Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Griff Lees Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

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.

chodorov The acting was pretty good - as much as any one actor had a chance to do so. But I am amazed that not one review points out how incredibly one-sided this movie is. The clearest evidence that Oswald could not have been the lone-shooter as claimed was the Zapruder film, which is an important part of this movie. But it is never shown in the movie. Also, that Oswald was already publicly announced as Kennedy's assassin within one hour of the shooting was, and still is, outrageous. Yet how anyone came to this conclusion is not even touched upon in the film. Not one single scene from the search at the TSBD, nothing until Oswald was already in custody. And how and who decided to remove the body from the hospital before an autopsy is not even touched upon, just the short heated exchange between the coroner and the Secret Service. If the film simply showed what happened in the hospital, that would be one aspect of the story. But here many other aspects are shown, and an incredible amount of detail remains not shown or even touched upon. The film has some interesting aspects, a side not shown before. But the story telling is just plain poor, leaving too many questions unanswered. They showed Oswald being shot, but nothing about what happened after, except the ER scene. OK, but then why all the stuff about the FBI and the burning of the file? Again, very selective in what is shown and not shown. I give the film 5/10 because I like the style of it and the acting. But the story itself is really poorly portrayed.

Tss5078 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.