Metascore
72

Generally favorable reviews - based on 29 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 22 out of 29
  2. Negative: 2 out of 29
  1. Reviewed by: David Ansen
    Nov 12, 2013
    100
    If history is a battlefield, JFK has to be seen as a bold attempt to seize the turf for future debate. It is also "just" a movie, and one that for three hours and eight minutes of dense, almost dizzying detail, is capable of holding the audience rapt in its grip. [23 Dec 1991, p.50]
  2. 100
    Stone and his editors, Joe Hutshing and Pietro Scalia, have somehow triumphed over the tumult of material here and made it work - made it grip and disturb us.
  3. Director Oliver Stone has fashioned in JFK a riveting, dramatic and disturbing look at one of the great whodunits of history. [20 Dec 1991]
  4. [Stone's] filmmaking is so supple and alive, his obsession with the visual aspect of history so electrifying, that JFK practically roots itself in your imagination.
  5. Reviewed by: Richard Corliss
    90
    Through his art and passion, Stone makes JFK plausible, and turns his thesis of a coup d'etat into fodder for renewed debate.
  6. 90
    JFK is Stone's best and most emotional film since "Platoon."
  7. Reviewed by: Bill Cosford
    Nov 12, 2013
    88
    JFK is staggering in its power. [20 Dec 1991, p.5]
  8. Reviewed by: MATT NOLLER
    Nov 12, 2013
    88
    JFK still retains a primal power; no number of derivative, headache-inducing CSI episodes can blunt the impact of Stone's aggressive visuals, and the film's plea for accountability and honesty in government is as vital now as ever.
  9. 88
    Does JFK capture the truth? Possibly, in a poetic sense. Is it a compelling film? Most assuredly. [20 Dec 1991]
  10. Reviewed by: Staff (Not Credited)
    88
    Director and co-screenwriter Oliver Stone pulls off an amazing filmmaking feat with JFK, transforming the dry minutiae of every John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory of the past three decades into riveting screen material.
  11. Controversy and all, JFK is one of the year's most powerful and provocative films.
User Score
8.6

Universal acclaim- based on 41 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 2
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 2
  3. Negative: 0 out of 2
  1. Nov 28, 2012
    9
    Oliver Stone delivers the epic tale of Louisiana D.A. Jim Garrison and his crusade for the truth about the assassination of President John F.Oliver Stone delivers the epic tale of Louisiana D.A. Jim Garrison and his crusade for the truth about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. I've heard many different things about the legitimacy of "JFK", but it does bring up a series of valid questions surrounding Kennedy's murder. Everyone in this star-studded cast brought their A-game for "JFK". From Kevin Costner's commanding turn as Jim Garrison to Gary Oldman's dynamic portrayal of Lee Harvey Oswald, the acting remains a flawless aspect of the film. Another aspect of the film I admired was the Oscar-winning cinematography. Cinematographer Robert Richardson does a stunning job at seamlessly integrating actual archive footage and mock archive footage into the film. He also does a fairly impressive job with lighting techniques in some more tense scenes. Overall, "JFK" struck a very powerful chord with me, and it remains a fairly provocative film that enforces that the power to question is one of the most effective abilities of the citizens of a country. Full Review »
  2. Jun 7, 2013
    7
    Three years after the assassination of John F Kennedy new evidence has come to light and District Attorney Jim Garrison decides to conduct anThree years after the assassination of John F Kennedy new evidence has come to light and District Attorney Jim Garrison decides to conduct an in-depth investigation into the President's murder unearthing a number of theories on the events that occurred.

    Based on the books "On the Trail of the Assassins" by Jim Garrison and "Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy" by Jim Marrs Oliver Stone’s J.F.K is let down slightly is in its inability to choose which conspiracy theory it supports. At least five are mentioned including the CIA, the mafia and weapons manufacturers meaning that even after the three hour running time viewers will be left none the wiser as to who might have actually been behind the assassination. Despite this it certainly presents a compelling case against the widely believed lone gunman theory and will certainly inspire some to delve a little deeper into that fateful day in 1963.
    Full Review »