The first in a two-part installment in which Jeff Carter reviews a book that "reveals some new – albeit not earth-shattering – information", but is also "imbued with a certain partisanship, not limited to family interests, which dulls the author’s critical thinking in some key areas."
If Shaw had restrained himself, or if he had had an editor to point out the problems with his design, then this would have been a good and valuable book about Dorothy Kilgallen: who she really was, what we know and do not know about her death. But such was not the case. I would actually recommend Sara Jordan’s informative and objective essay instead, concludes Jim DiEugenio.
Whoever decided that this script needed to be played out on the wide screen of a darkened theater was simply wrong. It seems that the writer and director realized that mistake on the way to production. They then tried to justify that decision. In this reviewer’s opinion, it did not work, writes Jim DiEugenio.
This author would not walk across the street to see Posner speak about either the JFK or King case. I have a hard time thinking that Stone could master the JFK case in just a matter of 3-4 years, and am skeptical of the case made against Lyndon Johnson. In watching this confrontation it appears I was correct about these suspicions, laments Jim DiEugenio.
Aside from Shane O'Sullivan's mostly worthwhile Killing Oswald, there has been very little of note that has even attempted to counter the MSM's seemingly endless deluge of propaganda with reliable evidence and solid reasoning. A Coup in Camelot clearly aims to fill that void. Unfortunately, however, it falls considerably short of the mark, writes Martin Hay.
From about 1966, it became the strategy of the MSM not to let the Warren Commission critics speak without being interfered with, or caricatured. After Stone’s movie came out, the MSM simply would not place the critics on their programs at all. Benson counters that by simply letting the critics speak about the case without being interfered with, writes Joseph Green.
After reading [this book], I was able to understand what this was all about—at least in a fundamental way. Also, my respect for President John F. Kennedy, which was already estimable, increased a bit more, writes Jim DiEugenio.
A book rich in information which debunks the claims that Lyndon Johnson and Mac Wallace planned the JFK assassination, and includes an expert review of the fingerprint evidence demonstrating they do not match Wallace's.
At the end of his review of JFK and the Unspeakable, DiEugenio wrote that Jim Douglass’ book was the best in the field since Gerald McKnight’s. The author’s own book has a dual distinction. It is the best book on Garrison yet written, and it is the best work on the JFK case since the Douglass book, writes Albert Rossi.
Jim DiEugenio concludes: "Overall, this two-disc set is much worth purchasing and watching. How many DVD sets chronicle three history-making events? One dealing with our political system, one dealing with the struggle for American civil rights, and one with a stylistic revolution in film technique?"
Jim DiEugenio calls this book "a provocative revisionist history of why the epochal coup in Indonesia happened as it did in 1965 ... [and which] has enlightened us on the crucial figures of Allen Dulles, Sukarno, Dag Hammarskjold and John Kennedy, how they played with and against each other and how this nexus led to a horrible tragedy."
Bridge of Spies is a well-made film. I just wish it had dispensed with a lot of the dramatic license, which I do not think was really necessary. It would also be nice to see these two men do something a little gutsy concerning American history, opines Jim DiEugenio.
My advice about this heavily weighted apparatus [11.22.63] which produces next to nothing is to avoid it at all costs. All it really produces is more money for King and J. J. Abrams – like they need it. It is nothing more than a stupid, demeaning waste of time, concludes Jim DiEugenio.