Frame of Mind

Aside from a few OK performances, most of this film just kept me thinking, "how did this get made?".

With all the great story ideas, amazing actors, directors, writers, etc. in the world, how could something so bland get A) financed and B) legit actors like Chris Noth and Barbara Barrie to act in it? Most of the other actors - I can understand taking part in something like this as I assume they really need a role in whatever they can get. To be fair, the acting is not the real problem though. Even Arija Bareikis, who is normally a decent enough actress, has the depth of an empty manila envelope in this thing. That's partly the script/character to blame, though. The main problems are that the casting is mostly wrong, (David Dinkins...really???), the sound is barely there (sound is essential to creating a mood in a film like this, guys!), the script, (seems like a first draft that no-one edited and it's waaaaay too expository), and the directing (was there a director on set?). Sorry to say that lead actor, Carl Evans, is to blame as he was at the helm - or so we are to assume from his credits.

It seems like Eavans came into a load of cash and just blew it on this thing without planning it out correctly. So sad.

I thought that this was a well made low budget "b" movie . excellent acting,, premise,, well done for something that's been overdone in so many different ways for so many years.. I mean think about it,, it's actually plausible for someone who died many years ago,, to have saved something,, and an ancestor finds it after they die,, heck I found Kennedy Newspapers from 63,, Life Magazine,, right after he died,, I never knew my parents kept all that stuff, so yea I can totally buy that part. as for the movie itself,, it's definitely more than likely possible,, after watching the Marathon on the History Channel about 5 weeks ago,, I totally buy there was a conspiracy based on the open mike radio from the patrolmen from the motorcade,, tapes have been gone over and analyzed and proved that there were up to 5 shots that happened that day.. but the movie is very good,, I loved it because I'm an assassination buff,, and I love a good mystery,, and am a student of History,, if we don't learn from the past we are doomed to repeat it.

one of films for who the high expectations about a delicate subject represents its basic vulnerability. because it does not propose revelations. only a decent script about a plot, mysteries, search to the truth and obstacles. all - in decent manner, inspired in few scenes, realistic in many. the film is not a revelation and not a competitor against the classic films about same file, like J.F.K. . but it gives an interesting story. and this represents a real good thing.

This could have been a far better movie, if only someone, anyone, used some serious creativity to avoid the absolutely nothing ending. The actors were all alright, the scenes moved along, building to a crescendo that never happened. It simply stopped, barely even a fizzle, just over and done. Who does this?

The plot was based on a famous, historic event. The screenwriter was able to create a strirring, suspense-filled drama. Yes, we've all heard about the historical facts surrounding this day while we were in school and from the media. This movie even brought out very interesting information I didn't even know about so I learned some new insights to this story. The acting was somewhat better than average. Even though the characters were typical in an investigative piece, they managed to convey both their personal lives along with the suspense of innocently stumbling over evidence that could endanger their lives and the lives of those around them. The tension between the actors and their roles was effective and kept me on edge, especially as it was building up towards the end. It's just too sad, too bad to drop the entire ball for the ending and walk away from any kind of fulfilling conclusion. How frustrating. It was a big letdown. I wish I knew the conclusion would be horrible because I wouldn't have invested the time and energy into this work.

Rather surprised by the downside comments I read in these reviews, but then I think one's evaluation has a lot to do with whatever credibility one may have towards the idea of conspiracy in the JFK assassination. After all, if the Warren Report was a gross cover-up, what does that say about a lot of things? Americans are very resistant to the notion that the system they live in may be one of lies, corruption, and cover-up at the highest level. Popping a huge bubble can have serious consequences. If you think little of talk of conspiracy, whether the JFK assassination or other notable events, you may do well to spare yourself this film, which is likely to appear a b-level production, confusing with mediocre acting, or downright terrible. If on the other hand you lie on the other end of the spectrum as I do (note I state other end), I suggest you see it and by all means avoid reading any synopsis in advance. You will enjoy it more without spoilers. So being biased towards conspiracy I found the film very entertaining, credible, and well-casted. Well written and I could not guess how it turned out.