Laikals The greatest movie ever made..!

GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Bereamic Awesome Movie

ChicDragon It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

joker-scar To begin with, I am so positive that I wrote and submitted a review right after I watched this film but now I cannot find it here. Has anyone else ever had this problem? Moving on...I never got a chance to see this film in the theater, it came and went so fast. I had to watch it on blu ray and I must say it is a very well constructed film, it really has the feel of transporting you to 1963 while watching it which is a feat that not every film can accomplish. The attention to detail is very accurate, in MOST cases but there are some glaring factual mistakes, some that can be written off as a money saving problem considering it was not a high budgeted film but there some that there is no excuse for. These MAY be considered SPOILER ALERTS if any viewer has no idea about common history. 1. There is no tent over Oswald's grave. 2. The coffin was not correct, there were no pre-made letters that were attached to the top of the coffin lid but since there was no Close-up shown I can dismiss this as a cost saving device by the production. 3. When Zapruder is filming the assassination, he is in the correct spot but he is alone on the pedestal when in fact his secretary was standing behind him and holding him steady. This is a bonehead 101 mistake that there is NO excuse for. If the director, who also wrote the script, made this amateur blunder then I would have hoped that Paul Giamatti being a consummate actor and researched his role thoroughly (I can only assume here) would have pointed this out during filming. This is not a detail of conjecture, it can be justified by photos and both of their own testimonies. No excuse for this one. 4. This one is more of a murky detail depending on how you sway but when the body of JFK is being wheeled into Parkland, the top and side of his head can clearly be seen to be "fully intact" instead of blown out with brain matter falling out as "some" autopsy photos show. I can see how the Producers wanted to keep the "gruesome" aspect out of a theatrical release for a more General rating BUT I would have thought that the director would have wanted to be more historically correct with the eventual video release and shoot 2 versions of this scene. But, having listened to the director commentary track he seems pretty "in control" of the production so the blame should be laid at his feet. 5. This can be put into the "latter stage of time table of events". I am not sure if Kennedy's underpants were left on while in Parkland, this could be accurate, but once his body arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital he was nude and inside a slate gray body bag as witnessed by one of the attendants who handled the body for that "autopsy". When you do a film with as much important historical context as this subject, you set yourself up when you get the "nit-pick" details wrong. It is just the way it is.

zkonedog When I first saw the trailer for "Parkland", I was incredibly excited to see a dramatized version of the events surrounding 11/22/63. But than, "thanks" to some terrible critical reviews, the film didn't even make theaters (only in limited release) and went straight to home video. In all my years watching movies, there are very few occasions I can say that the critics have been more wrong.For a basic plot summary, "Parkland" tells the story of 11/22/63 and the next few days afterwards. The story is told from a number of different perspectives, including... -The doctors and nurses (Zac Efron, Colin Hanks, Marcia Gay Harden) who worked on both JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald (Jeremy Strong) at Parkland Memorial hospital in Dallas. -Robert Oswald (James Badge Dale) and mother Marguerite (Jacki Weaver) of the supposed killer. -F.B.I. Agent James Hosty (Ron Livingston) who leads the national investigation into the homicide. -Forrest Sorrels (Billy Bob Thornton), the lead Secret Service man on that fateful day. -Abraham Zapruder (Paul Giamatti), the man standing on Dealey Plaza who captured the assassination on his 16mm hand-held camera.This movie is filled with drama and palpable tension. Even though it is just a basic re-telling of the events, those events in and of themselves are enough to carry the weight...nothing contrived is even needed. Though I know a decent amount about those fateful days anyway, it was fascinating and emotionally-charged to see how all those scenes may have actually played out.The casting/acting is also spectacular. I can't say that there was one noticeably bad performance in the bunch. Even an actor like Efron, with a reputation completely different from his type of role here, fits in effortlessly. Considering this was the directorial debut of Peter Landsman, that is quite a feat. The film was also produced by Tom Hanks, whose track record on historical fiction is unmatched.I cannot, for the life of me, understand why this film received reviews bad enough to scrap a large theatrical release. Perhaps it is because it assumes a familiarity with the events it describes. Had I been completely ignorant of any of those events, the movie moves quickly enough (with only about an hour and a half runtime) that maybe I would have felt a bit overwhelmed. Other than that, though, this is one that the critics got completely wrong.Overall, "Parkland" essentially does for the events of 11/22/63 what "Flight 93" did for the events of 9/11. It takes the historical evidence and shows you what those scenes most likely looked like in actual form. "Parkland" is not biased or preachy...it just sticks to the evidence.

opieandy-1 I have a keen and long-standing interest in the assassination of JFK. While this movie did not appear to have a particular agenda -- it was based on Bugliosi's book, but was simply a retelling of the immediate aftermath of the assassination -- it did leave me wondering, what was the point? Do we really need a movie that DOESN'T present a POV on this topic? Perhaps if it was more in-depth and accurate, I'd have felt differently. Also, the number of factual errors, many around the timeline of certain events, others in the details, was disappointing. There are numerous reliable sources -- interviews, photographs, and the like -- to render the errors inexcusable. The presentation was matter-of-fact, but the story was not compelling. We were drawn to no particular character or angle. Whether one views it as a documentary or entertainment, it fails in either regard and ultimately disappoints in both. 6 stars because the topic interests me and the movie prompted me to research certain matters, which was an interesting side effect. My scale:1-5 decreasing degrees of "terrible", with 5 being "mediocre"6- OK. Generally held my interest OR had reasonable cast and/or cinematography, might watch it again7 - Good. My default rating for a movie I liked enough to watch again, but didn't rise to the upper echelons8- Very Good. Would watch again and recommend to others9- Outstanding. Would watch over and over; top 10% of my ratings10 - A Classic (6 of 430 movies have received this)

tara0806 I was not alive when the assassination of President Kennedy happened and unfortunately as a Brit I didn't know that much about the story either. I wasn't completely naïve I knew that he had been shot whilst in a car parading down a street and that Jackie was wearing that infamous pink suit, but apart from that I went into the movie quite unaware of the events that were going to unfold in front of me.At first I would just like to say that I was amazed by Zac Efron's performance in this and he undeniably proved that he's not just a pretty face made for singing and dancing on the Disney channel, he grabbed the viewer's attention and you felt as though you were right there with him.The nature of the filming and respect for the Kennedy family definitely shone through for me in that they used the original footage from his murder as opposed to recreating it Quentin Tarantino style, which others may have gone for and when using the actor portraying him it was rare or brief that you ever saw his face properly.The part that really sold the film for me was that it showed the great deal of respect and admiration people really had for this man. They did this by presenting us with fairly ordinary people becoming involved in something historically tragic in the space of a few minutes and showing the profound effect it had on them in the days that followed.The side of the Robert Oswald was incredibly well portrayed by it's actor; the desperation to understand his brother's actions and motives were portrayed with a simple look or sigh from him and you couldn't help but feel sorry for someone who has done nothing wrong, but because of sharing a family name he is ridiculed and blamed by people who were understandably so angered by his brother Lee Harvey Oswald.Now for the real crux of the matter, Jackie Kennedy. All people who have heard of her will undoubtedly know her as one of the strongest females in American history and the dedication of her role shone through, the actress who played her was not dismissive of the fact that her role was so incredibly influential and iconic. She showed Mrs Kennedy with a side we all knew must have been there, but was never really exposed to the world outside of Parkland, as a woman who appeared to keep her poise throughout the happenings of that devastating time. It was refreshing and saddening to see this woman terrified and heart broken at the loss of her husband.Overall I think this movie is undeniably worth a watch and will inevitably pull on your heart strings, it is brilliant for anyone who is not particularly knowledgeable about the events that happened that day and gives us a completely different insight to what people would not have necessarily known about it at the time. It was done respectfully and honestly. It is a film about the mourning of a icon and while that happens fairly early on in the film the poignancy of the grief surrounding his death is never once lost.