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

[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

[Joe Elliott]

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"

Yes, you do have to be a conspiracy theorist. If you think the Warren Commission’s report was a whitewash then you are a conspiracy theorist. If you are so far out that you don’t realize that you are a conspiracy theorist than you are not just a conspiracy theorist, you are a wacky conspiracy theorist.

Maybe someone who believes the Warren Commission was all a whitewash is right. Maybe someday, a Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy theory will prove to be right. But while that person may be right, they are also a conspiracy theorist.

[John Mytton]

If you think the Warren Commission’s report was a whitewash then you are a conspiracy theorist.

The report, without supporting evidence, pins two murders on a guy.

The WC report was a corroborative effort, that's conspiracy.

Elementary, my dear Watson.

"without supporting evidence" LOL



JohnM

[Jerry Freeman]

For about $10....you can get an easily storable CD containing all 26 volumes. They actually fail to support the ultimate determination of the Report.

 I have linked this before and the statement was ignored-----

Four of the seven members of the commission, Boggs, Cooper, McCloy, and Russell, had serious doubts regarding the conclusions of the commission that the President and Governor Connally were both wounded by the "magic bullet" and regarding the view that Oswald had acted alone.[30][31]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Commission#Skepticism

The majority of the very Commission itself "had serious doubts" regarding their own conclusions!! So, would that not have made [by definition established here on this forum by the anti-skeptics] these gentlemen 'conspiracy theorists'?

[Jack Nessan]

For about $10....you can get an easily storable CD containing all 26 volumes. They actually fail to support the ultimate determination of the Report.

 I have linked this before and the statement was ignored-----https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Commission#Skepticism

The majority of the very Commission itself "had serious doubts" regarding their own conclusions!! So, would that not have made [by definition established here on this forum by the anti-skeptics] these gentlemen 'conspiracy theorists'?

McCloy should not be in this group. There is no place for the bullet exiting JFK's throat to go but into JBC's back. McCloy also states this very point.

Mr. McCLOY - Warren Commission Member to the HSCA about SBT

Twice in my life, and I am sure a number of people in this room may have had a somewhat similar experience, I stood right alongside of a man as he was shot. The first man--it was in World War I in France--was killed. The second man recovered from his wound. The circumstances of the second experience were really quite amazing. I am convinced, after my experience, that on occasion, when you are shot, you don't know the minute you are hit. There is a sort of a perceptible period following the impact before you get the full realization that you have been hit. In the first case, it was a fellow officer in World War I. We were not far apart and he quietly said, "Jack, I think I am hit." He shortly collapsed subsequently and died of his wound. The other experience, which is almost unbelievable, was in Berlin when we were rehearsing for the reception of President Truman, who was going to visit us at the American headquarters in Berlin after the war. I had been, as you know, an official of the Government, Military Governor, and later High Commissioner for Germany, and Gen. Lucius Clay, my predecessor as Military Governor was with me, and we began to rehearse the ceremony because President Truman was coming along that afternoon to visit the headquarters. We were rehearsing, for example, who would step up and first shake hands with the President, when the bugles should sound off, et cetera--"You are going to do this and you that." There was a friend of mine who was on Clay's staff and who later became a very distinguished jurist in Massachusetts. He became Chief Judge of the Supreme Judicial Court. His name was Cutter, and we designated him to pose as the President. We said, "you are going to be President Truman, you are going to be the President and are to stand here." We started through the rehearsal. This was in front of the headquarters in Berlin and, by George, Cutter turned to me at a certain point, sort of hesitated and said, "Jack, I think I'm shot," and in a little while, he collapsed. You can imagine what a tizzy that created.


I know Governor Connally very well; I have shot quail with him and I know he's a good shot and I know he is familiar with firearms. Frankly, I don't think he knew exactly when he was hit. I saw his recent testimony--at least somebody reported to me, perhaps indirectly, that he wasn't as certain now as when he first appeared before us--before our Commission when he said he was sure it wasn't the same shot which hit President Kennedy which hit him. I don't know where that bullet could have gone if it didn't go through Governor Connally. Moreover, Governor Connally didn't know until the next day, I think it was, that he had been shot in the hand, as well as in the body. I am suggesting that the certainty which he felt earlier isn't entirely reliable. The Germans have a word for it. They call it the "nachschlag." I believe those who had been close to places where people have been shot are frequently aware of a perceptible delay on the part of the victim in registering an awareness of the shot.

[John Mytton]

"The Playlist" review by Mark Asch just checked the Tomatometer to 56%. Some excerpts ...

    "So many of the supposedly telling facts about the chain
     of evidence of the assassin’s bullet, the muddled autopsy
     protocol, conflicted eyewitness testimony, even the weight
     of Kennedy’s brain, are treated as damning, rather than as
     minor inconsistencies most easily explained as the natural
     consequences of confusion, trauma, bureaucratic sloppiness,
     the limits of forensic science in the early 1960s, and the
     unreliability of memory."

    "Even without the benefit of a pause button to check Wikipedia
     to see which facts Stone has omitted, his sleight-of-hand is
     obvious. A bullet the voiceover claims was undamaged is
     clearly deformed in its tip when seen in a frontal view"

( Reviewer probably meant the rear tip as seen "end-on" )

"That sequence is just the beginning of our demolition of CE 399.  One of my objectives in writing the script was this: From here on in whenever anybody even mentions CE 399 everyone will giggle. And that is what we did. Remember what Mantik says about it being foundational to the HSCA and WC.  Well, we will show that there was no foundation to it. It was all lies."
James DiEugenio

Talk about delusions of grandeur, read what DiEugenio claims about CE 399, but I bet the film doesn't address the bullet being planted on a different floor and how "they" just hoped someone would find CE 399 and make the necessary link and I bet they don't explain how even before the surgery was finished the psychic conspirators knew to plant a bullet with a tiny amount of missing lead that just happens to closely match the amount of lead found in Connally and how they knew to deform the bullet so it was consistent with travelling sideways as it smashed through Connally's ribs another fact which only become apparent after Connally's surgery.





JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

So a bunch of establishment media outlets have panned the documentary. Shocking! Say it ain't so. What a surprise. By the way, on IMDB, the documentary has a rating of 7.9 out of 10, but of course you went and cherry picked only the negative reviews.

The documentary is actually quite good. It's a huge improvement over the movie JFK.