User Reviews

Having just completed viewing this made for TV movie I can say several things. 1)It was adequately made but not outstanding as far as entertainment. 2)The acting was hit & miss, with Michael Lerner doing the best at portraying an emotionally unbalanced Jack Ruby. 3)As far as historical worth goes this is virtually worthless for any but those who slavishly hold to the Warren Commission's finding of a "Lone Gunman" in the case of not only Lee Harvey Oswald but in HIS assassin Jack Ruby as well. Believers in the "Lone Nut" scenario accused Oliver Stone's film "J.F.K." of being complete fiction & I suppose that it would be to them in the same sense that footage of the Moon Landing would be complete fiction to someone who believes that we never went there & consequently faked the whole thing. This made for TV film is a rote,down the line love letter to the Warren Commission findings,eliminating anything inconvenient (Like the whole "Magic Bullet" part of the tragedy for example. Aside from the trajectory of it which defied the laws of physics "Lone Gunman" adherents would have us believe that it just magically fell out of Governor John Connally to lay gently beside him on the hospital stretcher in practically pristine condition, a condition that never has been repeated since in countless tests under countless conditions. A bullet fired through NO bones or flesh but simply water itself has more degradation than that present on the "Magic Bullet" not to mention that the fragments of shrapnel removed from Governor Connally add up to more mass than is even missing from the conveniently discovered cartridge in the first place!)that they might not be able to explain away with the ease of how for example Jack Ruby came to know that Oswald had been involved in the Fair Play for Cuba committee. (Here it has Ruby overhearing it on the radio shortly before arriving at the police station where he just so happens to get into the press room so that he can have the first of his moments in the spotlight before getting locked away until his own suspicious death under incarceration.) What they don't replicate for their own purposes (Like having Oswald scowl a lot to make him look more guilty) they simply invent (Like the radio bit that I just mentioned) or eliminate entirely (Like the "Magic Bullet" stuff or the fact that Oswald worked at a top secret photo developing lab & would have known how to fake the photos of him with the guns that basically announced to the world "I'M GUILTY!" Here it's portrayed like he was just saying that they were faked with nothing to back it up. Or the fact that a man fitting Ruby's description was seen around Dealey Plaza at the time of J.F.K.'s murder. "When in doubt, throw it out" seems to have been the order of the day here.) so as to convince either the casual viewer who doesn't know much about the case or the choir of Warren Commission apologists that they're preaching to that this indeed is the way that it REALLY happened. (As a side-note it's interesting that with so many rave reviews it's not rated very highly. Almost makes you suspicious doesn't it?)

I'm not saying that you HAVE to believe that there was a conspiracy (Though I think that's the only reasonable conclusion to reach upon examining all of the evidence.)but what I am saying is that if you're interested in the assassination of President Kennedy (As I would assume just about everyone watching this would be)then AT LEAST look at the evidence presented from both sides & decide for yourself.

Pretty accurate movie. According to all evidence at that time, this movie was very factual. Forrest gives a pretty good portrayal, though his smirk was not quite Oswald-like. Contrary to what one other reviewer says, Ruby WAS a fan of the President and according to witnesses who knew him he was desolate over the assassination.

Its appropriate I suppose that I am writing these words near the 40th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's assassination. The day that was like blood on the American flag and darkness at noon. I have always eagerly watched every movie or documentary on the assassination. Everyone loves a good mystery and this is one mystery that will never be solved. Ruby And Oswald was first shown when I was in the fourth grade and I have seen it several times since. Frederic Forrest and Michael Lerner (who is unfairly known mainly for looking like Roger Ebert) both do a fine job in the title roles. One is a bitter young loner seeking fame by killing the President the other is a hot-tempered man driven to violence by grief. The only thing that I have against this film is its very naive and simplistic viewpoint. Its almost as if the writers just read the Warren Commission report and took it as Gospel without looking below the surface. The one question that I have is this. If Ruby loved Kennedy so much (there is a scene early in the film where he tells his nightclub audience about "our dear President Kennedy" and angrily attacks a man who insults the President) why wasn't he out watching the motorcade as it practically passed by his front door? He was in a newspaper office at the time going over ads for his nightclub! I think its been proven that Ruby was just a pathetic loser who wanted his "fifteen minutes" of fame so to speak by shooting Oswald. I recently wrote a letter to Jim Leavelle the Dallas detective who was handcuffed to Oswald when Ruby shot him. Leavelle wrote me that there was no conspiracy and that people like Oliver Stone are basically just out for a buck and don't give a tinker's damn about the truth. I called Mister Leavelle and spoke with him and he said that he thought Ruby believed he would be a hero and that everyone would shake his hand and he would be on the Ed Sullivan show for shooting Oswald. Still, this is a good film with fine performances that really brings that terrible day to life.

Certainly this film is worth watching for the location filming and the real film of JFK but, as several reviewers have pointed out, as an account of the assassination of JFK it bears little resemblance to the truth. Some glaring errors have already been noted above, especially the ridiculous characterisations of Ruby and Oswald. Ruby was a mobster working for the New Orleans and Chicago mob and was never known to be a defender of JFK's 'honour' as portrayed in the film. This is a later invention aimed at providing a motive for his murder of Oswald, which was done to silence Oswald. Everything that Ruby does in the film is clearly intended to present him as some kind of good guy/avenger of JFK and is clumsily obvious. Furthermore, even basic details are wrong in this movie - for example, the package of 'curtain rods' which Oswald carried into Dallas was described by several witnesses as 13 inches long - yet in the film it looks more like two feet long to suggest a rifle. As for this film being based on the findings of the Warren Commission and thus being a 'truthful' account, a Senate Commission on Assassinations in the late 1970s re-investigated JFK's death and discredited the Warren Commission findings completely. In the opinion of the Senate Commission - which reviewed physical and witness evidence that the Warren Commission deliberately refused to admit, there WAS a conspiracy to kill JFK and they concluded that if Oswald was directly involved, he did not act alone. This is undisputed fact, as anyone can check. Further physical and eyewitness testimony that the Warren Commission refused to review also conclusively demonstrates that the fatal wound to JFK's head came from the right front, meaning there was a second gunman at least. Also, no fingerprints were ever found on the alleged murder weapon and Oswald's partial palm print was 'discovered' until after his death two days later. The only accurate point is that we never see Oswald firing the rifle - no one ever did.So viewers who think this film is an accurate representation are deluding themselves - and no, I'm not a conspiracy nut, I just prefer to keep an open mind and base my opinions on established fact rather than the accepting on face value anything that a government chooses to tell us. Incidentally, much of the acting in this movie is poor to say the least, wooden I would say. Only Frederic Forrest as Oswald carries any conviction in my opinion.

With all the nonsense today involving the endless "conspiracy theories" regarding the Kennedy Assassination, it is good that there is a "bare-bones" production like this one for people to get a good grounding in the facts of the case, because the facts clearly show that Oswald was the lone gunman and that Ruby could not have possibly gone out that Sunday morning to kill Oswald. Just four minutes before Ruby entered the history books by killing Oswald, he was leisurely standing in line at the Western Union office and his beloved dog was waiting for him to return in his car. The one big question that others have raised here which is not clarified by this film is Ruby's motive in killing Oswald. Ruby is shown to be very distraught over Kennedy's killing, but Ruby was not known to be such a sentimental person. He did express fear that the Jewish community would be blamed somehow because of the "Weissman advertisement" but his sister Eva pointed out to him that no one was blaming the Jews. Many people who knew Ruby felt that he thought he would be considered a big hero for "plugging" Oswald and that he wouldn't be arrested and then would appear on the Ed Sullivan Show the next Sunday. In the end, the film has him telling the police that he didn't know why he did it. That may be the closest thing to the truth.

Another interesting part of the film was seeing Oswald's interrogation. Capt Fritz starts out quite calmly in his questioning the suspect, but by Sunday morning, he seems to be losing patience with Oswalds stonewalling and refusal to clarify the Oswald-A J Hidell identity confution. I wonder if the filmmakers consulted with those present at the interrogation. Finally, Michael Lerner's performance in the finest in the show, Frederick Forrest also did a good job as Oswald. The actress who played Eva Grant, Ruby's sister also brought out the unstable side of Ruby. The bottom line is that this film is highly recommended.

This movie is a straightforward docudrama on the events surrounding JFK's assassination during the weekend of November 22, 1963. As the movie states at the very beginning, it is based upon the witness testimony given to the Warren Commission. If you want to see the truth of what actually transpired during that weekend then this movie is worth watching. There are many well-researched conspiracy theories that have been put forth during the last four decades concerning JFK's assassination. Yet not one of them has ever disproved the majority of the assassination witnesses' original testimony given to the Warren Commission or the physical evidence that pointed to Oswald as the assassin. Frederic Forrest gives an excellent portrayal of Lee Harvey Oswald as does Michael Lerner of Jack Ruby. I think the movie might have been more effective if it had been filmed in black & white since so many people watched those events on a black & white television.

I enjoyed watching this movie despite some bad acting, and ridiculous location scenes. The reason is the movie captured on celluloid forever some of the landmarks of one of the most historic events of the twentieth century. Landmark locations, such as the ramp at police headquarters, inside Oswald's boarding house, and inside the Texas Schoolbook Depository lunchroom, were filmed. Many of these iconic locations of the JFK Assassination are unreachable by the public, and may be gone someday. The Sixth Floor, for example, has been forever renovated and much different than that day in November, 1963. So the movie is important from that aspect, and it is remarkable that many locations in 1978 looked so similar to 1963. Also, I believe the script got the dialogue between Oswald and the police correct. It is difficult to say for sure, since no recording of the Oswald interrogation was done. But recollections by those there in 1963 match what the film portrayed. I also thought the Oswald character in this movie got the Oswald mannerisms down pretty well. Other characters from this historic event also were matched close to the real characters, although the Ruth Paine character did not even closely resemble her. But for history buffs like myself, I would rather have this in my archives than not have it.

Don't buy the silly 1992 film that makes Ruby out to be some kind of Shakespearian hero, and shooting Oswald because it would bring some huge conspiracy to light (when in fact, the killing was largely responsible for appearing to make it a big mystery!).

This is the movie to see to know the real Jack Ruby, and Michael Lerner nails him exactly. In a way, Ruby was like a very low rent Frank Sinatra. Both were sensitive about their child-of-immigrants upbringing, which is possibly why they both liked John Kennedy so much. Both had a hot, impulsive temper. Both were also extremely fond of attractive women and capable of great generosity. And both considered mobsters unfairly persecuted good-time boys with money.

The movie depicts a couple things that would cast doubt on Ruby being part of a conspiracy. One was that when he went to see Oswald being brought out, he left his beloved dog sitting in his car. The other was that when Oswald was scheduled to be brought out, Ruby was not in the garage, but across the street wiring money to a stripper in need. He returned just in time for the fatal encounter.

A worthwhile 90 minutes for those obsessed with the events of Nov. 22, 1963

As a student of the John F. KENNEDY assassination, I want to point out that this movie is a very accurate portrayal of the real Jack Ruby. First of all, I strongly feel that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone--NO conspiracy. And another thing, I think that Oliver Stone's movie, JFK, stinks. It is one of the most fraudulent, deceptive piece of historical analysis that has ever been my personal displeasure to watch.

I believe that both Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby were too emotionally unstable to be a part of a conspiracy, because sooner or later they would have cracked under pressure. (Oswald once tried to commit suicide and Ruby was notorious for NOT being able to keep his mouth shut).

This movie shows Jack Ruby very accurately portrayed (for a change). Ruby was very emotionally unbalanced, unstable and was extremely fond of JFK.

For a couple of books on the JFK assassination, try "Case Closed," by Gerald Posner and "Reclaiming History," by Vincent Bugliosi (pronounced bull-YO-c).

This may actually be the most true to life movie ever made about the Kennedy assassination. More of a docudrama than hollywood type movie,it relies on facts and sworn testimony of witnesses for the story line. It has a small but unique reputation for driving conspiracy nuts batty.

Truly remarkable movie, and historically correct, with most if not all film locations being the actual sites. Even the automobiles are correct.

This movie will go down as an historic record in the years to come, as it was filmed only 15-year after the event, with most locations little changed.

The acting is superb, a well deserved 10 star docudrama,

Being in England, the Kennedy assassination did not have the same impact on me or my contemporaries, than it would have had to the American people. For that reason I think we English can view the events of that day in November 1963 from a more detached viewpoint. Whether the conspiracy theories have any credence to them I couldn't say, maybe they do and maybe they don't, I keep an open mind on that. However, I do find the motives put forward in this film for Jack Ruby killing Oswald somewhat implausible and hard to believe. I watched this film earlier this evening on one of the movie channels, and I must admit I did find it entertaining and worth watching, but I think one has to be selective in what one takes for gospel and what is supposition, in my opinion it was too simplistic and naive in parts. I thought the acting was good though, both of the actors that played the lead parts were very good and dealt with a sometimes 'iffy' script admirably.

I had high hopes for this after reading the box. It said "Filmed at actual locations." As I watched, I came to the realization that this was a wretched waste of time and film. The only good thing about it was the "actual locations," which included the Texas Schoolbook Depository and all of the Elm street area. As for the rest, bear with me. The most glaring error was Ruby's motivation for killing Oswald. He was portrayed as a broken-hearted man overcome with grief. This couldn't be farther from the truth. All of the events of that Nov. 22nd are out of order. Oswald is shown shooting Officer Tippett in front of a dozen or more people. Didn't happen. I could go on but I'll make it short and sweet: DO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN THIS FILM. There, that should do it. Watching this without knowing any of the facts of what happened that day will give you the worst revisionist view imaginable of a terrible tragedy. Score this a 3 out of 10 for the Dallas locations only.

I have researched everything possible about the JFK Assassination. This movie is the closest "thing" to the truth possible, without launching into mystery people and unreliable, unproven, with no facts opinions.

Ruby and Oswald sticks incredibly consistent with the testimony of others AND Oswald's 12 hours of interrogation at the Dallas Police Department, along with the FBI. Ruby and Oswald takes all the guessing out of the story and puts on film what we know to be absolute facts.

Conspiracy theorists want you to believe Oswald was just the world's u luckiest guy. That he worked at the same building, which shots rang out from and killed the leader of the free world. Then, he goes home, cause he thinks there will be no more work the rest of the day (his words in his interrogation) grabs his gun, cuz boyz like carrying guns (his words from his interrogation) and can you believe it! A police officer gets shot right on the route he took to go to the movies. But, the big bomb is that when he gets to the movies, he doesn't pay to get in, he sneaks into a movie he planned to go to and enjoy his afternoon. But, wait for it... Moments into the movie the police storm in and arrest this innocent man out of nowhere. They just snatched him up.

Meanwhile, at his job, at the School Book Depository, a rifle is found and traced back to a false name and PO Box that somehow Oswald has an ID for in his wallet when police search him. Lee Harvey Oswald had the worst day any man could ever experience. And, Conspiracy Theorists cannot untwist the bad luck Oswald caused himself.

Ruby and Oswald is great not for the acting or cinematography. It's great because like reality the truth is pretty simple to see, hear, and taste. Ruby and Oswald sticks closely to testimony and Oswald's own 12 hours of interrogation.

Oswald was a loner, period. No one can connect him to a "friend". It's as simple as that... he was a nobody, who thought he was somebody. But, when his wife refused to get back together with him he was a man with absolutely nothing to lose.

In a state, like Texas, where there was a maniac, who went to the top of the Tower, at the University of Texas, just a few years prior to the JFK assassination, you would think the people of Texas atleast would know how possible alone shooter, killing people can happen in an instant.

Like a prisoner, who spends years thinking of how to escape prison, but once he escapes realizes he didn't plan for what to do AFTER the escape, Lee Harvey Oswald. Shot the leader of the free world and he had no plan to escape. He left his wife, Marina, his last $60, his wedding ring and a letter written in Russian, explaining to her to expect to hear from Russian or Cuban interests after today. He expected to kill the President and Russian or Cuban intelligence would come forward to help him.

Now, that is fact. No guesses. No opinion. Just one truth.

I watch this movie on an early Sunday morning Bank Holidays. Being an early riser, saw this at 0700. This must be a made-for-telly one. Its not bad at all. It looked like it was made in the 70s maybe, Dennehy was so young then. It seemed to try to give a balanced view of what happened with Ruby. I used to read about The Kennedy Assassination and to my mind this Ruby guy is a bit loony and this movie I supposed portrayed it pretty well. It gave a good historical description I supposed. The acting ain't great at times but maybe people who like facts will say that it represented accurate accounts of what happened that time.