TeenzTen An action-packed slog

ChicDragon It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Matthew Kresal The JFK assassination might well be the biggest enigma in modern American history. Exactly what happened in Dealy Plaza on November 22, 1963 and why has been the subject of much speculation and interest. So it's no surprise then that filmmakers have taken a few cracks at exploring it, especially in the wake of Oliver Stone's 1991 film JFK. It was very shortly after JFK's release that John Mackenzie's Ruby hit cinema screens which was unfortunate as the film came to be overlooked. That wasn't a terrible thing though as watching the film reveals.I first saw Ruby around 2003 or so when the A&E channel here would run a film with commercials on TV around seven in the morning. Watching Ruby again on DVD now I realize how much was cut out of the film for that airing of it, around twenty minutes or so, and how that wasn't a bad thing. At ninety minutes or so the film moved along at a good pace but at its full running time it's far too long and complicated for its own good.Which is something that can be blamed on thing more than anything else: the script by Stephen Davis. Davis tries to use Ruby, himself something of an enigmatic figure, to tie together various strands of its own theory about the JFK assassination. The film takes the viewer from Dallas to Cuba, New Orleans, Las Vegas, and back to Dallas in the space of a little under two hours and often stretching believability to its limits along the way. A perfect example is an early sequence taking Ruby to Castro's Cuba which actually doesn't add much of anything to the overall film except add an additional character who does little and add more running time to the film. Other times it feels like Davis is just trying to show off his research such as adding Dallas police officer Tippit (played by a pre X-Files David Duchovny), allegedly killed by Oswald after the assassination, who is introduced early in the film and then never reappears. In the end, Davis' script tries to explain and condense so much that it becomes a muddled mess.That isn't the only problem with the script. The dialogue throughout is pretty atrocious, full of little more than clichés and exposition. That extends to the characters as well as virtually everyone in the film feels like a walking, talking cardboard cliché from Ruby (portrayed as a mobster with a heart of gold) to Candy Cane (the seemingly innocent girl who receives an education in how the world work) as well as various mobsters and government figures along the way. There's also some vast and quite obvious fictionalizations of people and events (such as Candy Cane who takes on elements of several different women to the point of being utterly unbelievable) that, along with the dialogue and characterizations, end up undermining the attempts at credibility that other elements of the film try so hard to obtain. It's a script that might be a passable for a TV movie but for a Hollywood feature film is sorely lacking.Why is a shame because there's good to be found in the film. The period recreations are quite good and do a solid job of invoking the early 1960s, especially in Las Vegas and Dallas from sets to costumes. If nothing else, the film is worth seeing for what looks to have been some expensive period recreations and for having actually shot scenes in Dallas as well. Overall, the film is stylishly made with not just wonderful production values but also some solid cinematography from Phil Méheux and direction from John Mackenzie. The only sour note production wise is the score from John Scott which never quite seems to mesh with the film outside of its use of source music, feeling like it was meant for another film entirely. On the whole though, on a purely production level, it's well made.Which brings us to the cast. The two leads, Danny Aiello and Sherilyn Fenn as Ruby and Candy Cane respectively, both turn in solid performances given the material they have to work from. Fenn in particular comes across quite well, turning in a solid performance while also looking stunning in period clothing. The supporting cast tries to do their best with sometimes awkward material that they end up often being wasted such as Marc Lawrence's mob boss and Arliss Howard as mysterious CIA agent Maxwell. It's a shame really because the cast could have done so much more one feels like.Indeed that sentiment sums up the entire film. Ruby tries to tell an interesting and compelling story, telling it with excellent period recreations and what should be a good cast. Instead it tells an overlong and muddled tale full of bad dialogue. Despite some of its finer points, Ruby ends up being a fairly forgettable film on an interesting subject that fails to say much of anything.

mw1562 The reason why Jack Ruby Killed Lee Harvey Oswald was had he not done so he would have been killed himself. Sam Giancana had put Ruby in charge of the JFK assassination, and part of the plan was for Officer Tippett to kill Oswald as he was trying to escape. That didn't happen, for reasons unknown, so Ruby had to finish the job himself.The real question is how was Jack Ruby able to walk right up to the most heavily guarded man in America, guarded as he was by Secret Service, FBI, CIA, Texas State Troopers, and Dallas Police, and shoot him at point blank range. That alone should tell you that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone.The government would tell you that Ruby acted alone, for reasons of grief and rage, etc, but they don't want you to know the truth. They don't think we could handle the truth. They don't want us to know that JFK and his father made a deal with Sam Giancana to get elected and, once elected, the Kennedys reneged on their end of the deal.By the way, did you know that Lee Harvey Oswald was raised by his uncle in New Orleans, who was a bookie, and did you know that in 1963 all bookmakers worked for the mob? Why would the New Orleans District Attorney (Garrison) get involved in a crime that took place in Dallas? It is all related.Did you know that several weeks after the JFK assassination the Texas State Attorney General held a press conference and announced that Oswald worked for the CIA? Did you know that Oswald attended Naval Intelligence School, and shortly thereafter he went to Russia, officially as a US dissenter, but more likely as a spy?

manuel-pestalozzi I did not expect much of this movie, but as a (none too serious) collector of Americana I was pleasantly surprised. The movie Ruby reminded me most of – and which might have inspired the script – is John Cassavete's Killing of a Chinese Bookie – which, in turn, might have been inspired by the life and times of the real Ruby. The biopic Hoffa, scripted by David Mamet, also comes to mind.The one problem this movie seems to have is that it sits uncomfortably between mainstream cinema and art-house material. This becomes most apparent in the bombastic, completely unsuitable musical score which wants to make some kind of Godfather out of Ruby. But for the rest, this movie is well worth some time of the viewers attention.It opens with a frontal shot of Ruby's face. He starts talking: „You're sitting somewhere in a motel room, alone and miserable, and the telephone starts ringing". This introduction of a strip act in his club pretty accurately describes Ruby's circumstances. He is a kind of a displaced person who does not seem to belong anywhere, waiting for a call. His activities seem pretty incoherent, his grasp of what is happening around him uncertain. He is proud to be a member of the show business industry, where dreams come true.Had this movie been less mainstream, I imagine that many scenes concerning the events before the assassination of the President would have had a more dreamlike atmosphere. I would like to believe that a lot of what is going on in the movie is going on uniquely in Ruby's head, the head of a lonely man who is about to loose his sanity and strives to gain a certain presence, a certain stature. The script accommodates such a viewpoint which probably comes closest to Ruby's motives for shooting the man who shot the President.The acting is mostly very good. Danny Aiello's and Sherilyn Fenn's performances were brilliant, the good chemistry between them makes the relationship between Ruby and his „dream woman" special and heartwarming. It also defines Ruby as someone who cares, probably another motive for his action. I am a big fan of Marc Lawrence who is absolutely terrific as the head mobster. He does not speak more than four or five sentences and yet his presence is awesome. The assassination of the President is reenacted with subtlety and tact – much better than in Stone's JFK. I found the casual way in which the real locations in Dallas were introduced absolutely stunning. The editing between TV stock material and specially filmed details is masterful.

rhoughton A fascinating subject, that just didn't grab the audience. It flowed like molasses, and left me feeling as flat as the movie. I'm one of those who can't get enough of this subject, but there was very little here at all, and with the current trend to change the true stories, just to make them look better, you begin to wonder just how much, and which parts, are really true.