(DVD 2 Discs) JFK (1991) เจเอฟเค รอยเลือดฝังปฐพี ฉบับพิเศษ (Director's Cut)

JFK (1991) เจเอฟเค รอยเลือดฝังปฐพี (ฉบับพิเศษ)
ประเภทแผ่น: DVD 2 Discs (Director's Cut)
แนวภาพยนตร์: ชีวิต, ประวัติศาสตร์, ระทึกขวัญ (Drama, History, Thriller)

คะแนนจาก IMDB = 8.0/10 (ผู้โหวต 110,877 คน)
คะแนนจาก Rottentomatoes = 85/100 (จากนักวิจารณ์ 60 คน) และ 88/100 (จากนักดูหนัง 61,778 คน)

+++ เรื่องย่อ +++

ภาพยนตร์แนวสืบสวนอิงประวัติศาสตร์เรื่องดังที่จับเอาคดีลอบสังหารประธานาธิบดี จอห์น เอฟ. เคนเนดี้ มาตีแผ่ โดยผู้กำกับ Oliver Stone ได้จับประเด็นที่ชวนสงสัยในคดีมาตั้งคำถาม และปะติดปะต่อเงื่อนงำ พร้อมทั้งชี้ชวนให้ผู้คมมองความเป็นไปได้ของคดีว่ามันอาจจะมีอะไรมากกว่าที่ทางการสหรัฐอเมริกาแถลง (ว่าผู้ลงมือมีเพียง ลี ฮาร์วี่ย์ ออสวอล์ด เพียงคนเดียว)

ตัวหนังได้รับการยกย่องว่าเดินเรื่องได้ฉับไว เข้มข้น เร้าใจ และชวนระทึกขวัญ โดยเฉพาะการนำเอาคลิปวีดีโอภาพลอบสังหารจากเหตุการณ์จริงมาวิเคราะห์แบบช็อตต่อช็อต นาทีต่อนาที

ในฉบับพิเศษนี้ ได้เพิ่มความยาวอีก 17 นาที พร้อม Special Features ที่เจาะลึกแง่มุมคดีลอบสังหารนี้แบบลึกขึ้นกว่าเดิม

หนังได้รับ 2 รางวัลออสการ์ ได้แก่
1. กำกับภาพยอดเยี่ยม (Best Cinematography)
2. ลำดับภาพยอดเยี่ยม (Best Film Editing)

=== รายละเอียด ===

ภาษา (Language)
English

บรรยาย (Subtitles)
English, Cantonese, Korean, Mandarin, Thai

Special Features
- Commentary by Director Oliver stone
- Beyond JFK: The Question of Conspiracy
- Deleted / Extended Scenes With Optional Commentary by Director Oliver stone
- Aitternate Ending
- Assassination Update-The New Documents
- Meet Mr. X: The Personality & Thoughts of Fletcher Prouty
- Theatrical Trailer

จำนวนแผ่น (Disc Total): 2 แผ่น
สร้างโดย (Studio): Warner Home Video
จัดจำหน่ายโดย (Copyright): Catalyst (แคททาลิสท์)

ราคาปก 339 บาท
ราคาขาย 259 บาท

นำแสดงโดย Kevin Costner, Gary Oldman, Jack Lemmon, Sissy Spacek, Joe Pesci, Walter Matthau, Tommy Lee Jones, John Candy, Kevin Bacon, Donald Sutherland, Bob Gunton
กำกับโดย Oliver Stone
ความยาว 206 นาที

++ Storyline ++

JFK is a 1991 American historical legal-conspiracy thriller film directed by Oliver Stone. It examines the events leading to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and alleged cover-up through the eyes of former New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner).

Garrison filed charges against New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw (Tommy Lee Jones) for his alleged participation in a conspiracy to assassinate the President, for which Lee Harvey Oswald (Gary Oldman) was found responsible by two government investigations: the Warren Commission, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

The film was adapted by Stone and Zachary Sklar from the books On the Trail of the Assassins by Jim Garrison and Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy by Jim Marrs. Stone described this account as a "counter-myth" to the Warren Commission's "fictional myth."

The film became embroiled in controversy. Upon JFK's theatrical release, many major American newspapers ran editorials accusing Stone of taking liberties with historical facts, including the film's implication that President Lyndon B. Johnson was part of a coup d'état to kill Kennedy. After a slow start at the box office, the film gradually picked up momentum, earning over $205 million in worldwide gross. JFK was nominated for eight Academy Awards (including Best Picture) and won two for Best Cinematography and Best Film Editing. It was the most successful of three films Stone made about the American Presidency, followed later by Nixon with Anthony Hopkins in the title role and W. with Josh Brolin as George W. Bush.

Based on 55 reviews collected from notable publications by popular review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an 84% "fresh" approval rating, with the consensus, "As history, Oliver Stone's JFK is dubious, but as filmmaking it's electric, cramming a ton of information and excitement into its three-hour runtime and making great use of its outstanding cast."However, the film's production and release was subject to intense scrutiny and criticism. A few weeks after shooting had begun, on May 14, 1991, Jon Margolis wrote in the Chicago Tribune that JFK was "an insult to the intelligence."Five days later, the Washington Post ran a scathing article by national security correspondent George Lardner titled, "On the Set: Dallas in Wonderland" that used the first draft of the JFK screenplay to blast it for "the absurdities and palpable untruths in Garrison's book and Stone's rendition of it."The article pointed out that Garrison lost his case against Clay Shaw and that he inflated his case by trying to use Shaw's homosexual relationships to prove guilt by association. Stone responded to Lardner's article by hiring a public relations firm that specialized in political issues. Other critical articles soon followed. Anthony Lewis in the New York Times stated that the film "tells us that our government cannot be trusted to give an honest account of a Presidential assassination."Washington Post columnist George Will called Stone "a man of technical skill, scant education and negligible conscience."

TIME magazine ran its own critique of the film-in-progress on June 10, 1991 and alleged that Stone was trying to suppress a rival JFK assassination film based on Don DeLillo's 1988 novel Libra. Stone rebutted these claims in a letter to the magazine. Richard Corliss, TIME's film critic, wrote later on (Dec. 23, 1991): So, you want to know, who killed the President and connived in the cover-up? Everybody! High officials in the CIA, the FBI, the Dallas constabulary, all three armed services, Big Business and the White House. Everybody done it—everybody but Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet on the movie itself: Whatever one's suspicions about its use or abuse of the evidence, JFK is a knockout. Part history book, part comic book, the movie rushes toward judgment for three breathless hours, lassoing facts and factoids by the thousands, then bundling them together into an incendiary device that would frag any viewer's complacency. Stone's picture is, in both meanings of the word, sensational: it's tip-top tabloid journalism. In its bravura and breadth, JFK is seditiously enthralling; in its craft, wondrously complex.

The filmmaker ended up splitting his time between making his film, responding to criticism, and conducting a publicity campaign of his own that saw him "omnipresent, from CBS Evening News, to Oprah."However, the Lardner Post piece stung the most because Lardner had stolen a copy of the script. Stone recalls, "He had the first draft, and I went through probably six or seven drafts."

Upon theatrical release, it polarized critics. The New York Times ran an article by Bernard Weinraub entitled, "Hollywood Wonders If Warner Brothers let JFK Go Too Far." The article called for intervention by the studio, asking "At what point does a studio exercise its leverage and blunt the highly charged message of a film maker like Oliver Stone?"The newspaper also ran a review of the film by Vincent Canby who wrote, "Mr. Stone's hyperbolic style of film making is familiar: lots of short, often hysterical scenes tumbling one after another, backed by a soundtrack that is layered, strudel-like, with noises, dialogue, music, more noises, more dialogue."Pat Dowell, veteran film critic for The Washingtonian, had her 34-word capsule review for the January issue rejected by her editor John Limpert on the grounds that he didn't want a positive review for a film he felt was "preposterous" associated with the magazine. Dowell resigned in protest.

The Miami Herald said about the controversy in its review, "the focus on the trivialities of personality conveniently prevents us from having to confront the tough questions [Stone's] film raises."However, Roger Ebert praised the film in his review for the Chicago Sun-Times, saying,

 The achievement of the film is not that it answers the mystery of the Kennedy assassination, because it does not, or even that it vindicates Garrison, who is seen here as a man often whistling in the dark. Its achievement is that it tries to marshal the anger which ever since 1963 has been gnawing away on some dark shelf of the national psyche.

Rita Kempley in the Washington Post wrote,

    Quoting everyone from Shakespeare to Hitler to bolster their arguments, Stone and Sklar present a gripping alternative to the Warren Commission's conclusion. A marvelously paranoid thriller featuring a closetful of spies, moles, pro-commies and Cuban freedom-fighters, the whole thing might have been thought up by Robert Ludlum.

On Christmas Day, the Los Angeles Times ran a critical article entitled "Suppression of the Facts Grants Stone a Broad Brush."New York Newsday followed suit the next day with two articles – "The Blurred Vision of JFK" and "The Many Theories of a Jolly Green Giant." A few days later, the Chicago Sun-Times followed suit with "Stone's Film Trashes Facts, Dishonors J.F.K." Jack Valenti, then president and chief executive of the Motion Picture Association of America, denounced Stone's film in a seven-page statement. He wrote, "In much the same way, young German boys and girls in 1941 were mesmerized by Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will, in which Adolf Hitler was depicted as a newborn God. Both JFK and Triumph of the Will are equally a propaganda masterpiece and equally a hoax. Mr. Stone and Leni Riefenstahl have another genetic linkage: neither of them carried a disclaimer on their film that its contents were mostly pure fiction."Stone recalls in an interview, "I can't even remember all the threats, there were so many of them."

TIME magazine ranked it the fourth best film of 1991, while including it in Top 10 Historically Misleading Films. Roger Ebert of Chicago Sun-Times went on to name Stone's film as the best film of the year and one of the top ten films of the decade, as well as one of The Great Movies.The Sydney Morning Herald named JFK as the best film of 1991. Entertainment Weekly ranked it the 5th Most Controversial Movie Ever.

Ebert's colleague Richard Roeper was less complimentary: "One can admire Stone's filmmaking skills and the performances here while denouncing the utter crapola presented as 'evidence' of a conspiracy to murder."Roeper applauded the film's "dazzling array of filmmaking techniques and a stellar roster of actors" but criticized Stone's narrative: "As a work of fantastical fiction, JFK is an interesting if overblown vision of a parallel universe. As a dramatic interpretation of events, it's journalistically bankrupt nonsense."

Harry Connick, Sr., the New Orleans district attorney who defeated Garrison in 1973, criticized Stone's view of the assassination: "Stone was either unaware of the details and particulars of the Clay Shaw investigation and trial or, if he was aware, that didn't get in his way of what he perceived to be the way the case should have been." In his book Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, a history of the assassination published 16 years after the film's release, Vincent Bugliosi devoted an entire chapter to Garrison's prosecution of Shaw and Stone's subsequent film.[58] Bugliosi lists thirty-two separate "lies and fabrications" in Stone's film and describes the film as "one continuous lie in which Stone couldn't find any level of deception and invention beyond which he was unwilling to go." David Wrone stated that "80 percent of the film is in factual error" and rejected the premise of a conspiracy involving the CIA and the so-called military-industrial complex as "irrational."Warren Commission investigator David Belin called the film "a big lie that would make Adolf Hitler proud".

เครดิต Wikipedia
P-190