Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

Lack of good storyline.

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Where have they been hiding this one all these years? It's just too real... I had to check it out on the internet to find out it is fiction! Being a real life news/documentary cameraman, I can tell you that this is totally convincing and compulsive. I happened upon it shortly after it was being screened and could not take my eyes off it. The reporter in particular is absolutely the real deal. I'm watching the screen thinking to myself "how come I haven't heard about this before? The assassin... who is this guy and how come I haven't heard about him before now?" This is definitely one for the DVD collection and definitely a one hundred percent MUST SEE BEFORE I DIE!!

After viewing the intriguing and well-done ILLUSIONIST, my next stop was to look at Neil Burger's first film. Like his well-known movie about magic, the first major picture he directed also deals with illusion and truth. This time he sets his aim at a mock documentary about the Kennedy Assassination. Raymond Barry plays a crusty and dangerous shadowy figure named Ohlinger who recounts to an unemployed television cameraman that he is the alleged "Second Gunman" at the Grassy Knoll in Dallas. From here the younger man becomes sucked into conspiracy, odd happenings, and culminates with apparent murder and a possible second presidential assassination attempt. Burger weaves this with clever technique, building a more and more credible and incredible narrative. As one early character notes, all this is quite dangerous. But the cameraman's ambition supersedes his judgment, and he follows the mad gun man to the ultimate end. What Burger has done with a small budget and two effective lead actors is truly delightful. For those who want clever use of cameras, enjoy the possibilities of history, and cherish the notion of seeing a brilliant and talented director unfolding before our eyes, this film is worth it. Based on this and the ILLUSIONIST, Neil Burger is a fresh talent who deserves our full attention.

Interview with the Assassin. A masterpiece. I ordered this movie on Netflix after reading about Neil Burger and the Illusionist on IMDb. The plot intrigued me, as will it grab you. Walter is a 62 year old man, he's dying of cancer with only months to live and he has something to get off his chest before checking out. He enlists the help of his out-of-work neighbour, Ron, a cameraman with a wife and child. What he reveals to Ron is shocking. Walter, an ex-marine sharpshooter, says he is the man who fired the round that struck John F. Kennedy in the back of the head, killing him instantly. The man arrested and killed in jail before a trial was a patsy who also fired a bullet that morning, but did not hit the President. After murdering American Royalty, Walter just walks away, leaving Oswald to an undeniable fate. Walter claims he was hired by a man he was in the Marines with, and does not know where that man got the order for the hit, but it was high up. Someone powerful wanted JFK dead. Walter and Ron go on a trip to uncover the mystery as to who hired Walter for the shooting, and chaos ensues. One runs through a gamut of emotion while watching this movie. You go from the horror we all feel while watching our nation's most admired leader get his head blown off, to sympathy for the man who supposedly did it, to shock for the grisly way the film concludes. To me, Interview with the Assassin was in no way non-fiction. I could tell from the first lines spoken that it was scripted. I can't believe there are people who believed this movie to be fact, but that should not hinder you from ordering this movie on Netflix immediately! The bottom line is this: Oswald clearly did not act alone that day in Dallas, and Neil Burger explores that possibility intimately and keeps it most plausible. I imagine that someday the truth behind JFK's assassination will become public, and to those of us who have seen Interview the Assassin, it just wont be that shocking.

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.