Ruby and Oswald

Being in England, the Kennedy assassination did not have the same impact on me or my contemporaries, than it would have had to the American people. For that reason I think we English can view the events of that day in November 1963 from a more detached viewpoint. Whether the conspiracy theories have any credence to them I couldn't say, maybe they do and maybe they don't, I keep an open mind on that. However, I do find the motives put forward in this film for Jack Ruby killing Oswald somewhat implausible and hard to believe. I watched this film earlier this evening on one of the movie channels, and I must admit I did find it entertaining and worth watching, but I think one has to be selective in what one takes for gospel and what is supposition, in my opinion it was too simplistic and naive in parts. I thought the acting was good though, both of the actors that played the lead parts were very good and dealt with a sometimes 'iffy' script admirably.

I watch this movie on an early Sunday morning Bank Holidays. Being an early riser, saw this at 0700. This must be a made-for-telly one. Its not bad at all. It looked like it was made in the 70s maybe, Dennehy was so young then. It seemed to try to give a balanced view of what happened with Ruby. I used to read about The Kennedy Assassination and to my mind this Ruby guy is a bit loony and this movie I supposed portrayed it pretty well. It gave a good historical description I supposed. The acting ain't great at times but maybe people who like facts will say that it represented accurate accounts of what happened that time.

As a student of the John F. KENNEDY assassination, I want to point out that this movie is a very accurate portrayal of the real Jack Ruby. First of all, I strongly feel that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone--NO conspiracy. And another thing, I think that Oliver Stone's movie, JFK, stinks. It is one of the most fraudulent, deceptive piece of historical analysis that has ever been my personal displeasure to watch.

I believe that both Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby were too emotionally unstable to be a part of a conspiracy, because sooner or later they would have cracked under pressure. (Oswald once tried to commit suicide and Ruby was notorious for NOT being able to keep his mouth shut).

This movie shows Jack Ruby very accurately portrayed (for a change). Ruby was very emotionally unbalanced, unstable and was extremely fond of JFK.

For a couple of books on the JFK assassination, try "Case Closed," by Gerald Posner and "Reclaiming History," by Vincent Bugliosi (pronounced bull-YO-c).

Certainly this film is worth watching for the location filming and the real film of JFK but, as several reviewers have pointed out, as an account of the assassination of JFK it bears little resemblance to the truth. Some glaring errors have already been noted above, especially the ridiculous characterisations of Ruby and Oswald. Ruby was a mobster working for the New Orleans and Chicago mob and was never known to be a defender of JFK's 'honour' as portrayed in the film. This is a later invention aimed at providing a motive for his murder of Oswald, which was done to silence Oswald. Everything that Ruby does in the film is clearly intended to present him as some kind of good guy/avenger of JFK and is clumsily obvious. Furthermore, even basic details are wrong in this movie - for example, the package of 'curtain rods' which Oswald carried into Dallas was described by several witnesses as 13 inches long - yet in the film it looks more like two feet long to suggest a rifle. As for this film being based on the findings of the Warren Commission and thus being a 'truthful' account, a Senate Commission on Assassinations in the late 1970s re-investigated JFK's death and discredited the Warren Commission findings completely. In the opinion of the Senate Commission - which reviewed physical and witness evidence that the Warren Commission deliberately refused to admit, there WAS a conspiracy to kill JFK and they concluded that if Oswald was directly involved, he did not act alone. This is undisputed fact, as anyone can check. Further physical and eyewitness testimony that the Warren Commission refused to review also conclusively demonstrates that the fatal wound to JFK's head came from the right front, meaning there was a second gunman at least. Also, no fingerprints were ever found on the alleged murder weapon and Oswald's partial palm print was 'discovered' until after his death two days later. The only accurate point is that we never see Oswald firing the rifle - no one ever did.So viewers who think this film is an accurate representation are deluding themselves - and no, I'm not a conspiracy nut, I just prefer to keep an open mind and base my opinions on established fact rather than the accepting on face value anything that a government chooses to tell us. Incidentally, much of the acting in this movie is poor to say the least, wooden I would say. Only Frederic Forrest as Oswald carries any conviction in my opinion.

This movie is a straightforward docudrama on the events surrounding JFK's assassination during the weekend of November 22, 1963. As the movie states at the very beginning, it is based upon the witness testimony given to the Warren Commission. If you want to see the truth of what actually transpired during that weekend then this movie is worth watching. There are many well-researched conspiracy theories that have been put forth during the last four decades concerning JFK's assassination. Yet not one of them has ever disproved the majority of the assassination witnesses' original testimony given to the Warren Commission or the physical evidence that pointed to Oswald as the assassin. Frederic Forrest gives an excellent portrayal of Lee Harvey Oswald as does Michael Lerner of Jack Ruby. I think the movie might have been more effective if it had been filmed in black & white since so many people watched those events on a black & white television.