The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald / The Other Side of Bonnie & Clyde (Something Weird)

Boths films are GREAT!!!! If you enter as a Lee was a patsy point, ye shall be confused (note l didnt say "disappointed"!) If you enter as a lone assassin point, you may be spread anywhere.Consider this: these films aresupposedly...originally....for Easter Seals donations.The Trial has surprisingly good actors. Unknown, but probably better for audience objection.Every single word is true to the 26 volume Warren Commission (minus words clipped for continuity - or clarity-) testimony of Mary Moorman, Jean, Buell Frazier etc.As for the Bonnie Clyde film:This is inextricably linked to the previous. It has an unpopular view- surprisr, by both the far and the left - that Bonnie and Clyde were vicious killers.Point: lf you are convinced that Oseald was a tortured victim....and that Bonnie and Clyde were romantic victims of an ambush....you will be irritated by these films. Go ahead. I expect you to.But the reality is....these were documentaries that stated Oswald, Barrow and Parker were simply guilty.....that goes against long American pop culture.

The trial of Lee Harvey Oswald

Truly this is bottom of the barrel for film watching. Trial is so boring I kept wishing for the trial from Kentucky Fried Movie would somehow take its place. Larry just locked the camera in place and let the film run on some of the most boring characters and procedures ever put on film. The Bonnie & Clyde document at least had some entertainment value. I'm so sorry I bought this. Save yourself a lot of pain and skip this.

A somewhat rarely-seen "mock trial" that is actually quite good is Larry Buchanan's 1964 courtroom movie, "The Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald" (not to be confused with the Lorne Greene/Ben Gazzara ).If President Kennedy's assassin had not himself been murdered just two days after JFK was killed in Dallas in November 1963, then many of the scenes we see played out in this simulated trial just might have actually taken place inside a real courtroom in Dallas, Texas, in the year 1964.Buchanan's black-and-white film, which occupies half of this DVD, is very interesting. And the most compelling aspect of it (to me) is the timing of when it was produced. It was made within weeks or months of JFK's assassination, and debuted in a Milwaukee theater (incredibly) on April 22, 1964, which was a point in time when the Warren Commission hadn't even come close to finishing its investigation into the President's murder.I've watched the Buchanan trial film several times, and there are very few blatant errors in the movie. One mistake is when the prosecutor elicits testimony from a witness that indicated that all three of the bullets that were fired by Lee Oswald during the assassination were recovered and were in evidence at the trial.Another major error contained in the film is when the actor portraying one of JFK's autopsy doctors says that the bullet which entered JFK's upper back did not exit his body, and that the throat wound was a result of a fragmented portion of the bullet that struck the President's head.But those errors regarding the President's wounds are understandable from the point-of-view of the filmmakers, due to the lack of additional information concerning the facts which overwhelmingly support the Single-Bullet Theory, which is information that Buchanan did not have by the time his low-budget film was rushed into theaters in April of '64.And Buchanan was also undoubtedly relying on the erroneous initial report written by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, who attended President Kennedy's autopsy. The official autopsy report, however, corrected the mistake that appears in the early FBI report, with the autopsy report clearly stating that the bullet that entered JFK's upper back "made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck" [Warren Report; Page 543].All things considered, Larry Buchanan's "The Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald" is remarkably accurate in most of the details pertaining to the death of JFK. And one of the most refreshing things about the movie is that Lee Oswald is not perceived by the defense to be an innocent patsy who was framed to take the fall by evil and unknown outside forces. Even Oswald's own lawyer concedes the possibility (or even the probability) of his client being guilty of killing the President. Otherwise, there would have been no need for the defense to have entered an additional plea of "Not guilty by reason of existing insanity".One additional note -- One of the witnesses in the Buchanan film is played by real assassination eyewitness James Altgens. He doesn't play himself, however.(I have no comment on the Bonnie & Clyde feature which shares this DVD with the Oswald trial film. I haven't watched that B&C program, and probably never will. I purchased this disc solely for "The Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald".)David Von PeinFebruary 2012

This dvd offers a weird set of films from exploitation/schlockmeister Larry Buchanan, the low rent director of such cult favorites as Mars Needs Women and Common Law Wife. *** - THE TRIAL OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD (1964) is a black-and-white preenactment of the trial of John F. Kennedy's assassin had Oswald not been shot and killed by Jack Ruby a few days after his arrest. The movie places the audience in the jury box and keeps it there. Everything takes place in the courtroom, the drama consisting solely of whatever heat is generated by lawyers cross-examining witnesses, with a stray objection being tossed and sustained or overruled by the judge. It's an interesting piece of speculation that's severely hobbled by the dearth of facts as known at the time. The movie presumes that Oswald acted alone, so conspiracy buffs might find this one borders on the outrageous. The action is static and the scope of inquiry is limited, but to the best of my knowledge this is film to deal with the Kennedy assassination. Its fascination, for me, at least, derives from the fact that it's a first response to a national tragedy before the Warren Report, Jim Garrison, and suchlike made the scene and muddied up things.*** - Burl Ives narrates THE OTHER SIDE OF BONNIE AND CLYDE (1968), a documentary that assumes a strong pro-law enforcement attitude and concentrates most of its attention on the man who brought Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow down, Texas Ranger Frank Hamer. THE OTHER SIDE OF BONNIE AND CLYDE was released the year after the mega-hit (but now kind of forgotten) BONNIE AND CLYDE, with Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway. If you aren't familiar with the Beatty-Dunaway movie this one's going to look like it's shadow boxing. The first movie made Robin Hood-like heroes out of the outlaws, combined comedy with violence, and made light of the number of law enforcement officials the duo killed. BONNIE AND CLYDE embraced the bad guys, while THE OTHER SIDE OF... recoils in horror. This one is valuable mainly because it interviews witnesses and participants, including Hamer's widow and son, a woman who had been kidnapped by the pair, and Floyd Hamilton, brother of Bonnie and Clyde gang member Raymond Hamilton and, for a while in the `30s, himself an FBI public enemy #1. I'm not familiar with any of Buchanan's cheese and sleaze movies, but after watching these two, I have to admire his opportunism. Neither of these movies are great, or even very good, but they followed hard on the heels and addressed controversial events and movies. Both are worth a look.

Interesting what if movie!

Really good

This is the same dvd as Bonnie and Clyde Myth or Madness which I bought clear back in the 1980',s

A bit disappointing. Seemed to be a bit of propaganda at the time it was made, given what we have learned since.