Parkland adds no significant knowledge to history or conspiracy theorists, but such details as the way Zapruder’s scrunched-up eye pops wide open when he witnesses what will be forever imprinted on his retina and amateur film are vivid.
Okay i find it pretty shocking that critics are picking on the film, this a film is a tearjerker. Okay we all know the JFK assassination story, but this film is dark and mysterious, it is a movie were you think you know what's gonna happen but you really don't. Grade A
A gripping and moving film focussing on the aftermath of the murder, not who did it or why. Very humane in its portrayal of the people involved, with some memorable scenes the two bloody operating theatre sequences, the men struggling to lift the coffin into the plane, Oswalds bleak burial. Thankfully no conspiracy theries in sight.
Bulging with period details and a large and busy cast, Parkland is well made and at times queasily fascinating. At others, it gives in to melodrama and the ticking off of facts.
There's a pleasing egalitarianism to the film's history-through-the-eyes-of-the-ordinary-man concept, but the script rarely makes the case that their versions are compelling enough to warrant a film.
This drama follows several perspectives around events in Dallas after JFK was assassinated. Among them: the hospital where Kennedy and Oswald were rushed, Zapruder and his famous film, the travails of Oswald's family, the FBI and Secret Service in the aftermath. It blends a hand-held documentary style and hectic pacing to tell a compelling story. The large cast is peppered with notable actors, including Paul Giamatti, Zac Efron, Billy Bob Thornton and Marcia **** Harden, and they help focus the impact. This is not a straightforward narrative, but a montage of events. Still, it proves a fascinating (and for me, informative) look behind the scenes of one of the most memorable days in 20th century America.
I am not that knowledgeable on all things Kennedy Assassination but I have heard that Tom Hanks is so I feel like this movie would be everything he would want people to see, feel, and know about the topic. It definitely showed me some things I didn't know and had a pretty good cast. Not too bad in my point of view.
Based on Vincent Bugliosi's book, Four Days in November, the film Parkland chronicles the events following the assassination of JFK. What I liked about this film was how it tells a part of the story that isn't widely known. From the doctors at the hospital, working on the President, to the acquisition of the Zapruder film, Parkland goes behind the scenes to tell the untold story. I was also impressed with how the film managed to stick to the facts and not dwell on any of the conspiracy theories that surround the case. Zac Efron stars and really wasn't all that great. I think that Efron needs to stick to what he does best, taking his cloths off and making people laugh. While the film is kind of slow, I really enjoyed Paul Giamatti's portrayal of Abraham Zapruder, the man who filmed the assassination. Zapruder really struggled with releasing the tape to the media and the events he witnessed ultimately destroyed his life. Giamatti's portrayal of the man is supposedly spot on and truly deserves an honor mention. Parkland gives us a lot of new information about the events that followed the assassination of President Kennedy, but a lot of it are things the general public really aren't that interested in learning about. For a Kennedy aficionado, this film must of been eye opening, as for the rest of us, it was an interesting, non-bias view of history, albeit a little boring.
Pretty sure I almost fell asleep during this. Why was Zac Efron even in this? Who knows. What I do know is that I'll never get the time back that I spent watching Parkland.
What a load of irrelevant crap!
Parkland gives tiny superficial glimpses of tiny parts of the perspectives of a handful of individuals in Dallas:
the young doctors and nurses at Parkland Hospital;
Dallas’s chief of the Secret Service;
Abraham Zapruder;
the FBI agents who were visited by Lee Harvey Oswald before the shooting;
the brother of Lee Harvey Oswald, left to deal with his **** family;
and JFK’s security team, witnesses to both the president’s death and Vice President Lyndon Johnson’s rise to power.
Apparently Oswald said practically nothing to his brother when they had a conversation in the police station.
He didn't claim innocence or guilt.
Was this encounter fictionalized?
The film is "based on the true events" which means absolutely nothing.
Emory Roberts seems to be the only one blamed for any wrongdoing that has opened the events up to conspiracy theories. He is shown to have been the main man preventing an autopsy at Parkland hospital.
These were the only 2 elements of the film that were even remotely interesting.