OJT Well, the title of this review is no more true than the film. Because this is a mocks entry about the man who claims to be the second gunman from the tragic assassination of Kennedy back in November 22nd 1963. This film is made out just like a documentary in style, and is first feature if what wax to become a great film maker, Neil Burger. At least I think so, because he's the director behind Limitless, The Illusionist and The lucky ones. There's most certainly more interesting films to come."I was a sick fu@@ back then" he says, the second assassin, Walter Ohliger, played by Raymond J. Barry. Filmed in Dallas, with the on location spots where it all happened, back in 1963.There is a strange weakness with this film, though, and that is that this was more interesting before the 50 year revival of the whole thing. I just saw all of the other film about what happened, and this fall a bit down as a novelty dud to that. It doesn't add to the alleged mysteries about the case in the same way as it did before all the anniversary. Some of the tension had been taken away from it.The film is very well acted. It's greatly depicted, just like an ordinary documentary would have been. On the other hand the film gets more interesting when it comes to the uncertainty of what's going to happen filming these ins and persons. Because there's more than one occurring.Well done, and a great debut feature, even if it hasn't held the same interest after the anniversary.

A.N. 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.

Robert W. A film like this was long over due. It only made sense to make a film about the other gunman who infamously supposedly shot from the knoll. Director, writer and creator Neil Burger attempts to make the film as real as possible by making it look like a real documentary made by a amateur film maker and newsman. Unfortunately the whole "Blair Witch" angle doesn't work at all for this film because it never feels real. There are far too many holes in the style of the film making. Although Burger says in his director commentary that they had to be careful in the way that they filmed it because only what the film maker sees can be what is filmed but that's not the case. The angles are wrong, his cameras change and go places where cameras would NEVER be allowed (and even though he has a pair of glasses with a hidden camera quite often it's a hand camera he's using, dangling at this side or in front of him.) The "film maker" character utilizes what would likely be thousands of dollars but yet is unemployed?? All that aside the film IS interesting and probably would have made a far better regularly made thriller than the mock-umentary style they chose to go with. The film takes the viewer from a small California suburb to Dealy Plaza in Texas (which is a great location and interesting to watch the "killer" return to,) to Bethesda Naval Hospital. Fortunately for the film and for Burger the film is captivating and riveting because of it's lead actor.Veteran actor Raymond J. Barry plays Walter Ohlinger. Supposedly riddled with cancer he makes a confession to a local neighbor that he knows is a cameraman and former reporter saying he "finally wants to talk." Ohlinger was the gunman on the grassy knoll and delivered the head shot that killed Kennedy. Barry's Ohlinger is brutal. He's cold blooded, rough, vindictive and completely insane but in a very subtle way. He's been boiling over living the regular life and now has snapped. Ohlinger makes this film watchable. He's downright disturbed and Barry is brilliant in the role. You easily believe he could have done this crime and has no regrets about it or knows nothing about the extent of the conspiracy. Dylan Haggerty plays film maker Ron Kobeleski. Unfortunately despite Haggerty's TV actor experience he seems completely inept in this role. Barry plays such a strong character and to have an equally strong co-star would have made this film absolutely brilliant but Haggerty flounders and comes across like a Grade school play actor. His fear and emotions are not well acted and in all honesty he kind of ruins the story.Probably one of the most unique aspects of Interview With The Assassin is that despite being about Kennedy's Assassination, it has NOTHING to do with any sort of theories about his murder or conspiracy plots or anything like that because as the shooter Ohlinger knows nothing and admits to that as such. He never gives any sure fire evidence to the truth of his involvement but he does try. Most of the suspense in the film comes from the fact that despite Kobeleski's doubt he feels like he's being followed and that his life is in danger. The twist at the end is a pretty big twist and you certainly don't see it coming but it doesn't build up very well and doesn't hold you on the edge of your seat so that you're truly shocked by the ending. Overall big Kennedy fans might enjoy this twist of a story but it's certainly fictional and never attempts to be otherwise. The story and acting for the most part is so implausible that you never get riveted by it. It's an average film with one outstanding performance about an outstanding idea. 7/10

schlomothehomo This film had a really good premise - the presentation of a fictitious (to some of the viewers out there : yes, FICTITIOUS!) story within a factual-like packaging. This is something that Michael Crichton has done in his books in the past in titles such as "Eaters of the Dead" and "The Great Train Robbery". When done well, as Mr Crichton did, this technique can make an otherwise ordinary or even boring story great. I thought that this was what "Interview with the Assassin" was going to do.The film started out well and the performances were good - Raymond J. Barry was particularly well-suited to his role. Later, though, it began meandering and in the end, became little more than just another Hollywood mass-produced flick. I wished that the director would have been a little bit more consistent in his vision. What did he want the movie to be? A documentary (albeit a fictitious one) or just a standard thriller? In the end, unfortunately, he took the latter route.Documentaries which examine things in real life usually do not have a beginning, middle, and end - life is just not this tidy. This movie, however, does have a beginning, middle, and then a neat little resolution of things in the end. Movie goers can then dust the pop-corn off of their chests and return once more into the grind.In short, "Interview with the Assassin" was a movie which could have been something new and exciting but instead ended up being something old and mediocre. As a documentary, it is not very believable (at least to me it wasn't.....), and, as a thriller, it is not very good.