Parkland (2013)

It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

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.

Those who were not born when JFK was assassinated could go through a newspaper's archives to know about now irrelevant details shown in this film to be more enlightened. Although based on a book about a theme on which roughly 600 books have been written, and which raises curiosity and interest internationally even 50 years later, the movie meanders along like an amateur video. Even if the idea was to tell the viewer that Lee Oswald was a nut case, whose mother was no different, why struggle so much? Most people are not bothered, because the majority don't know even that Saddam Hussein's regime had no 'weapons of mass destruction'. At one point it even looked like the movie was a biography about Lee's 'noble brother'. Is this movie about the Oswalds? Is it about doctors attempts to revive Kennedy? Is it to show how the inside of an hospital looked in Dallas in the 1960s? An innocent viewer may end up asking these questions. Those who wanted to make this should have at least got Oliver Stone to their side before attempting a movie to say Oswald had no accomplices. At the end credits it says that it is a 'work of fiction'. Truth prevails, after all

In November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy came down from Washington D.C to visit the folks of Dallas, TX. An hour later, he would be dead. The events and accounts of what truly happen with his assassination and its aftermath, are often shrouded in mystery. In its wake, many conspiracies theories are hypothesis in order to make sense of the natural tragedy. This film isn't one of those. Director Peter Landesman's Parkland approach the subject matter, with a lot conventional information, than let's say, Oliver Stone's JFK. Only using, information, that believe to be highly factual; such as Vincent Bugliosi's 2008 book, 'Four Days in November: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy'. Parkland hopes to give the audience, a highly accuracy reenactment of what truly, happen that day. However, it's sad to say this, but this movie also presented that information, in a very superficial way. It was very lackluster and artificial. Don't get me wrong, I do kinda like how the film truly tries to document the immediate aftermath of President Kennedy's assassination with a realistic, and serious tone; however, the way, this movie presents these personal accounts was indeed lacking. I was really hoping for a little more emotional depth with these stories. For a film call Parkland, the film doesn't really focus much the hospital staff that try to save the President life. I really didn't felt any connection with them. There was nobody to latch on. Because of this, I can't really say, if the actors that portray the hospital staff were good or not, since the movie didn't give them, enough time to shine. However, I do have to say, that Zac Efron as a junior doctor was a bit jarring to see. Another problem with those scenes is how the whole emotional weight seem to be little rushed. I really didn't get the impression, what were really going through those people's heads. In my opinion, I think the movie would have work better, if it took it's time, with this. After all, there was an hour between the time JFK was pronounced death and him, being lifted back on Air Force One. It was enough time, for a little character development. In my opinion, the story of how Parkland Hospital tries to save the president is by far, the weakest part of the film. Another problem with the film, is the lack of interest in seeing amateur filmmaker Abraham Zapruder (Paul Giamatti) on screen. While, yes, Paul Giamatti did a very good job as Zapruder, but his character story arc was a little disappointing. After all, watching him with the FBI find a place to quickly develop and copy the film, isn't as compelling as let's say, saving the President's life. If there were any scenes that somewhat save the movie for me from being total trifle, it would had to be, it would had to be, James Badge Dale as Robert Oswald. He was amazing as the brother of the assassin. Seeing what negatively, he had to deal with, due to his brother's crime, was very interesting to watch, because how rare, it was to see a movie focus on a family member of a despise man. However, I could do without Lee Harvey Oswald's mother (Jacki Weaver). I really found her to be, annoying as hell, mostly, because of Jacki Weaver's cartoony performance. She was so over the top in her character's quest for fame, and vanity. It's borderline, campy. Another problem that the movie is the low budget editing. The film doesn't even, have the money to reenact the motorcade scene. Instead, it use archive footage to tell, most of the story. It was so badly edited with the film reenactments that you can really tell the different, between what was shot for the film and what was real-life footage. A good example of this, is when Paul Giamatti as Abraham Zapruder was at the Dealey Plaza. You really don't see any wide shots of him looking at the motorcade at all. It made the whole scene seem very unbelievable. Not only that, since the movie is PG-13, you rarely see any intense moments. A lot of the gory shots of JFK's open wound on his head is not visual, at all. You rarely see, anything, but blurry bloody imagery and a lot of cut away editing. It was really irritating, how often, the movie does that. Another problem with this style of editing is how the main historical figures like Jackie Kennedy (Kat Steffens) and Lyndon Johnson (Sean McGraw) seem more like scenic props, than rounded characters. The movie never really capture their whole ordeal, because the filmmakers rarely focus on them. I really hate, how the film tries to hide their faces among the other characters, as if they were nobody at all. It was just bad. Another thing, the movie doesn't focus on, is the idea of the police thinking there was a second gunman. I'm not saying, I'm for conspiracy theories, but if memory serves, there were some reports of that, going on, at the time. Another left out moment is why Lee Harvey Oswald was capture. They was no mention about Officer JD Tippit murder in the film. I really didn't like how the film neglect key information like that. Overall: I was really disappointment, with most of film's information. It doesn't really assess the wealth of new information about JFK's murder. While conspiracy theorists won't find much to appreciate here. People looking for more insight of the event, wouldn't find anything new, as well. Parkland plays it safe, by the numbers, but at least, it's was not a grotesque falsification and distortion of a national tragedy, like Oliver Stone's 1991 JFK movie, was. In the end, I seem, better reenactments in documentary films from the History Channel. A good example of one is 2009's The Kennedy Assassination: 24 Hours After. Go see that, instead of this. It's more entertaining.

Parkland shows how was the life of some people who were involved in the death of President John F. Kennedy. From the chaos, disbelief and horror at Parkland hospital that received President Kennedy (along with the disorder in the sad trip back to Washington with Kennedy's coffin), the suffering of who had the sad 'privilege' of filming great detail the murder, as the family of Lee Harvey Oswald took the stain to be related to the person murderer Kennedy. No shows ridiculous conspiracy theories, and focuses on the great historical or political moments, but shows us how, on any given day, these people took this unexpected horror. Not for nothing the best movie in the world, but it is certainly interesting to see this view of such an important and sad day in history.