Television

Stephen King's Baby Boomer Time Travel Fantasy Comes to Hulu

Watch 11.22.63 for the thrilling plot, not for the idiotic politics.

|

11.22.63
"11.22.63"

  • 11.22.63. Available Monday, February 15, on Hulu.

11/22/63, Stephen King's novel, in which a time traveler stalks Lee Harvey Oswald through history in an attempt to prevent the Kennedy assassination, is a wonderful and maddening read. It is King's storytelling at its bravura best, a detective tale in which the hero must not only penetrate a complex mystery but do so while tip-toeing through the paradoxes of time travel.

But it is also the most dramatic exposure of his inchoate politics and infantile Baby Boomer obsessions. The belief that Kennedy's assassination precluded an early end to the Vietnam war, the idée fixe of his time-traveling vigilante, is Camelot mythology at its silliest: Kennedy was a Cold War liberal who pledged at his inaugural to "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Less than three weeks before his own assassination, Kennedy fulfilled his promise by okaying a military coup that ended in the death of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem, who in Kennedy's eyes was not prosecuting the war with sufficient vigor.

And while King's characters follow Oswald all around Texas, even bugging his apartment, to see if he was the (perhaps unwitting) tool of a right-wing conspiracy to kill Kennedy, they make no attempt to track him during the most mysterious part of his peripatetic movements in the weeks before the assassination, a trip to Mexico City in which he visited both the Soviet and Cuban embassies. In King's view, a CIA role in Kennedy's assassination was plausible; that the KGB or Cuban DGI did so, unthinkable.

All of this and much more is present in Hulu's eight-episode adaptation of King's novel, which for reasons well above the need-to-know of mere TV critics has been slightly retitled to 11.22.63. Like the book, 11.22.63 is extraordinary entertainment if you're able to shrug off the political idiocies that broadly shape it and simply immerse yourself in the story.

James Franco (Milk) plays Jake Epping, a Maine high-school teacher who's summoned to a meeting by his best friend Al Templeton (Chris Cooper, August: Osage County), who owns a diner with the cheapest burgers in town. Turns out the bargain prices are possible because Al has been buying his meat in 1960, to which he can pop in anytime simply by stepping into the time-portal in the back room.

Now Al wants help on a more complex mission: thwarting the Kennedy assassination. A Vietnam vet still bitter about the deaths of so many buddies there, he's convinced the war will be averted if Kennedy survives. The problem is that the time-portal only opens to a single date in October 1960, at a time when Oswald was living in Russia. Tracking him down will take at least two years, and Al, stricken with terminal cancer, doesn't have that long.

But, he warns Jake, the job won't be easy, even though they know everywhere Oswald will be, and when, after he returns from the Soviet Union. "The past doesn't want to be changed," Al cautions. "There are times when you feel it push back. … If you do something that really fucks with the past, the past fucks with you." Jake sets forth anyway, but Al's warning turns out to be a prophecy of Biblical proportions.

Screenwriter Bridget Carpenter (Friday Night Lights, Parenthood) has mostly followed King's book, with one significant exception: She elevated a minor character, a young bartender named Bill Turcotte, into Jake's sidekick. It was an inspired decision. King's books rely heavily on interior monologues, which give his characters extraordinary dimension but makes them difficult to translate to the screen. Putting Bill (British televison actor George MacKay, who brings a boyish charm to his role) into the action turns the monologues into dialogues and action.

And plenty of action there is, ranging from thrilling to creepy. Bill and Jake not only must fight off the increasingly violent resistance of the past to being remade but deal with the consequences of personal entanglements in a world that isn't theirs. Their scheme to finance their quest by betting on sporting events to which they already know the outcome turns them into prey for angry gamblers, and their romantic ensnarements—particularly George's crush on Oswald's pretty wife Marina (Lucy Fry, Vampire Academy)—threaten to rewrite history in unintended and potentially disastrous ways. "I'm like an imposter in my own life," complains Jake.

Yet it's the softer side of 11.22.63 that makes it so compelling. Whether Jake is being sucker-punched by time (when a forgotten cell phone tumbles out of his pocket) or counterpunching it (he worms his way out of a lie about serving in the Korean War by identifying his unit, the 4077th MASH), the practical potholes of time travel are lively entertainment.

And there's an awesome you-are-there quality to scenes in which familiar characters of the assassination narrative pop up like signposts in a voyage through a history so familiar it feels personal even to those of us who were nowhere near Dallas in 1963: George DeMohrenschildt, the mysterious maybe-CIA-man who was Oswald's only friend; Oswald's dotty mother Marguerite; bemused Abraham Zapruder, shooting what will be the most famous home movie of all time; and Dealey Plaza's cryptic Umbrella Man, whose parasol was either a signal to a hidden gunman or an attempt to heckle Kennedy about his father's long-ago support for Neville Chamberlain.

Most of all, there's the road-not-taken poignance that underlies 11.22.63. Whether you buy the Camelot version of history or not, 11.22.63 channels our collective longing for a moment when everything could have been changed for the better, a sense that so much wrong and hurt could be erased if we could just alter the flow of time for a split second. The saddest, sweetest expression of it is a moment when Jake, pursuing what he knows is a doomed romance with a dreamy blonde librarian played by Canadian actress Sarah Gadon, softly sings a tune that, he assures her, he just made up:

We danced through the night
And we held each other tight
And before too long I fell in love with her
Now I'll never dance with another…

NEXT: Why Republican Party Delegate Rules Might Cause Them Convention Trouble

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Kennedy would have thunk it.

      1. Yes, but Kennedy wouldn’t have had Kennedy’s bloody corpse to wave around and demand we spend a metric fuckton of money to fuck up poor people’s live in his honor.

          1. Is that what Marilyn called it?

  1. if someone described the premise of this show and who was in it I would think they were fucking with me.

  2. ” 11.22.63 is extraordinary entertainment if you’re able to shrug off the political idiocies suffer through James Franco’s various “look like you’re taking a shit”-expressions that indicate he’s in a dramatic-thriller

    1. I did like the video spoof he made with Seth Rogen, though.

      1. He has a gift for comedy. His various attempts at ‘serious cinema’ leave me unsatisfied.

        if i were either gay, or a chick, i might feel differently. he’s not hot enough to touch my mostly-hetero-heart.

        1. He’s not hot enough to touch my completely hetero heart.

          You know who does touch my hetero heart and has exchanged a brilliant career in comedy for the big bucks of an action star? Chris Pratt. Goddamn, but he’s good at funny shit.

            1. and abs like whut

      2. the opening bit of “the interview” (James Franco’s character interviewing eminem) is pretty funny, but that’s got more to do with eminem. that was actually the only part I could stand at all. I didn’t like freaks and geeks and their shit has, weirdly, not gotten any fresher with age.

    2. “Various”?

  3. Here’s an idea for a great Stephen King horror thriller.

    A time traveler goes back in time to fix the world only to realize that the reason America was better before the baby boomers–was because there weren’t any baby boomers.

    So he goes back in time again, only this time to kill the real villain–Dr. Spock!

    No, not that Spock . . .

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Spock

  4. I am convinced that King and many like him with their ‘People like me should pay more taxes’ schtick is nothing more than an attempt to direct the mobs away from himself. Despite his claim he hasn’t paid more taxes, has he?

    His retarded politics are just signaling.

    1. It’s incredibly juvenille, that attitude about taxes. They know they can voluntarily pay more, but they won’t! do! it! unless they’re forced to! Like a 3-year-old having a tantrum.

      1. And also “Little Timmy’s mom doesn’t make him eat his vegetables, so why should I?”

      2. “. They know they can voluntarily pay more, but they won’t! do! it! “

        I’m sure its out there already somewhere… but has anyone seen data showing the tax-rate paid by the “1%” PLUS their total ‘philanthropic’-contributions?

        i.e. the net-net of the % of earned-income ‘returned’ to the loving arms of govt + charitable donations.

        I’ve seen some references, but nothing where the numbers were transparent. In both the examples above, it seems like the authors are trying to pump a specific “They aint giving enuffz!!” narrative.

      3. Of course they won’t. They have no intention to do so. If the law changed in the way they say they want they will simply move their money out of the country.

        1. Or lobby for loopholes.

          1. The law will be written by people, the overwhelming number of whom are multi-millionaires. The multi-millionaires who don’t write the law will not have to lobby for loopholes. The law will look like a sieve.

            What was the collection rate when taxes were around 90% on the rich? Zero, if I remember correctly.

            1. According to “Peter Schiff: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate”:

              In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%.

              As for the poor:

              In contrast, the share of taxes paid by the bottom two-thirds of taxpayers has fallen dramatically over the same period. In 1958, these Americans accounted for 41.3% of adjusted gross income and paid 29% of all federal taxes. By 2010, their share of adjusted gross income had fallen to 22.5%. But their share of taxes paid fell far more dramatically?to 6.7%. The 77% decline represents the single biggest difference in the way the tax burden is shared in this country since the late 1950s.

              1. And the middle class?

                In contrast, the share of taxes paid by the bottom two-thirds of taxpayers has fallen dramatically over the same period. In 1958, these Americans accounted for 41.3% of adjusted gross income and paid 29% of all federal taxes. By 2010, their share of adjusted gross income had fallen to 22.5%. But their share of taxes paid fell far more dramatically?to 6.7%. The 77% decline represents the single biggest difference in the way the tax burden is shared in this country since the late 1950s.

                Damn, that sounds like a good deal to me…

                1. Oops wrong quote!

                  And the middle class?

                  The tax code of the 1950s allowed upper-income Americans to take exemptions and deductions that are unheard of today. Tax shelters were widespread, and not just for the superrich. The working wealthy?including doctors, lawyers, business owners and executives?were versed in the art of creating losses to lower their tax exposure.

                  For instance, a doctor who earned $50,000 through his medical practice could reduce his taxable income to zero with $50,000 in paper losses or depreciation from property he owned through a real-estate investment partnership. Huge numbers of professionals signed up for all kinds of money-losing schemes. Today, a corresponding doctor earning $500,000 can deduct a maximum of $3,000 from his taxable income, no matter how large the loss.

                  Damn, that sounds like a good deal to me…

              2. The high marginal rates effectively put a cap on income. Once you’ve reached that level, why even bother going for more if you’re only going to keep 9%? That keeps a few people from being extremely rich.

    2. I think he got caught arranging his place of residence(s) to lower his tax burden after calling out others for complaining about too high taxes.

      King can be a very good writer when he’s on form and not just treading water (The Shining is the single best supernatural thriller I’ve ever read) but he’s another in a long list where you just have to set aside moronic political beliefs and blatant hypocrisy and appreciate their talent in isolation.

      Currently reading 11/23/63 on the Kindley and it’s very good.

      1. I thought he was going to retire several novels ago?

        Anyway, yeah – I used to read a lot of him but man he needs to get over the sixties. And now another one that’s all about… the sixties – I don’t know I if have the willpower. I’m too young for all that boomer crap.

        1. That accident very nearly retired him completely, like out of existence.

    3. My Mom is a hard-core conservative and a huge King reader.

      For the past 15 yrs, she’s alternatively cussed him and sworn off his books for being a complete asshat, and then forgiven him and bit her toungue while reading his latest.

      I think somewhere between Gerald’s Game and Tom Gordon, it started to affect his writing.

      1. The quality of his writing varies, I think he just has an obesession to write and the quality of what comes out depends if he’s on his game or not.

        Revival was pretty good and dark.

        Doctor Sleep was kind of a major disappointment.

        I think The Shining is his single best work.

      2. In that case I hope, for the sake of your mom’s blood pressure, she’s managed to avoid his thoughts on the Second Amendment and gun control.

        I’m sure the security round his residence(s) is pretty tight.

    4. Honestly, just forgetting about taxes for a minute, what people like King will never understand in their obliviousness is that poor people like me (a grad student) can’t afford to pay higher rent, higher food prices, higher prices on everything from all the fucking regulations (and taxes for that matter) his socialist champions impose on the people who build and sell me these things.

      It would be a breath of fresh air just to see some more of these leftards agree to let the market be free, and stick to redistributing personal income after its been earned as they like. That kind of free market welfare-statist type position is a good starting point for debate, I can even respect that position; it use to more or less be Paul Krugman’s position. It’s this new command economy fetish sweeping the nation these days that has me convinced stupidity really is contagious.

  5. You know what else that time-traveller should have done to change history?

    1. Stepped on a butterfly?

    2. Assassinated Ghandi?

      1. Take it easy on the kid, everybody kills Hitler on their first trip.

        Thanks to whoever linked that little bit of fiction. I love it.

      2. From the link: “assuming Josef Stalin doesn’t take advantage of the fact that Germany isn’t invading Russia in this new timeline and it’s the Soviet Union that starts World War II this time.”

        I saw some film footage British Secret Service managed to get of Hitler meeting with Anders of Poland before the war. The two of them are pouring over a map and looking at intelligence reports when Hitler says “The Soviets can already manufacture 100,000 trucks every year. If we don’t invade them they will roll over all of Europe.” or something to that effect.

        Stopping Hitler certainly would not have stopped WWII, and yes, it could even make it worse.

      3. Regarding the temporal paradox: There are two ‘views’ – global and local. If you travel to the past and do something to change it, the world has already seen the results (global) but it’s still in the future of your personal time thread. Therefor, the history you see before you go back in time is what happened after you arrived in the past, you just don’t know your role in it yet.

  6. You know how to prevent Kennedy’s assassination? Prevent his birth.

  7. I believe that I’ve already reached my life’s quota on watching Kennedy assassination films.

  8. Ah yes if Kennedy had not been assassinated the world would be at peace, despite all evidence to the contrary. Just like if Al Gore was elected, the Middle East would be at peace and global warming would have stopped, even though as VP he had just bombed the shit out of Iraq just 2 years earlier and wound up selling his failing media venture to a repressive theocratic government whose sole source of wealth is oil. Love liberals playing “what-if” games with history to help themselves sleep at night.

    1. I love how Kennedy being assassinated by a Soviet-loving communist sympathizer somehow becomes a right-wing conspiracy.

      1. Several years back i was reading about some declassified KGB files that proved that, while the Soviets had nothing to do with the Kennedy’s assassination itself (aside from kicking Oswald out of the USSR for being too much of a nutty True Believer), they most certainly did have a hand in spreading the various conspiracy theories about it around. It was possibly the KGB’s most successful operation against the U.S.

        1. Even the CIA admits they covered up information relevant to the Warren Commission on possible Cuban connections:

          According to the report by CIA historian David Robarge, McCone, who died in 1991, was at the heart of a “benign cover-up” at the spy agency, intended to keep the commission focused on “what the Agency believed at the time was the ‘best truth’?that Lee Harvey Oswald, for as yet undetermined motives, had acted alone in killing John Kennedy.” The most important information that McCone withheld from the commission in its 1964 investigation, the report found, was the existence, for years, of CIA plots to assassinate Castro, some of which put the CIA in cahoots with the Mafia. Without this information, the commission never even knew to ask the question of whether Oswald had accomplices in Cuba or elsewhere who wanted Kennedy dead in retaliation for the Castro plots.

    2. Love liberals playing “what-if” games with history to help themselves sleep at night.

      You can say that about a lot of libertarians as well. Especially the ones who like to whine about the Civil War.

    3. I’ve thought a more interesting question would be, “What if Nixon had won in 1960?” Kennedy was never president. What would have happened in Vietnam? The Great Society? The Civil Rights Act? Moving Nixon forward eight years might have had some interesting consequences. I don’t have the answers. I thought it could be done as a role playing game.

  9. If you do something that really fucks with the past, the past fucks with you.

    Kill Wombosi Oswald? We can do that any time we want. I can send Nikki to do that, for Chrissakes. Mr. Wombosi Oswald was supposed to be dead three weeks ago. He was supposed to have died in a way where the only possible explanation was that he’d been murdered by a member of his own entourage. I don’t send you to kill. I send you to be invisible. I send you because you don’t exist.

  10. Looking forward to the same book 30 years from now about a time traveler going back to fix the 2000 presidential election.

    1. So many elections of our lifetimes.

    2. Are you sure we’ll have to wait 30 years and will it be sold as a documentary or fiction?

    3. “” fix the 2000 presidential election.””

      Kill everyone except Ralph Nader?AND Ralph Nader?

      not that it matters, obviously, but anyone who thinks Al Gore wouldn’t have invaded Iraq seem to have conveniently forgotten his super-hawkish pose re: Saddam for the entirety of the 1990s

      His later, slightly more-subtle foreign policy approach in 2002 was entirely made possible by “not actually holding office”

      e.g.=

      ” Gore expressed strong support for returning inspectors in Iraq and undertaking robust inspections.
      Gore and his advisers were hawkish on Iraq and regime change.
      Like Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, Gore was a liberal internationalist, quite comfortable using force to achieve humanitarian policy aims.
      Gore had argued aggressively in favour of force in Iraq in 1991 and 1998, Bosnia in 1995 and Kosovo in 1998.
      Gore believed war was legal based on earlier UN resolutions.
      There were significant intelligence failures under Clinton and Gore.
      Public opinion was strongly in favour of robust inspections and military action to support UN resolutions.
      Gore would have obtained coalition support from at least the same allies and possibly others.
      The divisions at the UN would have been substantially the same (U.S. and U.K. vs France, Russia and China).”

      more there at the link

    4. If there was no BOOOOSH, there would likely be no President Obama.

      Question: Would you trade a Gore win in 2000 and 2004, knowing that Obama would lose to the TBD Team Red challenger in 2008?

      Bonus question: Would any of it have made a significant difference now in 2016?

      1. “Would you trade a Gore win in 2000 and 2004, knowing that Obama would lose to the TBD Team Red challenger in 2008?

        Bonus question: Would any of it have made a significant difference now in 2016?”

        Its all Greener-Grass-on-the-other-sideism

        If Iraq was the worst thing Bush brought to the table, there’s a very strong case to be made that Gore would have also invaded

        However, i think he probably would have avoided the biggest mistakes made by Rumsfeld et al.

        (e.g. the “light footprint”, lack of state/NGO follow-up to put some post-war structures in place, everything paul bremer did – the disbanding the iraqi army, de-baathifying purge of the technocracy, unwillingness to police sectarian reprisal-killings, etc)

        But in the end would it have mattered much? i doubt it. there still would have been the same civil war in iraq that’s still ongoing. (*and i would date the beginning of that to the bombing of the mosque in Samarra in 2006)

        I think the scenario of a Gore-presidency followed by some GOP ‘other’ would actually have been worse, because whomever followed probably would have been *more likely* to enlarge military conflicts in the wake of a Gore-initiated-mess. Like what Obama did in Afghanistan, but worse.

    5. So? how would Gore’s handling of 9/11 differ from Bush’s?

  11. 11.22.63 is extraordinary entertainment if you’re able to shrug off the political idiocies

    Nope. There are far too many good shows and books out to waste my time with this shit.

    1. And Vikings starts next weeeeeeeeek!

      1. I haven’t started that one yet, but it is on my list.

        1. It’s awesome.

        2. Every season gets better & better, and it moves very quickly from the get-go. The beginning premise is the main character wants to raid to the west instead of the east. I thought they would spend the whole season on that conflict and the finale would be them getting in their boats and going whichever direction. But it was the 2nd or 3rd episode and they were already on the move. It’s a great show. I love it almost as much as I love Parks & Rec

            1. LOL

            2. Sexier than the original.

  12. Al has been buying his meat in 1960, to which he can pop in anytime simply by stepping into the time-portal in the back room.

    Where does he get his supply of 1960 and pre-1960 dollars to buy it with?

    1. He uses his Apple Pay, duh.

    2. Also, if you were going back in time, wouldn’t you just convert your money into gold? Since, you know, you could do that back then. You could buy a lot more meat that way, too.

      1. Yeah, the price of gold in 1960 was only $35 an ounce. Convert your money to gold in 1960 then bring the gold back. A lot more profitable than selling cheap burgers.

      2. Looks like gold is 5-6 times more expensive today than in 63 and beef is beliw that, but I can’t find perfectly matching charts.

  13. Maybe they changed the title from 11/22/63 so they could have a website that didn’t always try to take you to sub-sub-subdirectory 63. But then again, dots are troublesome too, aren’t they. What would the dots do?

    1. 11.22.63 wouldn’t be a legal domain, nor would 11.22.63.com – you can’t have all-numeric domain names. IIRC, you can’t even start with a digit. If you otherwise worked around that, the dots are just arbitrary after the main domain name itself – e.g., you.people.are.animals.blog.reason.com would be perfectly legal.

      1. IIRC, you can’t even start with a digit.

        Sorry, you don’t RC, as the existence of 3m.com shows. I think there did used to be such a rule, though.

        1. Ah, looks like that was relaxed at some point – now it looks like the TLD can’t (or shouldn’t) be all-numeric. Long story short: I’m old.

        2. Ah, looks like that was relaxed at some point – now it looks like the TLD can’t (or shouldn’t) be all-numeric. Long story short: I’m old.

          1. also: squirrels

  14. I look forward to the movie “9/10/01.”

    1. Hell, I saw a docu-show on TV called something like “I Missed My Flight on 9/11” about a bunch of people that were too hungover to get on one of the 4 hijacked planes.

      1. a bunch of people that were too hungover to get on one of the 4 hijacked planes

        That would include one Seth MacFarlane (literally missed Flight 11 because he was hungover).

        1. And the lesson here is always drink to excess.

          1. Done and done.

      2. Annnnnnnnnnnnnd now I have another reason to drink.

    2. will it be a romantic comedy about vampires? I would watch that.

  15. Does the time traveler meet Kerry Thornley? Does the time traveler realize Oswald was aiming for Conally?

    1. Never mind…1960, too late to meet Kerry Thornley if you’re with Oswald.

      Anyway, would’ve been quicker for the time traveler to kill Conally so JFK doesn’t later get caught in the line of fire.

  16. I think the time travel idiocies (I’ve never seen a mass-market show dealing with time travel that managed to do it intelligently) heaped on the political idiocies would seriously overwhelm my idiocy meter. I’ll pass.

    1. From a physics standpoint, the most accurate mass-market time travel movie ever is, ironically, the Bill and Ted movies, as it’s the only one to abide by the Novikov self-consistency principle. This principle basically says that you can’t go back into the past and change anything because if you were going to, you already would have and the effects of your actions in the past would already have happened.

      1. +1 don’t forget to wind your watch

  17. There was a show, or TV movie, or maybe new Twilight Zone episode where Robert Hayes (of Airplane!) goes back into time to prevent the assassination, only to discover that if Kennedy lives, he causes WW3.

    So he goes back to the grassy knoll to kill him.

    And then Red Dwarf did a similar episode, only instead of WW3, he gets blackmailed over his affairs. So Kennedy shoots himself from the grassy knoll.

  18. Yeah, no….I’m still not going back to Hulu.

  19. Boomer pr0n

  20. There’s a reason why King is a novelist and not an historian. An historian would know that most major shifts are economic and don’t depend on single events or people. The presence or absence of JFK would not affect an overconfident United States astride the world after World War II. Even if JFK had survived and had avoided Vietnam, the issues that we had to deal with in Vietnam, particularly hubris, would have continued unresolved and there’d have been some other war at some not-much-later time that served the same purpose. King’s hero is essentially Don Quixote.

    (Slight spoiler ahead.)

    On a personal note, I liked most of the book (its flaws notwithstanding). But at the end, I found the way the protagonist’s love interest ends up to be a massive violation of character. Supposedly he loves her. But then he leaves her, never returns? Horsesh!t. That’s not love, and if it wasn’t love then the author was lying to us. People don’t leave the person they love in real life, only in fiction. If they were able to leave them, it was maybe something, but love wasn’t it. It ruined the ending.

    1. Ian Kershaw wrote a pretty interesting book about ten major decisions that altered the course of World War II and could perhaps have made the difference between an axis defeat and an axis victory. Kershaw of course doesn’t subscribe to the ‘great man’ theory of history, but apparently thought it would be interesting to think about which major decisions by individual political or military leaders had (often unexpectedly) the most significant effects, even independent of all the other circumstances of the time.

      The book was called Fateful Choices: Ten Decisions That Changed the World, 1940-1941. Worth reading.

  21. In order to get started reading such a book, I would have to start by having accepted the premise that Oswald killed JFK, but most people who know anything about the matter, and how the CIA and mob operate, especially the death bed confession of Hunt, know that Oswald did no such thing. He was a patsy, just as he said he was, so killing him would have accomplished nothing and the book’s story was pointless. Why does this not bother most commentors here?

  22. It is too bad that Stephen King is a super-fucking-douche.

    And I say this as a man from Maine.

  23. Yeah, no….I’m still not going back to Hulu.

  24. The technology is so developed that we can watch videos, live streaming, TV serials and any of our missed programs within our mobiles and PCs. Showbox
    All we need is a mobile or PC with a very good internet connection. There are many applications by which we can enjoy videos, our missed programs, live streaming etc.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.