SnoopyStyle Archival footage is used to recount the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. It follows Kennedy before arriving in Dallas as well as following Lee Harvey Oswald's footsteps. There is a small section for the actual shooting in the middle and then the aftermath dominates the second half. It's a very traditional documentary. There is a wall-to-wall old guy narration. It's timely released a year after the assassination. It got nominated for the Oscar. Its traditional newsreel style never really breaks and it follows the story mostly chronologically. The most compelling is probably hearing from Oswald himself and the foreboding description of his life. Basically, it's the standard documentary to encapsulate the event.

PrometheusTree64 You can't go by the IMDb vote of 6.3 because, if you check out the age/gender breakdown on the voters, its the women (sorry, ladies) who sink the average on this project -- probably giving it a low rating because "it's sad." The men give it a higher rating, presumably because they know it's supposed to be sad.At any rate, it's a great period piece, a product of its immediate era.While it's just a compilation of footage and doesn't address anything controversial (e.g., Oswald is presumed "guilty") it's a poignant time capsule, with its noble-tragic tone -- managing to be touchingly doom-riddled and yet somehow ice cold.It couldn't be anything else.

kai ringler very powerful documentary made in 1964, so it was fresh in everyone's mind. movie centers on nov 22-25, 1963. elm st.. the day before the assassination,, the day of,, and the 2 days after,,, chronicles the action of the VP. the process of the swearing in,, what happened to the body,, the brain all of the stat movie focuses on Lee Harvey Oswald and his life. I watched this entirely for the archival footage and not so much to learn anything new,, I did learn a few things,, but not being born when all of this took place it was nice to get a look at all the archival footage that their was,, this movie was a companion piece to the JFK marathon on the history channel for the 50th anniversary of the assassination. didn't really change my mind about things.. just makes you wonder that much more,, to be honest we probably won't ever have a definitive answer one way or the other of who shot Kennedy,, but I know one thing,, he didn't act alone,,,, that duck don't hunt...

Michael_Elliott Four Days in November (1964) *** (out of 4) Oscar-nominated documentary taking a look at the four days in November where the country changed forever. I've watch dozens of documentaries on Kennedy and several just this past week on the 50th Anniversary of the president's assassination. I was rather late coming to see this popular film and even though I've seen quite a few there was still countless bits of footage that I had never seen before. I think what really makes this documentary stand apart is that it was made less than a year after the assassination so needless to say there's all sorts of footage that just typically doesn't get shown today. I think some of the most interesting moments deal with the moments right after the assassination when people were just hanging on to see whether or not the president was going to survive his wounds. The aftermath of course is another thing and it's interesting to note that hints of a conspiracy theory on displayed here and a couple of them would later be used in Oliver Stone's JFK. There's no doubt that history buffs will want to check this thing out because there's simply so much news footage that you really get a great idea of what it was like, television wise, when this happened. I will say that the film feels a tad bit long when watched today and it's also a bit too dry and at times lingers on. Still, there's no question that all the news footage makes this one worth checking out.