Interview with the Assassin

Walter is 62 and has terminal cancer. He has a confession to make before he dies, and he chooses cameraman Ron to tell his story to. Apparently Walter fired the shot that killed John Kennedy.

Ron and Walter visit Dallas to see where the event happen, and later they go in search of the truth ... but someone doesn't want them to know what really happened. Toward the end, things get interesting but ridiculous.

Raymond Barry was very convincing, very natural as Walter. Most of the characters in the movie seemed like real people. The jerky, almost amateurish camera work made this seem like a real documentary. Nearly all of the film was told from the point of view of one of Ron's cameras, including security cameras at his house. It was a very low-frills production, with almost no music except for radios and background music playing in buildings.

I'm no expert, but this seems like the sort of film that wins awards or at least gets nominated. If it had been a real documentary, it probably would have.

Although it seems strange that the film (apparently coincidentally) opens on the day of the 39th anniversary of JFK's assassination, it thankfully stands on its own as an intriguing look at the possibility of the "grassy knoll gunman" theory. While it is by no means a conspiracy or propaganda film, it is, in fact, a "fake documentary" a la Blair Witch, that seems often very real thanks to Raymond J. Barry's amazing performance as a nut (or is he?) who claims to be the second shooter in the President Kennedy's assassination. His commanding presence adds a sense of danger and seriousness that makes the film such an impressive and challenging piece of work.

First time writer/director Neil Burger brings you in to the story and keeps you wrapped up in it in a way that most great feature films do, while still having that gritty documentary feel. Dylan Haggerty plays the cameraman who is "lucky" enough to become involved in such a dangerous story that he cannot decide if his subject is for real or not until he goes over the edge.

It's a fascinating concept, really. Imagine someone with information of that magnitude coming forth with his story only because he has a few months left to live. Would anyone really let that happen? As closely guarded as the true evidence is, you can bet that it wouldn't, which is also examined here in a fantastically twisted web of paranoia, obsession, and fantasy.

For anyone that's ever had a fascination or interest in the JFK assassination, this is a must see. Art house folks will probably eat this one up as well, as it is challenging and thoughtful, and completely free of any Hollywood gloss - what a combination! This one is definitely worth catching in the theater.

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, tampered

evidence 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 were

bribed, 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 a

documentary. The ex-wife was brilliant. All the actors were just realistic to the point of surrealism. I'm now babbling, SEE THIS MOVIE

I learned an important lesson from Interview with the Assassins. If your elderly neighbor claims to have shot John F. Kennedy... run. Rob Kobeleski, the main character of this film, unfortunately didn't know that. Interview with the Assassin is about a reporter, Rob, whose neighbor, Walter, claims to have been the second gunman on the grassy knoll on that fateful day in Dallas back in 1963. Intrigued, Rob tries to learn more, but gets himself in over his head as a massive conspiracy unfolds around he and Walt, putting both of their lives in more danger than he could have imagined.

The intriguing catch to this film is that it is all shot from Rob's perspective. Rob operates the camera and we follow the story along from his eyes and his vantage point. It adds a very unique allure to a film with an oddly compelling story. It makes the film a very interesting watch and it engages us in the story in a very different way. Of course, without this gimmick Interview with the Assassin likely wouldn't amount to anything, but that is usually the case with these kinds of films; see Cloverfield or The Blair Witch Project.

Personally, I'm a sucker for these types of films. I haven't seen one in this style that I didn't like, and the same goes for Interview with the Assassin. It's a great little film that excellently blends suspense, action, and gripping drama. The story is one of those that makes you turn your head in confusion at multiple points, sometimes out of absurdity but mostly out of genuine interest in the bizarre story that unfolds in this film. There are definitely some odd and possibly unnecessary elements in the film, and the script falters at points, but overall this is a unique experience. Granted it doesn't amount to a whole lot and you can sort of see the climax coming, but for a relatively short film it's totally worth the watch.

Not knowing what to expect, I recorded this on broadcast TV and was riveted from the opening scene. I usually like movies about ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances, and this was a great example.

The sense of place and tension was gripping, even with no soundtrack. The very lack of music added to the stark feel. A subtle scene involving video surveillance was especially chilling. It makes other movies seem overproduced and fake. They should use this technique in a lot more films. No need to involve a cameraman's angle; just have everyone talk and act naturally. Most movie dialog is too slick.

It's hard to imagine anyone else in the role of the shooter, laconically yet frighteningly played by Raymond J. Barry. He's one of those actors you know you've seen before but can't quite place. I'm going to check out his other movies to see if he pulls off that same quality.

Without giving away the ending, I don't think they could have done it any better. IWTA isn't as overtly scary as a more famous pseudo-documentary about a witch, but I put the two films in a similar category. You have to wonder if this was inspired by the BWP concept. It's excellent either way. I'll have to watch it again to catch anything they cut on TV.