Liz Garrison | Kevin Barrett's Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Liz Garrison’

What Is Past Is Prologue

Posted in General Comments, History, Movie Review, Movies, Politics, Reviews, tagged American Politics, Best Cinematography Oscar, Best Film Editing Oscar, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Donald Sutherland, Gary Oldman, General Comments, History, Jack Lemmon, JFK (1991) — movie review, JFK Records Act, Jim Garrison, Joe Pesci, John Candy, Kevin Bacon, Kevin Costner, Lee Harvey Oswald, Liz Garrison, Movie Reviews, New Orleans, New Orleans District Attorney, Oliver Stone, President Kennedy, Reviews, Robert Richardson, Sissy Spacek, Strong Movie Recommendation, Tommy Lee Jones, Walter Matthau, Warren Commission, Warren Report, Willie O’Keefe on February 9, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“JFK” (1991) — movie review
Today’s review is for the political‑mystery drama “JFK” (1991), directed by Oliver Stone and starring Kevin Costner as Jim Garrison (the New Orleans District Attorney who becomes convinced the Warren Report doesn’t add up); Tommy Lee Jones as Clay Shaw (the polished businessman Garrison eventually brings to trial); Gary Oldman as Lee Harvey Oswald (portrayed here as jittery, opaque, and possibly manipulated); Joe Pesci as David Ferrie (a nervous, volatile figure whose contradictions fuel suspicion); Sissy Spacek as Liz Garrison (Jim’s wife, trying to keep the family steady as the investigation consumes him); and Kevin Bacon as Willie O’Keefe (a fictionalized composite whose testimony pushes Garrison deeper into conspiracy). The ensemble is rounded out by Jack Lemmon, Walter Matthau, Donald Sutherland, John Candy, and others, creating a dense portrait of a country trying to make sense of a national trauma.

Background: This is my first viewing of this film. I have never believed the “Warren Commission” version of President Kennedy’s assassination, but I have also never believed Stone was a legitimate conduit for arriving at the “truth”. We are approaching the 2029 information release date, but I don’t have a lot of faith our government will release the whole of the evidence (or what’s left of it). Released in 1991, this film arrived at a moment when public trust in government was already shaky, and Stone’s take on the assassination poured gasoline on that fire. The movie was controversial from the start — praised for its craftsmanship and attacked for its liberties with fact. It won two Academy Awards (Best Cinematography and Best Film Editing) and is widely credited with helping push Congress to pass the JFK Records Act, which forced the release of millions of pages of assassination-related documents. Whatever one thinks of Stone’s conclusions, the film had real-world impact and remains one of the most debated political dramas ever made.

Plot: The story follows Jim Garrison, the New Orleans DA who reopens the Kennedy assassination case after noticing inconsistencies in the Warren Report. Garrison and his team interview witnesses, chase leads, and try to piece together a coherent explanation from a mountain of conflicting accounts. Stone mixes archival footage, reenactments, imagined scenes, and rapid-fire editing to show what Garrison believes happened — a coordinated conspiracy involving multiple shooters and a subsequent cover-up.

The investigation eventually leads Garrison to Clay Shaw, whom he charges with conspiracy. The trial becomes the film’s climax, though it’s less about proving Shaw’s guilt and more about Garrison laying out his entire theory in front of a jury. The film ends with Garrison losing the case but insisting the truth still matters. Stone clearly agrees.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes; very strong acting; striking filming and editing; several issues; yes.

Any Good? Yes. “JFK” is long, dense, and sometimes overwhelming, but it’s also gripping. Stone keeps the film moving with a mix of documentary-style footage, dramatizations, and courtroom scenes that never feel static. The movie has a clear point of view and pushes it hard. Whether you agree with that point of view is another matter, but as a piece of film making, it’s compelling and surprisingly watchable for a three-hour political investigation.

Acting: Kevin Costner gives a steady, grounded performance as Garrison — earnest, methodical, and increasingly frustrated. Tommy Lee Jones plays Shaw with a polished, slightly smug confidence that fits the character. Gary Oldman’s Oswald is jittery and opaque, which matches the historical uncertainty around the real man. Joe Pesci goes big as Ferrie — maybe too big — but he’s memorable. Sissy Spacek brings emotional weight to Liz Garrison, especially as the investigation strains the family. The supporting cast is deep, and even small roles feel lived‑in. Nobody coasts.

Filming / FX: The editing is the standout. The film won the Oscar for it, and it’s easy to see why. Stone and his editors jump between film stocks, timelines, and perspectives, but the result is more energizing than confusing. The cinematography by Robert Richardson gives the movie a restless, slightly paranoid feel that matches the subject. The courtroom scenes are straightforward, but the investigation sequences have a sharp, documentary‑style edge. The film uses visual tricks and archival footage to keep the viewer off balance, which is part of its effect.

Problems: Several. The biggest is the film’s confidence in its own speculation. Stone presents theory and fact with the same level of certainty, and the line between them isn’t always clear. Garrison’s real investigation had flaws, and the film smooths over many of them. Some scenes feel like they exist mainly to make a point rather than reflect anything verifiable. The runtime is another issue. The middle stretch can feel like a wall of names, dates, and theories. The film demands attention, and if you’re not in the right mood, it can feel like homework. None of these problems ruin the film, but they do make it more of a commitment than a casual watch.

Did I Enjoy the Film? Yes. Despite its length and its tendency to blur fact and speculation, “JFK” is a compelling movie. The acting is strong, the pacing mostly holds, and the filmmaking is confident. You don’t have to agree with Stone to appreciate the craft. The film also has historical significance because of the government transparency it helped trigger.

Final Recommendation: Strong recommendation — with context. “JFK” is not a neutral film, and it shouldn’t be treated as a documentary. It’s a well-made, ambitious political drama with excellent acting, memorable editing, and real cultural impact. Watch it for the performances, the craftsmanship, and the way it captures a moment when the country was struggling to understand a national tragedy. It’s long, but it’s worth your time if you’re interested in American history, political mysteries, or films that challenge official narratives.

.
Click here (9 February) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.