JFK, 1991

JFK, 1991
Director: Oliver Stone
Cast: Kevin Costner, Gary Oldman, Jack Lemmon



Stage: home TV selection


JFK in short: Details the actions of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, who takes it upon himself to investigate the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas, in 1963. Garrison is extremely suspicious of the official story presented by the FBI, and what he already knows and what he subsequently learns lead him to suspect that there is more to the story than the public is being told.


Reality: The government for the people, by the people and of the people :) Is it really? Kevin Coster is a mega star in one of the best achievements to put in a light on the Kennedy's death and assasination. The state prosecutor follows numerous hints on what happened on that day and who is responsible for this, almost losing his job while doing it. I believe that this is one of Stone's triumph movies and the same goes for Costner - one of his best achievements in his career.

I am a fan of historical movies, as long as they depict some kind of reality. In this case, this is Stone's reality. Noone really knows what happened that day and who was really to be taken in front of the court. I doubt this is the movies' intention. I believe that the main idea here lies in the simple fact that we try to see who it is we vote for and who is the responsible person after the dawn. In this case, this was a dawn for american citizen, doubled because both brothers were killed. And there were many aspects to this case, as well as many people that really wanted to know who to blame and put him in front of the jury. However, as said, this is one of realities shown in JFK, however I believe it to be the most energic one, subtitled by true footage and films, made by passengers that day. So in this sense it serves historical facts and things known by public. I doubt it reveals something we didn't have access to, but for many people the facts shown here will be intriguing and difficult to face with.
The cast is brilliant, Costner definitely leaves his mark, as well as Gary Oldman. The scenes carefully chosen, the "honesty" shown so deeply it hurts your eyes sometimes. The side story about leaving everything you care to show your duties to your country.. well, in some sense, you get the idea of how it is to be married to a prosecutor. When he has his focus, he definitely has the focus on. And leaves everything behind, even if it turns on fire.

The piece is watchable and good one, even beyond that. If fan of history or if you are wondering about the happening around JFK's death, this is the place to be. Or to watch, to be exact.


My personal rate: 7,0 (a good, solid piece. A must watching for movie fans. )


JFK on IMDB

Stone, 2010

Stone, 2010
Director: John Curran
Cast: Robert de Niro, Milla Jovovich, Edward Norton



Stage: home theatre, with a slightly worse sound that it was supposed to be.

Stone in short: Parole officer Jack Mabry (Robert De Niro) has only a few weeks left before retirement and wishes to finish out the cases he's been assigned. One such case is that of Gerald "Stone" Creeson (Edward Norton), a convicted arsonist who is up for parole. Jack is initially reluctant to indulge Stone in the coarse banter he wishes to pursue and feels little sympathy for the prisoner's pleads for an early release. Seeing little hope in convincing Jack himself, Stone arranges for his wife Lucetta (Milla Jovovich) to seduce the officer, but motives and intentions steadily blur amidst the passions and buried secrets of the corrupted players in this deadly game of deception


Preps: hmmm, famous cast makes me believe this could be one of better ones in the genre. Otherwise, this prison playground is lately a bit abused by many directors, many bad movies lately on the topic. Nevertheless, I am confident it will be at least an average one.



Reality: What is the ultimate thing you will do to get your ass out of prison? How much is it worth to you and do you consider involving the ones that are close to you? This I would claim to be the top theme of this piece, very profound put into the hands of Norton (Stone), that is trying to shorten his sentence. To him, all means to do that lay at hand. All the time I am thinking that his beautiful wife is just sitting there, waiting for him to come out. Ups, a mistake. She's not really waiting, not really with all the virtues behind her wait. She's actually messing around with other. In this sense, she holds no true objections to seducing this parole hot shot (De Niro). De Niro again in a role of a strong half-villain, in a citizen duty role, but acting as a bitch towards his last case (Stone).

Doing a proffession like this for your whole life must truly be a pain in the ass. I mean, you get depressed just by watching this misery and all the bad persons sitting behind bars, the role of a parole officers is to listen to excuses about what they've done and how much change they have been undergoing since entering the prison. For some of them this might be the absolute truth, but who is God enough to be diferring good ones from bad ones only judged by their words and a talk every now and then? De Niro has this Godly act here, as he decides whether the convicts are going to be in prison longer or not. What does it take to get his mind elsewhere - well, for sure MIlla Jovovich in her devine suit could contribute to the cause :)

The simple plot turns into a psychological game, that includes a lot of static dialogues, lots of misery and bad charma. I am speaking about lots of talks between the wife and the convict. What do you talk about, when questions like "how are you" are truly trivial and unimportant?

The scenery is impressive, used to be one of the largest walled prisons, located in Michigan. Apart from that scene and some coffee shops and households (home environment) of the main protagonists, you don't see much. The way she seduces him seems profound, but actually it's limited to her big eyes and some sucking up to his profession, wearing tight shirts at the same time.

No big excitement in this movie, but also nothing for you not to be seeing it. A bit of an average piece, lovely to see Jovovich and Norton in action again, quite relieving that De Niro exceeds those stupid comedies (the Fockers) he's been involved into lately.


My personal rating: 5,5 (nothing really special, but a decent shot at the genre).


Stone on IMDB

Wall Street, 1987

Wall Street, 1987
Director: Oliver Stone
Cast: Michael Douglas, Charlie Sheen, Tamara Tunie


Wall Street in short: A young and impatient stockbroker is willing to do anything to get to the top, including trading on illegal inside information taken through a ruthless and greedy corporate raider whom takes the youth under his wing.

Stage: home cinema, TV production of the day

Preps (I have seen this many times): None in perticular. I know this piece, I have seen it first as a child and was impressed about the way economy should work in USA. Or on any other part of the world.


Reality: Still, the piece amazes me. Douglas is brilliant in this act of crucial part of a company, a greedy individual that exploits rival aspect of another, young broker, willing to take any path possible (even immoral or illegal) to come to the top of the food chain in the industry. Several economical basic rules are broken here, nevertheless, the movie remains a true reminder of that decade of movie creating. USA government is upraised, US Economy forced to feel like the only one working in the world, and increasing fear of others coming in and taking the game out of brave US people.

Charlie Sheen is brilliant in his new yuppy image, fighting his way to be the best of the best (an ideal, shown in many movies of that period - one of them for instance Top Gun, or some war movies). After the movie, the broker position was many times seeked as a top job position worldwide, needless to say, especially in USA. Also in Europe. After that, going to the university of Economics, seemed like a walk in the park. Sadly enough, the faculty teaches you that some rules, obeyed in this movie to make forgeries work or to gain money, are really false and can mislead individuals to think it really works.

The perspective of having that much money to spend on women, life itself and getting into a high class society, seemed unreal at that point and something most people only dream of.


My personal rating: 7,0 (it was the first time that broker world amazed me, when I saw this. A classic, every future economist should see in my opinion, although the theory cracks in practical (unreal) scenes).

Wall Street on IMDB

W., 2008

W., 2008
Director: Oliver Stone
Cast: Josh Brolin, Colin Hanks, Richard Dreyfuss



W. in short: A chronicle on the life and presidency of 'George W. Bush'


Stage: Home theatre

Preps: I knew it was a biography of W. Bush, and I didn't take the time to watch it. However, every now and then I just force myself into seeing some things I wanted to see a long time ago and are just standing in the queue.


Reality: Well, the movie surprises with constant switching from present into past. The past, starting with Bush joining the fraternity and later on upgrading from student parties to the governer or the president elections.
Obviously, Bush is here stated as the tragic hero - placing him in flesh and blood, showing his attitude towards alcohol and women. To be quite honest, the tragic hero image doesn't impact my veins, because I simply despise the character he's playing. I believe it to be a true farmer image and having a farmer attitude towards everything. When getting a job, he relies completely on his family, trying to throw away the intelligence he had in his DNA, with a negative attitude; and giving passes to women all around - finally settling up for Linda, who is admired by his family. Making decisions in the president's chambers - like seeing children with their toys. In this case, the toys seem to be powerful enough to destroy nations. All in the name of God. Or higher goals. Which never seem to be lying on the table, transparent to all.

The light motive for this in the background is making up to his father. Or chasing father figure's expectations, living up to them. And when failing them, humbly trying to rise again. Which in many occasions, doesn't happen quite the way W. expected.

The interesting part also for the viewer will be seeing the way strong issues are being handled. Like placing adults into a sandbox, discussing whether to take over Iran or not. Whether to raise an army to march into Afganistan. Like they would be discussing making a cheese omlet. Quite disgusting, I might add. How did such people come to these positions to be making these types of decisions.. and that makes me worried. We all are aware that presidents tend to be puppets in the hands of their elected chiefs of everything in the country, however the thing that should worry us more was, how did some of these people come to their positions and why don't we have a meter/critical border/line, where no person with such values or standards should pass. And yet they do.

A clean and "sort-of-emotional" produced movie. In terms of showing the background of a great name in politics - a true success. In terms of making me try to like/understand the Bush politics more - a great failure.


My personal rating: 6,5 (although I don't like his political views/actions and I don't really support them, I think the movie shows him as a flesh and blood person and gives the grounds to the viewer why he is the way he is and what is the background of his living before and after entering the politics)


W. on IMDB

W official site