BY DON IMUS (OCT. 2, 2012):
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
"Killing Kennedy" [the 2013 TV movie] was absolutely horrible.
While watching it, I had the feeling I was sitting through a non-stop series of mini movie trailers. That's the way it felt to me anyway. Short little scenes. Nothing fleshed out. And too many errors in the details to possibly mention them all. One of which was: They actually had pictures of Oswald visiting the Mexico City embassies. They just decided to invent some pictures that never existed, and then Hosty shows the pictures to Oswald after his arrest. A most curious fairy tale there.
One other mistake that had me laughing aloud was when someone is listening to their car radio and they are supposedly hearing Walter Cronkite's CBS-TV bulletin of JFK's death---on their RADIO. That's just a nit-picky thing, I know. But to someone who knows it was impossible, it's still funny. Now if they had chosen to use the NBC-TV coverage for that "car radio" scene, then it would have been correct, because the NBC Radio Network was airing the NBC Television audio when the official death announcement was made.
A few more "Killing Kennedy" gaffes (for good measure)....
....The film has Lee Harvey Oswald flagging down a moving cab on the street after leaving Cecil McWatters' bus, instead of approaching William Whaley's parked taxicab at the Greyhound terminal. And the filmmakers have Oswald getting in the back seat of the cab, instead of the front seat (which we know is wrong; Oswald really got into the front seat and sat beside driver Whaley).
....Charles Givens seeing Oswald standing practically right next to the assassin's window on the sixth floor after Givens goes back up to get his jacket and cigarettes.
....Secret Service agents Sorrels and Lawson engage in some really funny made-up dialogue before the motorcade, with one of them saying to the other: "Can't we avoid this sharp turn onto Elm in Dealey Plaza?" (Hilarious.)
....Plus, I guess we're supposed to buy into the notion that the Secret Service had aerial photographs made of Dealey Plaza before the shooting too. (LOL)
....Jackie walks into the White House pool area and sees the top of a girl's bathing suit floating on top of the water. (Also hilarious.)
I will say, though, that I do feel a little sorry for Bill O'Reilly, Ridley Scott, and Company -- they had the impossible task in front of them of trying to shoehorn way too much material into about a 90-minute timeframe. It just can't be done. They wanted to cover all of Kennedy's Presidency, plus a large part of Oswald's life in Russia and Texas and New Orleans, plus a bit of Jack Ruby thrown in, plus the assassination story and all of its aftermath. All in 90 minutes. It's no wonder the scenes were short and choppy and "trailer"-like in their feel.
I have always thought that David Wolper's "Four Days In November" would never be surpassed as the best JFK assassination motion picture ever to be made. I've never seen it surpassed at any rate. And Bill O'Reilly's "Killing Kennedy" doesn't even come close. (Although, granted, the two films aren't exactly the same type of documentaries, with "Four Days" not relying on any actors at all. It only relies on the actual news coverage and interviews with the real witnesses.)
Too bad, too. Because Bill O'Reilly does have the bottom-line facts correct -- Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit, and LHO took a shot at General Walker too. It's just a shame that the "Killing Kennedy" filmmakers tried to jam a six-hour story into ninety minutes.
David Von Pein
November 11-12, 2013
May 14, 2018
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In addition to Bill O’Reilly’s whopper of a falsehood about being at George DeMohrenschildt’s door in Florida when George committed suicide in March of 1977, there’s another really odd thing going on with respect to the tidal wave of “5-Star” reviews that keep coming in every single day at Amazon.com for O’Reilly’s 2012 book, “Killing Kennedy”.
I noticed this weird “cookie cutter” trend in the reviews for O’Reilly’s book over two years ago when the book was first released. And it seems to have gotten weirder recently. As of the time when I’m typing this message on the night of March 1, 2015, on just the first three pages of “Most Recent” reviews for “Killing Kennedy” (that’s a total of 30 reviews), there are FOURTEEN (14) reviews that merely have the words “Five Stars” or “Four Stars” in the title of the review (even though they were supposedly written by different people). That’s almost HALF of the last thirty reviews featuring the say-nothing titles of “Five Stars” or “Four Stars”. That’s nuts. It can’t be kosher or legitimate. It’s become the “cookie cutter review page” at Amazon. Those reviews are ridiculous….and they are obviously phony.
And the kicker is: evidently after churning out dozens of these one-line, say-nothing “reviews” of praise for O’Reilly’s book PER DAY, the phony so-called “reviewers” now aren’t even attempting to be different or to even hide the fact that these crazy reviews are bogus. That’s obvious by the fact that many of these so-called “reviewers” are now using the very same two-word titles for their reviews—over and over again.
Does anyone really think that separate legitimate reviewers for the same book would be using the exact same words (“Five Stars” or “Four Stars”) as the title of their reviews? Not a chance in the world.
I can’t understand why Amazon doesn’t do something to stop this obvious “ballot stuffing” for O’Reilly’s book. But perhaps Amazon doesn’t have the software or the resources to screen out this sort of blatant fraud in the review system on its website. But it’s been a disturbing trend on Amazon’s “Killing Kennedy” page for more than two years now. And it would be nice if it could be stopped. Because those reviews are as phony as an 11-dollar bill and anyone who reads just a few of them can easily verify that fact for themselves by CLICKING HERE.
In order to “preempt the defense” regarding my own “unethical” tactics concerning reviews I’ve posted at Amazon.com, I’ll place my own head in the hangman’s noose and confess right now (via this link). But I still stand by every word I have written at Amazon (and elsewhere).
Another Amazon Footnote....
I’ve now been noticing that the recent “cookie cutter” style of say-nothing reviews featuring the silly “Five Stars” and “Four Stars” titles is not limited to just Bill O’Reilly’s “Killing Kennedy” book.
Upon looking at several other JFK-related book pages at Amazon—“conspiracy” and “lone nut” books alike—I noticed (with my mouth agape in near disbelief at how many of these I was able to find almost immediately) the exact same type of ultra-short and essentially worthless “reviews” for many other books too, including all of the following Kennedy books….
Stephen King’s “11/22/63″ (Scribner Publishing; 1st Edition);
James Douglass’ “JFK And The Unspeakable” (Touchstone);
Roger Stone’s “The Man Who Killed Kennedy” (Skyhorse);
Lamar Waldron’s “The Hidden History Of The JFK Assassination” (Counterpoint) [with 6 of the last 9 reviews for this book, as of 3/3/15, falling into what I would consider to be the “bogus” category, including the last 4 in a row, which ALL feature the words “Five Stars” or “Four Stars” as the review title];
Richard Belzer’s “Hit List” (Skyhorse);
Philip Shenon’s “A Cruel And Shocking Act” (Henry Holt & Co.);
James Swanson’s “End Of Days” (William Morrow);
Phillip Nelson’s “LBJ: The Mastermind Of The JFK Assassination” (Skyhorse; 2nd Edition);
Jerome Corsi’s “Who Really Killed Kennedy?” (WND Books);
Clint Hill’s “Mrs. Kennedy And Me” (Gallery Books);
Clint Hill’s “Five Days In November” (Gallery Books);
Gerald Blaine’s and Lisa McCubbin’s “The Kennedy Detail” (Gallery Books);
Jesse Ventura’s “They Killed Our President” (Skyhorse);
Jim Marrs’ “Crossfire” (Basic Books; Revised Edition);
James DiEugenio’s “Destiny Betrayed” (Skyhorse; 2nd Edition);
Bonar Menninger’s “Mortal Error” (CreateSpace; 2nd Edition);
Judyth Vary Baker’s “David Ferrie” (Trine Day);
Larry Sabato’s “The Kennedy Half-Century” (Bloomsbury USA);
and Mimi Alford’s “Once Upon A Secret” (Random House).
So it would appear as if a lot of publishers are attempting to improve the overall average ratings for their books by having people write useless “reviews” too.
Now I suppose it’s possible that I’m wrong and that all of the many, many short and shallow reviews that have recently appeared on each of the above Amazon book pages are, indeed, legitimate reviews written by people who are giving an honest (albeit brief) opinion of the book’s contents. But if that’s the case, then those reviewers have achieved something quite remarkable — they’ve managed to make honest and legitimate book reviews look exactly the same as counterfeit ones.
David Von Pein
March 1-3, 2015