Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Blucher One of the worst movies I've ever seen

ScoobyWell Great visuals, story delivers no surprises

Salubfoto It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

Panamint There is no film of Oswald himself actually in the act of firing a gun at anything. There is no film of Oswald even carrying a gun that day.There is neither film nor any photograph of Oswald in or around Dealy Plaza at all, shooting or otherwise.There were no witnesses who saw Oswald himself shoot at the car (one witness saw someone shoot- but couldn't ID who).No witness put Oswald on the sixth floor of the building at the time of the shooting. Someone was there, but who?Oswald appeared in 3 or 4 separate police lineups after the shooting but nobody at these face-to-face viewings identified him as shooting anything in Dealy Plaza.Oswald was never tried in a court of law for any crimes committed on November 22, 1963. Oswald himself was murdered. He was assassinated.The Warren Commission postulated that there were two Lone Nuts- Oswald and Ruby. Even if you think they were nuts, there is little or no evidence that they were "Lone" nuts. They were both very talented at covering their shady associations (and they had many).Thousands of CIA documents were released in the 90's but with huge blacked-out spaces. No less than Tom Brokaw of NBC said (I believe in 1999) that there may be "a million" documents still secret, not to be released until as late as 2050.No film or witnesses against Oswald. No trial of Oswald. Still-secret documents. It always amazes me that Peter Jennings or anyone can be so certain that there WASN'T a conspiracy, or that so-called "buffs" can be so certain that there WAS one.

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.

bob the moo This documentary starts with the assassination of President Kennedy and covers the theories and "facts" put forward around the actions of Oswald and others. As well as this it continues into the modern day to the ghost of Oswald hanging over America through the ongoing theories in the modern media.The subject matter is always going to be interesting. Whether it is the infamous "back and to the left" shot or other details taken in solitude or in combination, I think it is fair to say that many people do have some doubt about the idea that a solitary gunman killed Kennedy from the position in the book depository, although they may differ in how far they take their theories in regards what really happened. However the risk with any film that covers an extensively covered subject is that it will not have anything distinctive or new to offer. Although this film vaguely has a theme of Oswald in a wider socio-political context, this doesn't really happen apart from the final 15 minutes where we slightly touch on Oliver Stone's film and the modern view of Oswald. However outside of this it is very much a straight history of the assassination that looks at the event itself, Jack Ruby, the Warren report and so on.It is a solid enough documentary in how it does this and, if you know little of the history then it is a very good entry level film thanks to the relatively "factual", non-sensational approach that is also lacking an obvious slant one way or another. The problem with it is that it really offers very little that you have not seen one place or another. In fact, by covering the entire story, it means that you will have seen more detail on every aspect of this somewhere else that has dealt with just that aspect at a deeper level.The overall impression then is of a summary, of a film that pulls everything together in one place and acts as a way to get a bit of the whole story in case you then want to go away and find more yourself about the Warren Report, about the theories, about Jack Ruby and so on. Thing is, with the story so widely covered and known, is that really a service we need another product to be fulfilling.