Clevercell Very disappointing...

Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Maleeha Vincent It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Hollywoodrulez It felt real to me I found myself believing every word Walter said. Even if the guy was nuts his skill and knowledge pointed to the fact that he could have killed JFK. He knew the scene of the crime very well ( And I don't mean from a spectators POV) To much evidence proves that he was the second shooter. The way it was shot helped the overall look of the film. I actually felt like I was watching a documentary until the cast credit came up at the end. Then I realized that this was a filmmakers recount on the actual confession. Many other forms of media have been created about the JFK murder but this one really stole the show for me. I also enjoyed the fact that a former American hero of the marines would actually be the guy to secure supreme power by killing the president. I got to say the scene towards the end where Walter is proving he done it by getting a gun into the white house and about to shoot another president was totally crazy in all the right ways.

tuttletale88 Raymond J. Barry makes this movie, no doubt about that. I'm so glad I didn't recognize him from his previous credits--there's nothing like getting involved with a character only to realize halfway through the movie that he played the zany science teacher from a favorite Disney film or something.I stumbled across this beaut at a new video store that seems to be a clearing house for tons of obscure movies that the major chains can't or won't carry because they aren't flash-in-the-pan box office hits from six months ago. Unfortunately, I read on the back cover that it was nominated for a screenplay award, which led me to realize that it would NOT be a true documentary.Still, I enjoyed it throughout, and was impressed to read in the DVD notes that the dialog was scripted. Usually in a guerrilla-style shoot with a cast of relative unknowns (see "The Last Horror Movie") you can tell almost immediately that the actors are reciting words from the page, rather than improvising like they should. That wasn't the case here, and although I only give it an 8 overall, it was definitely worth the 50 cents I paid to rent it, and then some.

James_Jerome In describing the nature of this film, I am reminded of the old t.v. courtroom drama tactic I once saw on an episode of Matlock. The defense attorney, in a murder trial, announces that the reason the body of the victim was never found is because he is still alive, and is about to walk into the courtroom. As the attorney points to the double doors, every head in the courtroom turns. This, the slick attorney points out to the jury, establishes that they have a reasonable doubt that a murder was committed.For "Interview with the Assassin," this reasonable doubt drives the film. One question the viewer might ask is, "is it true?" In other words, was there really a second gunman who shot president John F. Kennedy on that fateful day in Dallas, Texas, in 1963? The other side of the question, "is it true" for me was, is this really a documentary, or a movie fake?My introduction to this film came late one night, when the wife and kids were in bed. I flipped through the t.v. channels and happened upon the middle of the scene where the alleged gunman begins his confession by telling the interviewer that he cannot release this information until he tells him to. He says that the reason he is coming clean is because he is dying of cancer, and doesn't have long to live.As the story unfolds, I am torn between looking for faults in the man's story, and trying to determine if this documentary style film was real or not. I was skeptical, however, as an individual trained in law enforcement, I remained open minded. I found that I could accept the oddities of the characters, knowing that people in real-life crime situations do some pretty weird things.I could accept that the interviewer wanted to become famous (like Woodward and Bernstein) and wanted to make a lot of money, so he might go along with some questionable behavior by this alleged assassin in the interest of capturing this news story. Not knowing, for sure, if this was a genuine documentary or not, I found myself getting drawn in to the story, and believing the possibility that this person was, at the very least, attempting to convince the interviewer that he had shot Kennedy.As the film progressed, I became more and more skeptical about the acting, and thought that the dialogue seemed a bit too smooth and scripted. One scene showed the interviewer waiting in a diner for the alleged gunman to show up. He was positioning the camera to show himself in a huge mirror on the wall. During the subsequent conversation with the gunman, the interviewer sets the video camera down on the table, and it shows, what appeared to me to be, a well planned angle to include the reflection of both him and his subject - a little too professional for a chance angle in a mirror.In any event, I remained locked in on the portrayal of the characters who were played rather well, and fairly realistic. I think the best advantage I had for enjoying this film was that I had no idea from the start that it was not real. Those who are reading about this film are, no doubt, aware that it was a mock-documentary. If you have the opportunity to show this movie to a friend, don't tell them that it is not a real documentary, and see how they react.I was a little disappointed with the ending, but taking the film in the intended context that it was a genuine documentary, I could accept a less than spectacular wrap-up. Real life situations are often not as thrilling as "Hollywood's film versions." I recall thinking, throughout this film, "If this is a real documentary, it is awesome, but if it is a fake, this is a huge waste of my time." After it was over, I concluded it was not a waste of time, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I intend to buy a copy and view it again.

feverdeang Why aren't there more comments and viewers for this disturbing little gem? The best conspiracy movie(JFK, PI or otherwise) in may a year hits all the right notes technically and plot wise. Filmmed digitally (SONY PD-150) with such skill that you'll be checking your TV/DVD resolution in the first five minutes, the filmmakers use every advantage and disadvatage of the digital format to their benefit. The camera work begins static, rigid local TV news style then slowly takes on a subtle impressionistic style that blurs the line between docudrama and fiction. Viewers not interested in film as a meta-(self referential) text need not apply. After starting with the formal aspects of the JFK mystery, camera angles, do pictures lie, tamperedevidence and conflicting witnesses the film then seems to turn on the viewer so that we are put in the position of one of those unlucky witnesses who werebribed, intimidated, bullied, framed or killed for seeing just a little too much. The performances are uniformly great, starting with the ballistics man who plays his part so straight I had to mentally check and remind myself this wasn't adocumentary. The ex-wife was brilliant. All the actors were just realistic to the point of surrealism. I'm now babbling, SEE THIS MOVIE