Like many people I've read so much about the Kennedy Assassination that I know the names and stories and even the back stories of just about every character in this movie. And having read Bugliosi's books on the topic (both the short facts-only book on which this movie is based and also the very long, devastating thorough take-down of every conspiracy theory), I know the narrative practically the way Bugliosi presents it, minute by minute. Even so, I was gripped by this movie right from the beginning shortly before the assassination and stayed with it right to the poetic, pathetic ending where Oswald is buried in Fort Worth. At the end of the movie, I really felt wrung out.The movie operates a bit like a Greek tragedy, not just in its tragic arc, but also in the fact that it assumes that you the viewer generally know the story. This allows it to cover a huge amount of historical ground in just 90 effectively and efficiently presented minutes of drama. It's a remarkable achievement. There's ten times more info in this short film than in Oliver Stone's ridiculous "JFK" which is twice as long.Stone's 'JFK' indulges in some of the most unfocused teenage fantasizing ever filmed. 'Parkland' on the other hand presents without hype some aspects of the assassination story that show where the federal government did indeed fail: the failure to stop Oswald (the first of the "known wolves") and also the Secret Service's arrogant bullying of the Dallas coroner, in complete violation the governing law. If the Secret Service had followed the law instead of acting like the praetorian guard of a Roman emperor, there's a good chance that conspiracy theories could have died in the cradle as they should have. We'd never have had the questions that arose from the transportation of Kennedy's body back to Bethesda. The other big movie I want to compare this one to is James Cameron's 'Titanic', which is as ridiculous as Stone's 'JFK.' Why oh why did Cameron, having been handed one of the most copiously documented and most dramatic stories of all time, feel the need to embellish it with an adolescent love story? The director of 'Parkland' shows much more artistic discipline not to mention better taste. He knows he's got a helluva story and he sticks very closely to it. So this is a movie for grown-ups. In additional to being accurate history, it's a big black cup of hot drama, served up without cream or sugar. It'll certainly keep you awake.

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)

"Parkland" from 2013 is exceptional for telling the story of President Kennedy's assassination in Dallas in a simple yet extraordinary way, showing us the impact it had on the lives of those involved in it, people thrust into an historic situation.The emotional effect the assassination had on those involved makes Parkland a sad, touching story, with no conspiracy theories, just families, secret service, and hospital workers attempting to absorb what they witnessed. From the near-hysteria of Agent Forrest Sorels when he screams that the Secret Service had failed to protect the President, the dazed Abraham Zapruder (Paul Giamatti) with a bombshell in his hand, the intent of Dr. Carrico (Zach Efron), who refused to stop pounding the chest of the President to make his heart start, to Mrs. Kennedy (Kat Steffens) taking off her wedding ring and putting it on her husband's finger, the panicked ripping apart of the plane so the hearse would fit - the film is loaded with moments like these.I did wonder about a few things. The first is I've always believed there was no real attempt to protect Oswald from being shot - just thought I'd bring that up. Certainly the police were aware that there might be an attempt, and they let Jack Ruby walk right up to him. Contrast that with the striking scene of taking Lyndon Johnson to the plane -- surrounded by secret service, his head pushed down as they ran to the car, ran to the plane. Big difference.The second thing I wondered about - this is regarding accuracy - was the discussion in the hospital about the President's blood type. I thought, and I might be wrong, that when the President or First Lady travels, blood of their type is put aside for them at a hospital in a city where they will be.The second thing I wondered about is everyone calling Mrs. Kennedy "Jackie." Certainly people who had a more formal relationship with her referred to her as Mrs. Kennedy.A final thought - Zapruder sold the film to Life magazine because he admired the publication and, according to this movie, asked that the kill shot frame be omitted. That may or may not be so - another side of it is that the publisher of Life had CIA connections and was not trusted by the FBI. Don't know. I do know that Zapruder gave $25,000 to the widow of the police officer Oswald shot, that the film was sold back to him for $1, and that he donated the copyright to the Dealey Plaza Museum. Just think, if this assassination happened today, how many i-phones the FBI would have collected, and how many news programs would have had access to footage that very afternoon.A great companion piece to this is "Four Days in November," which shows footage of the President, Mrs. Kennedy, and the Johnsons on their trip to Texas. In its own way it's as emotional for the audience, watching President Kennedy with his characteristic humor, charisma, and charm giving a speech, Mrs. Kennedy speaking Spanish -- when we know what's coming.For those who remember the assassination, Parkland will be especially powerful. For those who don't, the movie makes you feel as if you are there.

In the aftermath of such high profile tragedies there are inevitable speculations that will surround the event from then onwards. Conspiracy theories have prevailed throughout the years since JFK's assassination and therefore become an instant association in the minds of many people thereafter. This movie decides to focus on the people involved immediately after the assassination and concentrates on how they reacted amidst the chaotic events that unfolded. The acting is superb all round as you watch the story of ordinary people and how they deal with the horror and magnitude of the situation at the time. It provoked me to reassess the way I look at historical events. When I look back in time at historical events I can only associate what I have read and heard about it to the event in my mind. But being there would be totally different from anything we could ever imagine. This movie really focuses on the ordinary people who were there. People not so well known fifty years on after the event whose lives were changed forever. This is done to great effect with the focus on the portrayal of Robert Oswald rather than Lee Harvey. In terms of conspiracy theories - the movie doesn't directly address them...but there are moments that it leaves the viewer an open assessment on possible theories. For example: suspicions were raised for some theorists that the body was removed too quickly without a proper post mortem examination allowing for potential tampering of evidence. However the way this scene is played out in Parkland - you could see how moving the body immediately could have seemed like the appropriate thing to do during those moments of chaos. This movie is fast paced, well acted and thought provoking which makes it a success for me. If there is a final message that it leaves me with it's this: after death the legacy of people and how they are remembered changes greatly from one person to the next. What will always remain is the sorrow and suffering of those closest to them.