Joo Jin-woo slammed Yoo Hae-jin over film he hadn't seen, critics say

People Power Party lawmaker Joo Jin-woo, one of the most vocal critics of the film "The Assassin(s)," appears to have admitted he has not actually seen it — a revelation that has drawn widespread attention.

During the Supreme Court national audit held by the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Joo raised the question of a retrial for former Central Intelligence Agency director Kim Jae-gyu, saying "attempts are being made to rewrite history."

He then brought up "The Assassin(s)," arguing that the plural form in the film's Korean title was designed to create a narrative suggesting that former President Park Chung-hee could have been behind the assassination of first lady Yuk Young-soo, and that North Korea may not have been responsible.

Committee Chair Seo Young-gyo of the Democratic Party of Korea asked whether Joo had seen the film. Joo replied, "Is it even normal to watch such an immoral film?" — a response widely interpreted as an admission that he had not.

Critics say it is irresponsible for Joo to make definitive claims about a film's content without having watched it, especially given that he had gone so far as to mock lead actor Yoo Hae-jin's appearance by saying he had a "North Korean look."

Director Heo Jin-ho has said he did not make the film to suggest Park ordered the killing of Yuk, calling such a reading "logically contradictory and implausible." Critics say that makes fact-checking all the more essential before drawing conclusions.

The film deals with the 1974 assassination of Yuk Young-soo and centers on the idea that gunman Moon Se-gwang did not act alone — but it stops short of identifying who was behind him. The story follows journalists and police struggling to uncover the truth while the Central Intelligence Agency works to obstruct and silence them. In the process, the film raises the possibility that some form of state power may have been involved.

The film never explicitly or implicitly points to former President Park Chung-hee as that power. The ending is deliberately left open, allowing viewers to draw their own conclusions. Many who have seen it say that even after watching, it remains unclear whom the film is actually implicating — making it impossible to characterize the content without having seen it.

The controversy was initially sparked by claims that the film depicted Park as the mastermind behind the assassination. Now a counter-argument has emerged: that those very claims distorted what the film actually shows.

Democratic Party of Korea lawmaker Lee Jae-jeong said the film "clearly did not even place the possibility of President Park's involvement within the realm of cinematic imagination," adding that "it was impossible to have that thought while watching the film." Lee said it was politicians who had distorted the movie.