JFK : Blu-ray Review

The Movie Itself is directed by Oliver Stone and based off true events surrounding the Louisiana District Attorney, Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) who became obsessed with uncovering the truth with regard to the JFK assassination conspiracy.

I can distinctly remember the first time I popped in the DVD copy of “JFK“ back in 2002. I remember reading a plethora of mixed reviews online, and when I turned to my friends to see what they thought of it, none of them had ever seen it. At the time, I was going through an Oliver Stone phase, and as I recall, I was apprehensive about “JFK” because it was said to take place predominantly after the assassination. Judging it superficially, from the looks of the DVD/VHS cover, I had always assumed that Kevin Costner played JFK, and so you can imagine my confusion when I came to find out that Costner played Louisiana’s District Attorney, Jim Garrison — a man, who seemed to me, so far removed from the events that took place in Dallas, that it must be one of those films that is only loosely based on true events, or maybe it just wasn’t any good.

These were the conclusions that I came to before watching the film.

After the film, however, was a different story entirely.

I felt that my eyes had been opened for the first time. I could hardly contain myself. At any opportunity I had, I would try and convince people to watch the film, and I would do my best to relay the fact that JFK was not killed by a lone gunman, nor was Lee Harvey Oswald a shooter. I was certain of this. The film had told me so. It was based on a true story after all, right?

Well, yes and no. Oliver Stone took a number of creative liberties in bringing Jim Garrison’s story to the silver screen, but he also presents a wealth of facts as well. Unfortunately, for many people, they are far too quick to dismiss the film because of the dense narrative, and the ever-present question of what is truly factual amidst the fiction.

For me, it wasn’t until the following year, in November 2003 — the fortieth anniversary of JFK’s assassination — that my interest was renewed in the JFK conspiracy, thanks to the re-airing of the History Channel’s Special, “The Men Who Killed Kennedy” by Nigel Turner. The compelling series delves deeply into the dense conspiracy materials/stories and eye-witness accounts of the events that transpired, before, during and long after the assassination took place. The program was able to corroborate many of the things detailed in the texts of which Stone’s film was based, and it was also able to introduce far more incriminating evidence that leaves little doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole gunmen, or that he was even involved in the assassination at all.

Now, while much of that might seem tangential or arbitrary given the fact that we’re reviewing “JFK: The Director’s Cut“, and not any of the aforementioned sources, I feel that it’s important to understand that this film isn’t — at least in my opinion — based primarily on fiction, despite what others might tell you.

For those of you sitting there wondering why I’m not going into a lot of depth with regard to the film material, I’ve opted not to, in favor of preserving the twists and turns in the film’s narrative/true events for first time readers/viewers. Personally, I feel that’s necessary, after all, the does a far greater job stringing the events together anyway.

There’s simply no doubt about it, “JFK” is a controversial film. It has polarized audiences since its release in 1991, but it continues to enthrall audiences the world over, and I think it remains as one of the most important American films ever made, if not one of the most important of all time. Many people would argue against that, and that’s fine, it’s simply my opinion.

Say what you will about the factual basis, and feel free to debate about what is presented in the film, because that’s the intended effect, and it is precisely what the film is trying to get you to do. Question the facts. Seek your own truth.

Obviously, not everyone will be a believer — let alone a fan of the film — nor will everyone care to see the assassination for what it might have been. And truthfully, I can’t really blame them. It’s scary to think that our President, can be killed at any moment, by anyone, perhaps even by the very people he’s chosen to empower. And lastly, to borrow from Michael Corleone and The Godfather, “If anything in life is certain, if history has taught anything, it’s that anyone can be killed.”

If nothing else, “JFK” is proof of that.

Day Watch : Blu-ray Review

The Movie Itself is the sequel to “Night Watch“. Written and Directed by Timur Bekmambetov, and again, adapted from the novel by Sergei Lukyanenko.

Following in tow of the extremely successful “Night Watch”, the sequel picks up with Anton after an undetermined amount of time. Embittered and jaded, having lost his son to the forces of darkness, he tries to maintain his job as a night watchman, and train his new apprentice Svetlana (Mariya Poroshina). He longs for the chance to reconnect with his son, and bring him back to the forces of light, but Anton becomes endangered when he’s named as the key suspect in the murder of a Dark Other.

If the accusation holds true, and the truce was broken, Zavulon (Viktor Verzhbitsky) will retain every right in excising vengeance upon Anton, as well as reigniting the age-old conflict between the Forces of Light and Dark. All of which essentially amounts to the world being destroyed and bathed in darkness.

Where “Night Watch” was a bit muddled, “Day Watch” is an utter mess of a film. Barely contained within it’s all-too-bloated running time are a myriad of plot points, obscure character motivations, confusing sub-plots, and cryptic dialog. As the film progressed, I lost what little interest I had in the resolution of the story, so much so that when the finale took place, I was left shaking my head.

Without giving too much away, it’s the “chalk of fate” that destroys the film’s potential. It is a coveted item by both sides, for with it, you can change your past or future. As you might imagine, given Anton’s past decisions, and how they’ve effected everything that’s come to pass, it’s not hard to guess how this saga will come to a close when/if the chalk is in his hands.

Overall, I was greatly disappointed with the end of the second film. It’s hard not to see it as anything other than a cop-out, especially after having invested time in the long and enigmatic films. It should come as little surprise that I have little interest in seeing the third installment, should it ever be released. Even still, I can’t help but feel as though I’ve missed the point of these films altogether — which is hard for me to admit since I pride myself on my foreign film exposure, and understanding. Are there any fans out there who can help put these films in perspective?

Night Watch : Blu-ray Review

The Movie Itself is written and directed by Timur Bekmambetov (”Wanted“), and adapted from the novel by Sergei Lukyanenko.

As an enforcer of the Night Watch, “Anton Gorodetsky” (Konstantin Khabensky) has a rather interesting occupation. Charged with the task of policing and maintaining order of the dark “others” — vampires — that inhabit Russia, Anton has his work cut out for him. It’s not an easy job, especially when tensions begin to mount between the two — “light” and “dark” — factions surrounding an age old prophecy that foretells the arrival of a “Great Other” who will choose evil, over good — subsequently tipping the delicate balance between “Light” and “Dark.”

Armed with a special — UV? — flashlight and a slew of sixth-sense abilities, Anton must work in tandem with the forces of light to fight against the age-old prophecy, and hopefully reverse it, by securing the young boy, and keeping him out of the clutches of the “Dark Others.” Should he fail, the world will be plunged into darkness forever.

Having gone into this movie with extremely high expectations — thanks to Timur’s latest mind-blowing experience, “Wanted” — I was anticipating a visceral, twisted, action-romp. What I came away with though, was an overwhelming feeling of disappointment. It’s clear to me now that Timur’s sensibility as a director has come a long way since he set out to make this “Russian Horror Trilogy.”

The overall message here is a bit too muddled, or perhaps much of it is lost in translation to foreign audiences (as people on IMDb have suggested). Whatever the reason, “Night Watch” never truly grips the viewer, or even fully entertains them. Oftentimes, it seems that the film is having an identity crisis, and is unsure whether or not it’s supposed to play out like a horror film, an action film, or a drama. Now, I’m all for genre-bending, but the resulting film is so mixed up and ambiguous, that there is little to latch onto as a viewer. As a result, with little to no foundation, the events that transpire serve as little else aside from eye candy.

Personally, I saw very few similarities between Timur’s latest action-masterpiece (Wanted), and his famed bloody Russian fairytale (Night Watch). I realize it might be unfair of me to draw such comparisons, but taking into consideration the fact that Timur himself said that “Wanted” took the place of “Twilight Watch” (the tentative third installment in the series), I no longer feel like I’m comparing apples to oranges.

Of course, the film isn’t bad, per se, it’s just that it fails to move, or engage you on any particular level. Even still, I think it’s worth a rent if you’re curious to see Timur’s previous work.