Review of JFK (1991) by Aaron G — 31 Jul 2011

The main reason I watched this movie is because Roger Ebert has listed as one of the greatest movies of all time. Ebert's argument for such high praise is that it captures the emotional truth of John F. Kennedy's assassination. The truth being - that the American people felt there was cover up in the JFK assissnation. Ebert never suggests that JFK is factual and in fact seems certian that it is not, but he doesn't seem to care. He likes the fact that Oliver Stone makes a movie like this, a movie that a documentary can't deliver - a movie that protrays feelings instead of facts.

I agree with Ebert that JFK is well made movie - ranking it in the top 100 films of all time - I'm not so sure about that - I'm not even sure this is the best movie Oliver Stone has ever made. At times JFK gets caught up in its questions - a birage of questions that are forgotten as soon as the movie is over. It makes for a long winded and convulted argument. It makes the movie way to long.

I'm also not a big fan of conspiracy theories in general - 9/11, walking on the moon, Martin Luther King - conspiracy theories often trivialize serious events, and turn them into comedy gong show that distracts from the true nature of the event. Admitedly there are a lot of questions surrounding the death of JFK and if there is a conspiracy theory I'd be tempted to adhere to it would be Kennedy's assassination. But still you can't watch JFK and honestly say Stone didn't set up a straw man. Certainly there is another side to this story - the truth for which Jim Garrison so staunchly agrues deserves a better critique. Emotional truth sure - but not at the expense of the facts - otherwise you end up on the wrong side of the joke.