking glass. Google Translate ...

    "The contextual framework that Stone supports is of utmost importance
     because that horizon allows us to observe the anti-colonialist stance that
     sought to regulate relations with the Soviet Union, with Cuba and with
     Vietnam.; the 3 great scenarios for Manifest Destiny and economic
     fortune in military technology to increase"

    "Stone's work does not seek to place certainties, more importantly, it tries
     to place questions at the center of the discussion, which with the right fire,
     can make immaculate statues explode in time."

Still not half as nutty as Trump Republicans.

[John Mytton]

The Mexico-based "Butaca Ancha" (Wide Armchair) movie review blog site just prodded "JFK Revisited" to 56% and thus through the looking glass. Google Translate ...

    "The contextual framework that Stone supports is of utmost importance
     because that horizon allows us to observe the anti-colonialist stance that
     sought to regulate relations with the Soviet Union, with Cuba and with
     Vietnam.; the 3 great scenarios for Manifest Destiny and economic
     fortune in military technology to increase"

    "Stone's work does not seek to place certainties, more importantly, it tries
     to place questions at the center of the discussion, which with the right fire,
     can make immaculate statues explode in time."

Still not half as nutty as Trump Republicans.

Thanks Jerry, I've been updating the score to reflect the latest percentages. It's disappointing to see some of the reactions that you posted because every pancake however thin always has two sides and without a fair response, these "truth seekers" can almost get away with anything.
Just 1 example is they are making a big deal out of Ford correcting the language of a rough copy but without someone pointing out that all Ford did was more closely match what was actually written in the Autopsy report, then what does the "truth seekers" deception actually prove?




https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf

JohnM

[Jerry Organ]

Thanks Jerry, I've been updating the score to reflect the latest percentages. It's disappointing to see some of the reactions that you posted because every pancake however thin always has two sides and without a fair response, these "truth seekers" can almost get away with anything.
Just 1 example is they are making a big deal out of Ford correcting the language of a rough copy but without someone pointing out that all Ford did was more closely match what was actually written in the Autopsy report, then what does the "truth seekers" deception actually prove?

JohnM

On page 60 of the Warren Report (GPO edition), it states:

    "The autopsy also disclosed a wound near the base of the back
     President Kennedy's neck slightly to the right of the spine."

Which, as you show, matches the description for the bullet's level in the Autopsy Report. Also, 3D analysis of the autopsy photograph shows the bullet hole was above the scapula (like the autopsy report said: "entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula") or at the base of the back of the neck (clinically, the neck's posterior region starts at the C7/T1 level).



(This particular 3D model shows the bullet striking the C7 transverse process, but there's enough variation in human anatomy to have the bullet just miss the process.)

Maybe Stone fell for the critic's contention that the President's jacket wasn't raised in a bunch and that the level of the bullet hole that the jacket showed as it rested on a coat hanger eclipsed the autopsy report and photos.



Errol Morris (of "The Thin Blue Line" fame) wrote the 2012 book "A Wilderness of Error: The Trials of Jeffrey MacDonald" that claimed MacDonald was innocent. But in the 2020 documentary TV series of the same name (directed by Marc Smerling, of "The Jinx" fame), Morris was shown enough evidence to make him think MacDonald might be guilty.

We see nothing as open-minded as that from Oliver Stone.