MovieChat Forums > JFK (1991) Discussion > Has "JFK" aged well?

Has "JFK" aged well?

posted 7 years ago by Freedom1981
15 replies | jump to latest

I say Yes and No

Yes because:
It's still a beautifully shot film with great acting performances and quotable dialog. It's among the best political Thrillers I've ever seen. It dramatizes America's paranoia and growing distrust in their government in a way that few other films have.

No because:
First, it plays too fast and loose with some of the evidence in the cases against characters like Clay Shaw and David Ferrie. While there's evidence that Shaw lied about working for the CIA and pretty strong circumstantial evidence that Ferrie knew of Oswald even if they weren't associates in 1963, there's little evidence connecting either man to the events in Dallas around the time JFK was killed. Many of the fringe theories raised in the film like Umbrella Man and the Three Tramps have easily been refuted.

Secondly, Jim Garrison was not a hero in real life. Many of the accusations about him coaching or drugging witnesses are true. Garrison's trial against Shaw was a side show and he ignored real potential suspects like Carlos Marcello.

I still find this movie enjoyable from an entertainment standpoint but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who is looking to learn about the Kennedy Assassination. I'd rather recommend books, both anti-conspiracy and pro-conspiracy, to people interested in learning more about the JFK assassination

[–] spookyrat1 7 years ago

Yes, it is a stunningly well made and terrifically edited film.🐭

[–] mitzibishi (1615) 3 years ago

Agree

[–] slokes 7 years ago

A great film, but the gay conspiracy angle Garrison touts and Stone echoes has not done it any favors.

[–] intrex 7 years ago

No, it's a steaming pile of poo that is still just as dumb as the day it came out. The story is as truthful and authentic as all the sheetglass eyeglasses.

[–] fede_4488 7 years ago

The shocking thing (or not really?) is that Stone still stands by all of it.

[–] ProFromDover (272) 3 years ago

This wasn't a documentary (as I'm sure everyone knows). It's been 30 years now since the '91 opening and yes of course it has aged well. The film has achieved greatness. It doesn't matter that things can be refuted. It does matter that the entire Warren Report is for all intents largely irrelevant.

[–] TexasJack (12515) 6 years ago

As a piece of filmmaking, yes. As a contribution to the historical discussion of the event, not so much.

[–] Martoto (4085) 6 years ago

As a piece of cinema it gets better and better to watch over the years.

As an alternate version of events it remains just an alternate version of events. To start talking about how it proves a conspiracy is ludicrous.

It's still valid as a counter-myth to the myth that the Warren commission put out to the American people. The actual content of the commission may be closer to the truth than what JFK and the Garrison prosecution got to about the actual shooting. But the conclusions of the report are biased in favour the assumption that Oswald had no co-conspirators that was made almost immediately after his arrest.

[–] DiggoryVenn (89) 6 years ago

Great summary and review. I didn’t think of this as a political thriller, but you’re right—it was. It was so reminiscent of the XFiles, too. Because I don’t care how accurate theatrical films rely on historical record, I didn’t mind the liberties it took at all. The script was protean and brilliant, like the editing.

[–] Jones70 (6195) 5 years ago

hell yeah it has, this movie is still amazing!

[–] ProFromDover (272) 3 years ago

I'd agree with that^. The film and it's cast - just great.