Parkland (2013) User Reviews (123)

Immediate Fallout

[ferguson-6 · 6/10 · 15 October 2013]

Greetings again from the darkness. Fifty years of investigation and research have spawned an endless number of theories about what happened, how it happened, and why it happened, that tragic day in 1963. President John F Kennedy and his lovely wife Jacqueline had captured the hearts of many Americans, and on a trip to Ft Worth and then Dallas, the streets were lined with eager citizens who just wanted to catch a glimpse ... hoping some of that Camelot magic would rub off. Instead, a city and a country, went spinning off into feelings of anger and devastation. Rather than show us what we already know, this is a peek at a few individuals impacted in ways you might not have previously thought about.

Vincent Bugliosi made a name for himself as the prosecutor in the Charles Manson Family murder case, and then penning the corresponding book Helter Skelter (subsequently made into a movie). This movie is based on Bugliosi's book "Four Days in November: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy".

The main stories we follow are that of Abraham Zapruder (Paul Giamatti), Lee Harvey Oswald's brother Robert (James Badge Dale), their mother Margueritte (Jacki Weaver), Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrels (Billy Bob Thornton), local FBI Agent James Hosty (Ron Livingston), and the emergency room doctors and nurses who treated JFK and Oswald (Zac Efron, Colin Hanks, Marcia Gay Harden). You might think that's too many stories for a single movie, and you are probably correct. However, it's fascinating to see the frenetic pace and immediate fallout of just how these people were impacted. Sure, we would like more details and backstory, but that's not the approach this film takes. It just provides a taste of the gut-wrenching decisions Mr. Zapruder has to make while grieving for his beloved President; and the shock of Oswald's brother as reality hits; the stomach-churning delusions of Oswald's mother; the absolute frustration of the CIA and FBI agents knowing their historic failures will be their legacy; and the disparate emotions that enter the operating rooms with Kennedy and Oswald.

The film doesn't take any stance on the grassy knoll, CIA involvement, LBJ involvement, or number of shooters. This is not a crime solving story or research into conspiracy theories. No, this is a look at real people in extraordinary situations that no amount of preparation can pacify. There are so many little details revealed ... one of the most powerful occurring at the Lee Harvey Oswald funeral, and another as the JFK casket is loaded onto Air Force One just prior to LBJ taking the oath. So many little things you have probably never before considered.

If you were alive at the time of the assassination, you understand the impact. If you have read any of the stacks of books written about that day, you understand what happened and the messy investigation that followed. Bugliosi and director Peter Landesman effectively mix news reels from the day with dramatizations of the fallout, and the actors do a tremendous job of showing just how personal this affected those at the time. A different perspective brings with it interesting discussion ... and a big thanks if your mother is nothing like Oswald's!

Reminded me of a Paul Greengrass sort of film

[estebangonzalez10 · 7/10 · 7 November 2013]

¨It's the first time that the secret service has lost a president under its watch.¨

I'm actually surprised I enjoyed this film so much considering the bad reviews it has been receiving and my lack of knowledge on the historical details about the assassination of John F Kennedy. There have been many films made about this specific event, but very few have taken this approach where you get to experience things through the eyes of secondary characters and people behind the scenes like the Parkland medical staff that had to attend the president, or Oswald's brother who is shocked to hear his brother has shot the president. The apparently small scaled moments of this tragic event (like how the medical staff decide to keep the president's boxers on during surgery to preserve his dignity, or the urgency with which the Secret Service agents were trying to get a film of the assassination developed, or how Robert Oswald reacts when he hears that his brother is the prime suspect of the murder) are what truly make this film gripping and unique. The film has its flaws such as failing to have narrative cohesion and the characters are underdeveloped at times, but I think it worked really well considering everything happened so fast and these people had to make split second decisions. The overall feeling of chaos and messiness of the events that took place really transcend here as everything happens so fast and the film is reduced to a length of merely 90 minutes. The film follows a semi documentary style that totally works because you can feel the tension and urgency with which they had to deal with during such a catastrophic event. Parkland is Peter Landesman's first feature film and somehow the movie touched me in a way that apparently hasn't touched most audiences or critics. I didn't expect to like this film as much as I did, but I really felt engaged from the very opening scenes up to the very end. It doesn't offer new insight to a popular historical event, but it does tell the story differently. As we approach the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's death this might be a movie worth checking out (just don't go into it thinking you are going to get another Oliver Stone JFK). The film's strongest strength relies on this sense of urgency and how it depicts the events in real time as everyone had to make life changing decisions in a matter of seconds. But it also seems to be its weakness as many consider it to be a little too over the place and chaotic with little cohesiveness.

The film follows the tragic events that occurred in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963 involving the assassination of President John F Kennedy. The story focuses on the perspective of the people in the sidelines that witnessed the event first hand like the medical staff in Parkland Hospital that were there that tragic day. Young Doctor Jim Carrico (Zac Efron) was the resident doctor that day in Parkland, and some of the nurses that were there to assist him were Nurse Doris (Marcia Gay Harden) and the emergency room nurse played by Mallory Moye. We get another perspective of that day through the eyes of a small businessman named Abraham Zapruder (Paul Giamatti), who happened to capture the assassination on his Super 8 camera. We also see things through the eyes of Dallas's chief of the Secret Service, Forrest Sorrels (Billy Bob Thornton), an FBI agent named James Hosty (Ron Livingston) who was investigating Lee Harvey Oswald (Jeremy Strong), and Lee Harvey's brother Robert (James Badge Dale) and mother (Jacki Weaver) who react differently to the news about the murder. All these different perspectives are weaved together giving us an engaging film and different insight into what was going on. Tom Welling, Mark Duplass, Colin Hanks, Jackie Earle Haley, and Kat Steffens all play secondary characters in this star studded cast.

There were some strong performances in this film although not really Oscar worthy. I specially liked James Badge Dale in this film who gives a quiet but brave performance, while Paul Giamatti rings true with his emotional performance as he has to deal with the pain of viewing the horrific event he captured on camera. The rest of the cast didn't really stand out considering they all had very little screen time, but it was good to see some of these talented actors working together. Jacki Weaver is a talented actress and she proves it once again in this small role. The cast is solid and the script is also pretty engaging. I was glad everything was depicted so fast and that the film didn't run too long.

4 days that shook the world

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 22 November 2013]

Unlike the highly controversial Executive Action and later Oliver Stone's JFK, Parkland takes no position as to the wider implications of a conspiracy involving the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Instead we get a rather sober docudrama about the four days that if you lived through them you remember every detail that was reported until President Kennedy was lowered into his grave at Arlington.

None of the famous people of the event are shown here at any length. Some are shown briefly, some actors play John and Jacqueline Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. The Oswalds are given more exposure. But the film concentrates on the peripheral characters of the drama, secret service agents, doctors at Parkland Hospital, presidential aides. A bit of the drama of the instant transition of power is involved as the office in a flash of gunfire transfers from one man to another.

Some familiar faces are here. Billy Bob Thornton is the Secret Service agent in charge of the Dallas area, Zac Efron is the young trauma surgeon who makes a vain effort at saving a dead man, Paul Giammati is Abraham Zapruder who took the most famous home movies in the history of the planet.

My favorite is Jacki Weaver the Australian actress who plays Marguerite Oswald. Her son's instant notoriety has elevated as she thinks to some kind of celebrity status. Today that woman would find herself a server and get some kind of blog. Weaver plays her one suit shy of a full deck.

As it does not deal with large issues, just small screw ups Parkland does not have the epic sweep that JFK does. Still it's an interesting and different look at the four most traumatic days of the last century.

Now, nearly 55 years on, and 5 after this film...

[d.rust · 30 July 2018]

Are we any closer to the truth? Has Walter Cronkite suddenly appeared on channel 4 to tell us that it was all just a close call? Did Lee Oswald have his day in court?

We are all damaged goods in the aftermath. Poor Zapruder: the horror in his face as played by Giamatti, he'd never feel pleasure in running his 8mm camera to catch his grandchildren playing. Secret Service agent Sorrells reminding all that they dropped the ball, the sense of shame he must have felt. Hosty, realizing he could have stopped it all if he had only... just ... followed through.

This isn't a time travel story showing how the past can't be changed, or an explanation of how his head travelled "back, and to the left..." Nor is it a parody, with a spit ball travelling "back, and to the left..." or a National Lampoon of the first ten thousand days of JFK.

This is as close to a documentary as could be giving us a horrible taste in our mouths how events can turn cruel, how they can be relentless and how we, those of us who were alive in those days, can be drawn back into it and the fog of remembrance is ripped away, renewed with little details.

A very highly anticipated film for me, my first North American Premier to boot!!

[Robert_duder · 7/10 · 9 September 2013]

I am a Kennedy historian, have been since I was about 13. I live for any films (dramatizations or documentaries) about the Kennedy dynasty or Assassination. When I first heard about Parkland, my expectations immediately were astronomical. I was so thrilled and could not wait to see it. So, add to that astronomical excitement when I received a ticket to the North American premier at the Toronto International Film Festival. My reason for telling all this was perhaps when the film comes out on DVD/Blu-Ray I will watch it again and come back to my review. It was hard to truly analyze this film amidst my excitement. I do agree with many professional critics that creator/writer/director Peter Landesman bit off more than he could chew. This is a huge story and a lot going on and he covers more than he should. Despite the film being called "Parkland" it spends as much time focusing on other events outside the hospital after the assassination. It would have made far more sense to stay inside the hospital and show us a dramatization of these people (similar to what Emilio Estevez's Bobby did) rather than covering so much all over the place. I do give him kudos for his historical accuracy and covering an angle of the assassination that I am fairly certain has never been on film before.

Despite there being some significant names attached to the film, there was literally no star. Everyone shared a few minutes, a few scenes, and a few lines. Perhaps that made it harder to become emotionally invested in these characters. I have never been a "hater" of Zac Efron but I've never really been a fan either. He won me over in this film for two reasons. 1. At the premier of the film he was so incredibly great with his fans and the crowd. He worked that crowd and got to every person he possibly could. 2. His performance (in particular the scene at the beginning of the film when he is first called in to work on Kennedy) is pretty close to the best in the entire movie. He shows some incredible emotion and strength and proves he has some serious acting chops. Despite being listed second in the cast Tom Welling's role was incredibly small. I am pretty sure he had three lines in the whole film so sadly I can't say good or bad to his performance because it was simply unnoticeable (and I am a huge fan of his from Smallville days.) Paul Giamatti is good in his role as Zapruder. I expected him to be great because Giamatti is a great actor and he certainly looks the role but he just doesn't seem to really sink into it. Marcia Gay Harden is decent in her role but it is a painfully small role which was surprising for her. She is basically a supporting cameo to the whole story. Ron Livingston gives a solid performance as James Hosty but I desperately wanted to see more from him and more from the character as well. Same for Billy Bob Thorton who gives a good performance but in so few scenes. The person who seems to get the most screen time is James Badge Dale who plays Robert Oswald. He is also very good in the role but the script just doesn't seem to give any of these great actors enough to really get into their characters. Many of these real life people could almost support their own films so to see their characters rushed is unfortunate. Jeremy Strong is a good Oswald, he certainly looks the part but his one major scene opposite Badge Dale isn't enough to show off his ability.

This type of story is simply too grand and complex in scale to cram into an hour and a half without it feeling rushed. I wanted to become emotionally invested in these characters and I struggled to do that. I also noticed that I felt like the rest of the audience was getting a little restless around the halfway mark. It laid everything out in point form and didn't beat around the bush but it missed the dramatization of the situation and forgot to make you feel like you were there rather than receiving a history lesson. It isn't a total loss, there are some really good scenes (Kennedy first arriving at Parkland, Oswald's burial was a particularly strong scene.) I thought the scenes of Zapruder and others seeing the film for the first time would be powerful but honestly...their reactions felt forced. I sort of understand the tepid reviews this is receiving. It is worth seeing but falls short of being a great historical film. Peter Landesman simply doesn't have the directing experience to make this work. I am sure he is a brilliant man but his directing lacks experience. His previous work that I have seen (Trade-See my review) could have been an amazing, stunning film but due to his direction it missed some crucial things and same could be said for this. Yes, my expectations were high but it ended up only delivering on the most basic level. 7/10

***Side note--I attended the North American Premier at the Toronto International Film Festival on Friday September 6th/2013. I had the opportunity to shake hands and speak briefly with Tom Welling. I am not stating this to brag but rather more for my own benefit so when I look back on this review I can fondly remember my first premier! Thanks everyone who read my reviews!!***

An Above-average Account of the JFK Assassination Saga

[zardoz-13 · 7/10 · 15 November 2013]

Former "New York Times Magazine" investigative journalist Peter Landesman made his cinematic debut as a writer and director on "Parkland," an unusual, off-beat account of the tragic Kennedy assassination in Dallas in 1963. Compared with the more high profile speculative sagas like "Executive Action" and "JFK," Landesman's scrupulous, atmospheric account of the events during those four fateful November days neither points fingers nor presents conspiracy theories. Landesman used Vincent Bugliosi's detailed book ""Four Days in November" as the basis for his adaptation, but he concentrates on the lives of several individuals who played roles in the real life event. Although President Kennedy and his wife Jackie appear in documentary footage, they do not emerge as the chief characters in "Parkland." Secret Service agents are shown scrambling Kennedy's blood-splattered body into the hospital, and Landesman concentrated more on the futile efforts to save JFK's life than on JFK himself. Jackie is shown handing off bits of her husband's brain and skull, but she doesn't assume front and center prominence. Vice-President Lyndon B. Johnson delivers a line or two, but he is accorded little prominence. Meanwhile, real-life characters on the periphery of the action, such as amateur photographer Abraham Zapruder, Dallas Secret Service Chief Forrest Sorrels, the Parkland doctors and nurses, and Lee Harvey Oswald's brother Robert. Landesman observes on the "Parkland" commentary track about these characters, "This isn't about Johnson. This isn't about Kennedy. This is about the Secret Service agents, the doctors. These are the people I was interested in. You know, we think of these as the small stories. They're not. They're the bigger stories. This is where the real drama happens." According to Landsman, these stories about people on the sidelines who were essentially nobodies proved to be "the more interesting and compelling stories." The performances are poignant, and "Parkland" has moments of dramatic urgency that are off-set by lackluster moments. As powerful as "Parkland" often it, it contains far too many moments that just thud. Had an energetic director like Paul Greengrass of "The Bourne Supremacy" helmed this ensemble effort, "Parkland" might have been an adrenalin-laced classic. As it is, this Tom Hanks production qualifies as above-average, but it loses momentum in most of scenes involving the Oswald brothers and their crackpot mother. The best scenes take place in the Parkland emergency room when the doctors toiled to revive Kennedy and later fight to save Oswald. The scene when the Secret Service agents refused to let the Dallas Medical Examiner keep the body to perform an autopsy is good, too. Later, the breathless urgency with which the Secret Service agents rush Kennedy's body back to Air Force One is gripping. The juxtaposition of the Kennedy funeral with the Oswald funeral is illuminating. Zapruder's anguish is palatable, and Paul Giamatti as Zapruder is terrific. Since this occurred fifty years ago, "Parkland" shows numerous shots of characters smoking cigarettes. When the end credits roll, Landesman gives the cast an encore and then shows what the real-life people resemble. Audiences obsessed with the Kennedy Assassination will definitely find "Parkland" enthralling more than those who don't care.

Low-Key Retelling of the Kennedy Assassination

[l_rawjalaurence · 6/10 · 24 November 2013]

Based on Vincent Bugliosi's book retelling the events leading up to and following the Kennedy assassination on a minute-by-minute basis, PARKLAND is a low-key film that eschews sensationalism in favor of characterization. Director Peter Landesman focuses on the reactions of those involved in the affair, notably Dr. Jim Carrico (Zac Efron), who treated JFK at the Parkland Hospital, and FBI agent James Hosty (Ron Livingston). The film is shot in cinéma-vérité style, with lots of quick cuts and close-ups on the protagonists with the minimum of climatic scenes. Sometimes the action drags slightly, but PARKLAND's main concern is to illuminate the human cost of the tragedy - for example, the reaction of dressmaker Abraham Zapruder (Paul Giamatti), whose amateur film of the tragedy constituted the only available record of what actually happened. Director Landesman shows how the emotional effect of being regularly interrogated by the FBI proved too much for him. We also see the reaction of the nurses in the Parkland Hospital, who strove to save the President's life but eventually failed. Compared to other versions of the event - for example, Oliver Stone's JFK - PARKLAND lacks sensationalism. but is nonetheless extremely well made, a testament to the efforts of everyone involved, actors, directors and those behind the camera alike.

No matter how often this story has been told it is still very moving

[MOscarbradley · 7/10 · 23 October 2017]

Parkland was the name of the hospital that President Kennedy was taken to after being shot in Dallas and Peter Landesman's film deals with the events of that day and the days that followed. It's a somewhat better film than the critics gave it credit for though it doesn't add anything to either the truth or the legend and prefers instead to concentrate on how the assassination affected the people on the ground, the hospital staff, the secret service agents, the Oswald family etc.

It's well cast and well played by some very talented players, (Marcia Gay Harden as a nurse, Billy Bob Thornton, Ron Livingston and David Harbour as secret service men, Paul Giametti as Abraham Zapruder, Jackie Weaver and James Badge Dale as Oswald's mother and brother; even Zac Efron as a young doctor who fails to save Kennedy's life is excellent). Landesman shoots it in a semi-documentary style which is fine though perhaps the editing is a little on the busy side; he doesn't seem to like to hold a frame for more than a few seconds at a time. I don't know, of course, how close any of this is to the facts but presumably the film was researched to within a few inches of its life and no matter how often this story has been told on screen it continues to be very moving.

A different look at the Kennedy Assassination. Doesn't take sides, just the facts. As a huge assassination buff I really liked it.

[cosmo_tiger · 8/10 · 3 November 2013]

"This was not supposed to happen!" Dallas Texas, November 22nd 1963. President Kennedy is in town for a campaign stop and is on his way to the Dallas Trade Mart for a speech. He never makes it. While riding in his motorcade he is struck in the head by a bullet and is rushed to Parkland hospital. A staff of doctors do all they can to save his life but are unsuccessful and he becomes the 4th President to be assassinated. This is what happened next. I will start by saying that I am extremely interested in the Kennedy assassination. I have tons of books, movies and other memorabilia of the Kennedy assassination and administration. I won't bore you with what I know or even my opinion of what happened because that would distract from the review. What I will say is that this is nothing like JFK. That is one of my favorite movies ever but it is more or less an opinion and more conspiratorial. This movie doesn't really deal with the assassination head on but rather the out lying players. The movie focuses on Zapruder (Giamatti), the man who took the famous movie. Forrest Sorrels (Thornton) the head of the secret service. You also see the actions of countless medical staff, Oswald's family and the Dallas F.B.I. You see the actions of these people and how the assassination affected them rather then what all the other movies focus on. Overall, a different kind of Kennedy assassination movie. It doesn't take sides, just shows how people acted. I really enjoyed this a lot. I give it an A.

Watch this for the other stories

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 9 December 2013]

After recently watching Bill O'Reilly's 'Killing Kennedy', I prefer this movie over that one. Here's why. The JFK story has no more new insights for me. The Oswalt story could be interesting, but the O'Reilly movie is rather flat.

This movie looks at the events through the eyes of all the other characters. It has things that I never heard of before. Without spoiling too much, Oswalt's mother is a pill. And I never knew of that happening in the FBI office. And I can't believe the fighting in that operating room. That's insane.

This is not a regular flowing movie. With these varied stories, it was never going to have the regular structure. It is scatter shoot storytelling. Interestingly, I found most of the stories fascinating and compelling. I wanted to know each character and their stories. And the acting was all top rate. It is the JFK assassination movie to watch.

Why did they bother?

[dancrider · 4/10 · 24 October 2013]

I have lived in Dallas all my life and have studied the Kennedy assassination in great detail, including watching just about every theatrical film and documentary concerning the event. I looked forward to this movie to see if there was anything they could add to my knowledge, and since I haven't read the Vincent Bugliosi book on which the film is based, I was optimistic. Having just finished it, I find myself wondering why they bothered doing this in the first place.

First, points for acting, and points for authentic sets, vehicles, etc. Massive reduced points for filming it in Austin when Dallas is four hours up the road. Small points for not making the Dallas citizens and law enforcement officers into chaw spittin' stereotypes. Giamatti is good, and everybody does just fine with the material they are given. Its just that nobody is given much to do.

If there can be such a thing as a spoiler for this movie, I guess I should warn you of that now. I can't reveal the end where the actual killer is revealed because history hasn't made up its mind yet.

There is absolutely nothing in this movie that was new news to me. I learned nothing. For students of the assassination, this is a dry hole. You don't actually even see any of the events reenacted...not Kennedy, Tippet, or Oswald. There are no statements or actions that could support or contradict any of the conflicting opinions as to what really happened. With the exception of the Parkland parking lot, the action mainly takes place in a series of small rooms.

So rather than concentrate on the crime or the actions of law enforcement to solve it, here is what we get: Oswald's mother (nuts) and brother (sad and stoic, with a small undercurrent of rage). Neither of them really have anything to do with the event. We get to see some angst among the Secret Service and FBI. We get to see the assassination not through Abraham Zapruder's camera, but from the vantage point of a camera filming him while he is filming the assassination. Big drama fails to erupt as he gets it developed, has to go somewhere else to get some copies made, and then sells the original to Life, who has to promise not to publish the frame with the head shot.

And how about the doctors at Parkland? There are two...one wakes up and has to work on Kennedy, the other is called out of a meeting. After a few minutes of basic CPR, they are covered in blood and JFK is dead. If anything, this one scene might do a good job of shutting down those who complained that the doctors and medical examiner should have done more...turned him over...examined him more closely. It goes by in a blur and once its over they are too stunned to move.

One of the events depicted that some people might not know is the physical struggle between the Secret Service (who wanted to remove JFK (illegally) from the hospital) and the Dallas ME and Dallas cops who, rightfully, tried to stop them, but ultimately failed.

Oh, and the Secret Service had to remove two rows of seats on Air Force One to accommodate the coffin. And it looked heavy. And the press had to serve as pallbearers at LHO's funeral because nobody else was available. Oh, and 8mm film is actually 16mm film cut in half. That's about it.

Watching this film is like watching a football game on TV, but the cameramen and announcers are covering the bench warmers, the beer guys, and the officials. Was there a hue and cry for these ancillary characters to have their stories told? No? Okay, I guess that explains why the thing cost 10 million bucks to shoot and didn't even make a million at the box office.

If you REALLY want to know anything about the JFK Assassination, look to some of the fine documentaries that have been made about the subject, first and foremost, Portrait of an Assassination, the fine documentary about the journey the Zapruder film took, as well as a dozen enhanced versions of it that you have never seen before, shown in restored, digital clarity.

History Channel's Unsolved History: Death in Dealy Plaza explores all of the other camera and film footage shot that day. And I can't remember the name, but there was a GREAT special done by ABC, narrated by Peter Jennings, where they created a digital model of Dealy plaza so that you were able to reenact the assassination from any camera angle...proving, according to them...that the "magic bullet" was far from magic and that its path was actually plausible.

And if you want to walk on the wild side and explore the conspiracies, Oliver Stone's JFK is a great place to start, as is the series The Men Who Killed Kennedy. (Warning...LOTS of factual errors and leaps of logic) Some of the theories get pretty wacky, but even the conservative ones, presented in monotone by a professor type is twice as interesting and informative as Parkland.

So you learn nothing about the event, you learn more than you probably wanted to know about the characters on the sidelines, and you get to see some very upset people in small rooms, some covered in blood.

It almost works as a kinda "you were there" documentary, except the events you get to see seem like they were decided on in a committee meeting run by the Warren Commission. Like a report on something where all the interesting stuff is blacked out.

And they filmed it in AUSTIN, for the love of God...come ON...

A conspiracy-free portrayal of the aftermath

[wolowskigi · 8/10 · 5 November 2013]

First of all, most if not all of the low/negative reviews are based upon lack of questioning the events that transpired. This is not a conspiracy theory fueled film. The aim of this film is to document the immediate aftermath of President Kennedy's assassination through 4 different story lines and it does just that.

Maybe I'm a little bit biased because it's one of my favorite historical events to research and learn about, but I found it to be an insightful and well done look at the people who became involved after the event, without showing/repeating most of the general information that most, if not all viewers familiar with the assassination are already aware of.

I, for one, am satisfied that they did not blatantly show the entire Zapruder film once the FBI obtained and developed it. Not because I'm squeamish, but because although some may be, and also that this film is not primarily set on the actual assassination itself but rather the emotion and reactions felt afterward.

However, I do wish that they had shown more of Lee Oswald than they did. But then again like I previously said, most people who have researched the case have seen the videos and know the story (based on the Warren Commission at least) of Oswald's whereabouts and his part in shooting the President.

People complaining there's not enough "conspiracy" or lack of Oswald in the story, feel free to watch Oliver Stone's JFK instead, or open up a YouTube search and have at it.

So if you read everything I wrote, or just skipped down here, Parkland is an insightful look at the immediate aftermath of Kennedy's assassination and is highly recommended for fellow history buffs in general, or those interested in learning about the events surrounding November 22, 1963.

Good docudrama, but no real plot

[dbwilyumz · 7/10 · 5 October 2013]

Parkland is well done with an excellent cast. It is also an odd movie because it has no "plot". It's a docudrama, re-enacting a series of scenes and incidents. There's no story arc, no real character development or transformation.

The character with the most "story" is Abraham Zapruder, who is affected by the experience, and we see it. Many of the other characters are just there, doing what they do. Zac Efron is kind of wasted in his role as surgical resident Dr. Jim Carrico, because he just does surgical-resident stuff; the script doesn't exploit any of his charms.

Parkland is tightly paced, for the most part, but sags a bit toward the end, because there actually is no end, just the last incident. They had to fall back on an audio wrap-up by Walter Cronkite and pull the lens out of focus to close it up.

Conspiracy theorists will find no solace here, because this movie is about the people who weren't part of the crime.

Parkland Fails to Assess the Facts in the JFK Assassination

[lavatch · 1/10 · 6 October 2013]

For a number of years, I taught a course on the JFK assassination at a major American university. I was looking forward to "Parkland" as a film that could provide new insights into the case at the time of the fiftieth anniversary. Unfortunately, the film presents a superficial account of the events of the tragic assassination weekend. Above all, it fails to assess the wealth of new information we have today to understand why and how President Kennedy was murdered.

The film is structured around four main stories unfolding during the assassination weekend--the events at Parkland Hospital, the famous home movie taken by Abraham Zapruder, the instant arrest and subsequent killing of Lee Harvey Oswald while in custody of the Dallas police, and the handling of the case by the FBI. In every instance, the filmmakers fail to probe beneath the surface to shed light on the assassination.

While the film pays tribute to the heroic efforts of the Parkland medical professionals to save the life of President Kennedy, it completely ignores the most important testimony of those eyewitness at the hospital. Researcher Robert Groden interviewed 82 members of the medical staff--the precise group of characters depicted in the film--and learned that every eyewitness (100%) indicated that the president was shot from the front of the limousine, due to the tiny entry wound to his throat. The significance of this detail is that Oswald could not have been the only shooter in the case. The film neatly sidesteps this essential issue.

In depicting the historic role played by dress manufacturer Abraham Zapruder, the film is hopelessly mistaken on crucial details about Zapruder's home movie. Zapruder himself provides a fascinating and detailed account of his filming and his recall of the events in Dealey Plaza, as published in the Warren Commission hearings. It is not clear that the screenwriters even consulted this essential primary source. After returning to his office, Mr. Zapruder first locked the film in his safe. He insisted on working personally with Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels to try to ensure the integrity of the evidence. The film, which shows Sorrels coercing Zapruder, does not come close to depicting the original handling of the film and how the chain of custody in this crucial piece of evidence was broken during the assassination weekend.

In its portrayal of the alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, the film made the fatal mistake of developing Oswald from the perspective of his brother Robert. We never saw the vehement attempts of Oswald to proclaim his innocence, wherein he informed the media that "I did not shoot anyone" and "I'm just a patsy." In the film's odd treatment of Marguerite Oswald, the performer adopted a Southern accent; but the short Marguerite did not speak with a Southern drawl. In the film, Marguerite claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald was a government agent. But the film never made the effort to determine whether or not there was any truth in Marguerite's assertion.

In perhaps the most accurate subplot depicted in "Parkland," the film focuses on the intentional destruction of evidence by the Dallas FBI office when SA Gordon Shanklin orders Agent James Hosty to destroy its file on Oswald. This strand of the film is revealing because we never see the FBI actually investigating the crime scene: Oswald is immediately arrested, identified as the killer of President Kennedy and Officer Tippit, prior to being shot by Jack Ruby on live television. Immediately, Oswald was convicted in the minds of the public through the efforts of the FBI and, later, the Warren Commission. Astonishingly, the crime scene was not secured, evidence was destroyed, and the facts were subsequently manipulated to fit the instant conclusion of Oswald's guilt.

In 1991, director-writer Oliver Stone was condemned by the media for his three-hour treatment of the assassination in the film "JFK." But Stone and his screenwriter Zachary Sklar published a 600-page book (still in print), documenting sources for every fact in the film. Will the filmmakers of "Parkland" also be providing a companion source book to demonstrate the extent of their research? Or, was the goal merely to present the same story told to the public after Americans returned to work on November 26, 1963?

50 years and counting

[lee_eisenberg · 7/10 · 15 December 2013]

We recently passed the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination, prompting further discussion about the full story of what happened. Peter Landesman's "Parkland" looks at the events that unfolded in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, and the panic that accompanied everything: the attempts to resuscitate the president in Parkland Hospital, Abraham Zapruder's arguments with the feds about the ownership of his now famous short, and discussions among law enforcement about an earlier chance that they'd had to arrest Lee Harvey Oswald (as well as the controversy about the burial of the man charged with killing the president). But more than anything, there was no doubt that the assassination marked the beginning of the end of the age of innocence.

I'd say that the movie does a good job looking at the day's events. It would be hard for me to give a truly accurate assessment, since I was born long after the assassination. Oswald's mother comes across as a maniac; I suspect that she refused to believe that her son could kill the president. In the end, I recommend the movie.

A powerful fresh conspiracy free take on the assassination of JKF.

[Kirsty2515 · 7/10 · 20 March 2018]

I love history and i particularly enjoy watching films, documentaries, TV series about the assassination of JFK. Each time i watch a depiction of the assassination there is always a different take on what happened or a new conspiracy that gets put out there. This film is completely different to anything else i have seen. It doesn't focus on any one person, any conspiracy theories or even the assassination itself. It focuses entirely on the facts and effects that this tragic event had on the people that witnessed it or had some direct involvement with the aftermath of it. It was refreshing to see a JFK film focus on something more than just the same conspiracy theories and general information that gets put out over and over again.

The use of real archived footage from news outlets, TV stations and home videos mixed in with the new film was excellent. It really added to authenticity of the movie. Some of the scenes that come when JFK arrives at Parkland are quite disturbing and hard hitting. Particularly when Zac Efron is administering CPR to the president or when Jackie Kennedy hands part of the presidents skull over to the nurse. But on the other had some scenes are left to the cast to convey for example the Zapruder film does not get shown in full, you are left to see the shock and horror on the characters faces, which is a strange way is just as disturbing as watching it. All of the actors do an amazing job in portraying the trauma, shock and sadness that their real life counterparts would have experienced when this tragedy happened.

The way that Peter Landesman has written and directed this film is fantastic. He uses small but obvious details to convey the pain and the grieving of all those involved and those. There is no taking sides. He is not trying to prove Oswalds guilt, or the failings of law enforcement or any other agenda. He is simply showing how people react and what raw human emotion looks like.

This is a great factual film. Great cast, great script, great directing. Well worth watching.

Gritty Retelling of the Kennedy Assassination

[srooks1 · 7/10 · 28 August 2021]

Without the noise of conspiracy theories, Parkland is a gritty and realistic retelling of the Kennedy assassination. The film shows the effects on the doctors and staff of the hospital. Parkland captures the confusion of the first few hours after Kennedy's death; it is almost too painful to watch. The film leaves one with only questions and no answers.

Ordinary people caught up in the assassination of JFK.

[guchrisc · 26 November 2013]

This film, called 'Parkland', opens by informing the audience that on the 22nd of November 1963, President John F Kennedy was assassinated, while on a visit to Dallas, Texas.

Parkland is the name of the hospital that the shot President was taken to.

Early scenes show real-life footage of JFK, mixed in with dramatized scenes. This works well and gives this film a real documentary feel.

The film is not about the assassination or the main participants as such, but rather this is the background, and the film concentrates on ordinary people who were caught up in the assassination.

A very fine balance has been achieved by the film-makers. Events are not shown directly but rather through the eyes of the unwilling participants. So we see an excited Abraham Zapruder looking forward to seeing his President. We see him filming, though we do not see what he is filming. We do see the reaction of Abraham Zapruder.

We do not see the shooting, but do see the chaos and confusion after the shooting. An ordinary day at the hospital changes as the bloodied President is brought in. The scenes are grim; the party of the President, and the hospital staff, all are covered in blood. The President himself is shown only partially. Major wounds are not shown.

Abraham Zapruder filmed the assassination. His was the only complete film of the whole event. Law enforcement agencies needed to see the film. They do and so does Abraham Zapruder. We, the audience, though, merely see the Zapruder film as a small reflection off the glasses of Abraham Zapruder, or in some similar way, that saves us from watching the brutal reality.

Those who failed to protect their President are shown doing their best to protect Jacqueline Kennedy and Lyndon B Johnson, and also trying with dignity to travel back to Washington DC. It is the decent touches, the small things, that ordinary people do, throughout the film, that impress.

Of course, law enforcement officials are concerned to get the killer. When Lee Harvey Oswald is revealed as a suspect, this sends shock-waves through law-enforcement. His family too have to come to terms with this situation. This is shown well.

Film, two of whose producers are Tom Hanks and Bill Paxton, is based on the book 'Four Days in November' by Vincent Bugliosi. This respected lawyer prosecuted Charles Manson and later wrote a best-selling book about the trial. In later years he has written about legal matters such as the OJ Simpson trial. His 'Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F Kennedy' was written to destroy the arguments of the conspiracy-theorists.

The Lee Harvey Oswald of this film is an enigma, reflecting reality. The part is a small one in the film. In real life, the facts are well known and generally accepted. Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marine, who had been trained as a sharpshooter and marksman, he has been described as "an excellent shot". In 1959 he had defected to the USSR, returning with his Russian wife, in 1962. Earlier in 1963 he bought a rifle and shot at a retired soldier. 16/10/63 he started work at the Texas School Book Depository which President Kennedy's motorcade drove past.

This film concentrates on the ordinary people at the site of the shooting and at the hospital, as well as the bodyguards and law enforcement officials, and the families. This does not lessen the impact of this film, rather it heightens it, as we see the horror through their eyes. Filmed in a documentary style that puts us there, only very occasionally did the camera swing too quickly. Thus filming style is much superior to the recent 'Captain Phillips'. Background music too, intruded unnecessarily, only to a very limited degree.

All actors played their parts superbly, and so no one can be singled out for special praise. The acting, along with costumes and sets, makes us the viewer feel we are watching a documentary made at the time. We are totally sucked in. Having said that however, the subject matter makes this film very difficult viewing.

From the film, it is clear that this was the biggest failure in the history of law enforcement in America. It is stated so, in the film, in blunter language. The USA experienced further assassinations of major political figures, later in the sixties. In the eighties, the singer-songwriter John Lennon was shot dead. However on the 30/3/81 an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan failed. He became the first President of the USA to survive being shot in an assassination attempt. Since then however there has also been 911.

The constitution of the USA allows it's citizens to bear arms. It also provides that if a President dies in office, the Vice-President is sworn in as replacement. This film depicts the day when President Kennedy, like President Lincoln before him, was assassinated. President Johnson would go on to implement many of the ideas of President Kennedy. These days the citizens of the USA still retain the right to bear arms but it's Presidents rarely if ever travel in open-topped cars.

Rated 15 in the UK, 'Parkland' is a bloody and factual film of a sad day. 10/10.

Has Emotional Appeal but No Real Focus

[doug_park2001 · 6/10 · 6 November 2013]

Supposedly based on Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy," PARKLAND is probably worth seeing if you're interested in the general subject of JFK's assassination. You are not, however, likely to learn anything terribly new from it. It's generally well-filmed and well-acted and really captures the emotional turbulence of the event. PARKLAND also shows personal perspectives of Jackie Kennedy, Abraham Zapruder, the Parkland Hospital staff, Oswald's mother and brother, etc, that few if any films have covered. All the stuff about the Dallas FBI office and its past dealings with Oswald is also quite interesting.

Yet, in the end, PARKLAND is more of a montage of the various agencies and families that were involved. There's no real storyline or point made here: It begins a bunch of different stories without developing any of them. It also blinks at a lot of the wrong moments, e.g., showing various people/agencies watching the Zapruder film and their emotional reactions to same without showing the film itself or explaining its significance in the investigations.

A numbing experience of the horror before conspiracy theories emerged.

[TheSquiss · 8/10 · 10 November 2013]

A certain generation gained its knowledge of the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy from Oliver Stone's JFK. Don't get me wrong, JFK remains a fine film, but there's a danger of believing the conspiracies are factual. Parkland, Peter Landesman's directorial debut, doesn't necessarily right any wrongs but it does approach the assassination with a clean slate.

Parkland unfolds the story we are all familiar with, but manages to shock thoroughly as it recounts the events of 22 November 1963 and the immediate aftermath before the conspiracy theories and thoughts of dark dealings beyond the obvious murder emerged. Landesman manages to numb us, playing our own horror and sense of helplessness across the faces of the protagonists before us as their innocence is lost and their faith in humanity is rocked.

Central to Parkland is Abraham Zapruder (Paul Giamatti), the man who inadvertently shot one of the most important 26.6 seconds of film in American history: the arrival of the President's cavalcade and his harrowing, public execution at the hands (probably) of Lee Harvey Oswald. We watch Giamatti's Zapruder evolve from confident boss to shuddering, emotional mess as he realizes just what he has recorded and the impact that footage will have on the world and his own life. It is very easy to view Zapruder as a fortunate man, a man who in a lucky half minute, shot himself fame and financial security, but Giamatti flawlessly portrays a man who just might crumple permanently under the weight and pressure from the police, the Secret Service, the press...

At every turn in Parkland there is another character recoiling in their own horror, undergoing their own life-changing trauma, and each is played with the sensitivity demanded in order for Parkland not to be a mawkish, voyeuristic experience.

After last year's The Paperboy (but overlooking the awful The Lucky One), it's definitely time to take Zac Effron seriously as an actor. As Doctor Charles 'Jim' Carrico, the young doctor called upon to put his own emotions aside and fight for the life of his President as the First Lady weeps in the corner holding a chunk of her husband's brain, he looks shell shocked and as numbed by the events as we feel.

Subtler is James Badge Dale as Robert Oswald, another man whose life is irrevocably changed by the actions of a man, who happens to be his brother. At first shocked by the shooting, he retreats into himself as realisation dawns, emerging only to castigate his deluded mother, Marguerite (Jacki Weaver), who sees an opportunity for fame and hero's honours for her youngest son.

But Parkland is such a powerful film for much more than the performances. They say the devil is in the detail and it is the minutia that kicks us in the gut the hardest. The obvious is overlooked in favour of the finer points. We never see the Zapruder film clearly or in its entirety but the sound of Jim Carrico pumping the President's chest while the gathered crowd watches silently and without hope, goes right through us. The handle of the coffin torn off as the agents lift it out of the hearse, the panic as they realise it will not fit into Air Force One, the hasty removal of the aircraft panel with saw and shoulder... They all serve to make the situation real, the horror genuine and immediate.

Landesman has created a film of morality; not just the obvious judgment towards murder, but the more difficult matters of a church burial for a man despised by the population, the suspicion thrown at the family and the blame levied at those who could have prevented the act if they had had the benefit of foresight. Parkland is an emotional journey the delivers a series of punches to leave us reeling.

Yes, we know the story, even though we may not have even breathed our first breath in 1963, but have we experienced the emotion before now?

For more reviews from The Squiss, subscribe to my blog and like the Facebook page.

A Different Perspective of the Kennedy Assassination

[3xHCCH · 7/10 · 16 December 2013]

This film was made with a color palette purposefully muted to mesh seamlessly with actual news reels about that fateful day of November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas. That was the day an assassin's bullet killed beloved US President John F. Kennedy. The whole thing looked like a documentary the way it was handled by new director Peter Landesman.

This film though was unlike the other films we might have already seen about the Kennedy Assassination. This is definitely not another "JFK" that offers more conspiracy theories. In fact, this movie is not even directly about JFK himself, nor Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby, who were the major players in this real-life drama. "Parkland" interweaves for us the stories of various individuals who were indirectly dragged into the tragic mess of that day by sheer chance.

Abraham Zapruder is a name we always hear when the topic is about the JFK assassination. Of course, his iconic film clip that graphically shows how the fatal bullet hit JFK during his motorcade. But we do not know or see Zapruder himself until this film. As portrayed by Paul Giamatti, his performance was topnotch and stirring as he grappled with the responsibility of capturing the moment of JFK's death on film.

Forrest Sorrels is a veteran member of the Secret Service who is devastated that his perfect record of protecting his 'Man" had just been broken on that day. Billy Bob Thornton portrays this character with utmost respect and dignity. We also meet other SS men like Roy Kellerman (Tom Welling), with their touching display of utmost loyalty to their fallen leader.

Dr. Charles Jim Carrico was the emergency room-resident on duty that fateful day. Having Zac Efron portray this character was initially distracting because of his star wattage. However, Efron played it very cool despite his character not knowing fully what to do, and being drenched with presidential blood. Colin Hank played the attending consultant Dr. Matthew Perry, though his screen presence paled beside Efron's.

James Hosty is an FBI agent who had been investigating about Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the assassination. However, unfortunately he never really thought Oswald could kill JFK. He was played by Ron Livingstone as this person wracked by guilt and conscience as his superiors do not disguise their dismay for his lack of foresight.

Robert Oswald is the brother of Lee Harvey who was ashamed about the role his brother played in American History. James Badge Dale played this character with his internal conflicts out on his sleeve. The Oswald matriarch Margeruite, though, was played by Jacki Weaver perfectly off - kilter.

Motion Sickness

[chris-809-960269 · 2/10 · 5 October 2013]

The story and acting are first class. They share a lot of information in the movie that you don't normally hear about. However, they tried so hard at making all the footage look original it ruins the movie. We had to leave the movie even before the half way point. The camera's jump around so much that we started feeling sick and nauseated. I have never had to leave in the middle of a movie before because of something like this. It' really too bad because I really wanted to see this movie. If you go see the movie by all means take some kind of motion sickness medication before you go. Very disappointed!! There were only 4 people in the theater, I think word is getting out already. Why in the world would they produce a movie like this?

Abraham, Martin and John

[clarkj-565-161336 · 8/10 · 5 October 2013]

I was 12 when President Kennedy was assassinated. Even though I am Canadian, it was a huge deal for us. I remember seeing him and his wife Jacquie coming out of the Church of the Ascension in Westmount Montreal sometime in 1962 or thereabouts. No crowds, no security, you could feel something exciting about him. North America changed profoundly after that. This movie does not put forward any theories about what took place at Dealey Plaza, but it does show with great accuracy how normal people are affected by extraordinary events. No matter how well we are prepared for things, when disaster strikes it takes everyone off guard and chaos ensues. Look at current events and we see the same thing. The mixture of archival footage was done exactly right, so you felt that you were really there. Despite the horrible circumstances, by the simple acts of ordinary people, one could see that not everyone had lost their humanity. The acting was superb, Marcia Harden, Billy Bob Thornton, Paul Giamatti and Zac Efron in particular.

Go elsewhere for your conspiracy theory fix . . .. .

[purrlgurrl · 7/10 · 9 December 2013]

If your looking for more fodder for your favorite conspiracy theory, go away. You'll hate this, so do us all a favor; don't watch it so you won't talk trash about it because it doesn't reinforce your beliefs.

Some of the negative reviewers on IMDb seem to have expected this film to have a conspiracy theme, ala Stone's JFK. Well, Parkland doesn't go there at all. Instead we see what happened from the viewpoint of people swept up by events, some of whom tried heroically to save the President (the ER staff at Parkland), and others who through laziness or stupidity failed to do so. There are no bigger questions addressed, and we're simply given a close look at the roles played by the supporting players immediately following the assassination. It's a fascinating reminder that history involves far more people than those few named in history books.

You'll recognize just about every actor in the cast, but the standout is Jacki Weaver as Oswald's mother. She just owns the movie.

Parkland sets-out to Re-frame Oswald and brings nothing new to the table after 50yrs of Kennedy's Assassination !

[B-Celebi · 2/10 · 29 October 2013]

Parkland was parked in spot 13 Will !!!

I watched Parkland mainly because of James Badge Dale's (as Robert Oswald in Parkland) involvement in it, in hopes that finally the truth will be told uncovering the cover-up of JFK's assassination. But oh boy, was I wrong! I really enjoyed Rubicon TV series starring James Badge Dale, but unfortunately Parkland was far from it. To me Parkland is nothing but re-framing of Oswald as the deluded gun-man assassinating the president.

And the whole lone, deluded gun-man theory is nothing but a laughable matter to some, including the President George Bush Sr (Pls see the video on youtube, George H.W. Bush Sr laughing when he mentions "a deluded gun- man assassinated President Kennedy at Gerald Ford's funeral.)

Very powerful devils killed JFK and played their parts in his assassination on November 22nd, 1963 in Dallas. I believe assassination of Kennedy, not only changed the course of history of America but the world. That of-course is not a laughable matter at all. Within the 50yrs after the assassination we learned a lot about the Powerful Devils that killed Kennedy, how they got away with it, and who truly benefited from it. But like another IMDb member pointed out in the IMDb message boards, Parkland will do nothing more than to inform the uninformed with disinformation.

For example, today we know that Harvey Lee Oswald was in-fact working for the US government (on government payroll he was receiving officially 200USD/month), just like his mother Marguerite Oswald (portrayed by Jackie weaver) says so in this movie. The only person talking about Harvey Lee Oswald working for the US government is his mother in Parkland, portrayed like a crazy person. I don't know whether Marguerite Oswald was a crazy person or not in real life. But I'm sure Parkland portrays Marguerite Oswald like a crazy person for a reason. And to me that reason is part of Re-framing of Oswald done in this movie. I bet most people reading or hearing Oswald was working for the US government will say, yeah yeah that's BS, his crazy mother kept saying so ... We also know why he was the perfect patsy today. Even the real Oswald stated so to the reporters "I'm just a patsy" before he got shot by Jack Ruby (acting totally different in real life than the Harvey Lee Oswald portrayed by Jeremy Strong in Parkland). And why we don't hear him saying "I'm just a patsy" in Parkland ?

So to me Parkland is a movie about Re-framing of Oswald, repeating the "official" government story, entirely ignoring the truth uncovered within the last 50yrs... To me Parkland is an injustice to the memory of JFK, and an insult to the intelligence of the people!!!