writerasfilmcritic

Parkland is worth watching but it is better to go on from there and review historical accounts for a more accurate rendering of the incidents in question. For example, Giamatti's rendition of Abraham Zapruder may have been reasonably good, especially his reaction to Kennedy's death, which was perhaps his best moment, but it's hard to believe that the Secret Service kept asking his permission to do this or that with the film, which was important evidence of a very serious crime. The actor who played Lee Harvey Oswald may have done the best job. You got the sense of what a jerk he was, constantly lying about what was obviously true. He HAD shot Officer Tippit, according to several eye witnesses. When arrested, he had the handgun on him that did it and he tried to use it on the arresting officers. He owned the rifle found near the sniper's nest at the SE corner window on the sixth floor of the TSBD. His prints were all over that area and the expended shells were there, too. All bullet fragments found in the victims' bodies or in the presidential limousine were traced to that rifle alone. Both the Warren Commission AND the House investigation AGREED that all shots HAD to come from behind and above the president, and not from in front, as many people erroneously believe. Further, a few weeks prior to Nov. 22, 1963, Oswald had attempted an assassination of General Walker, an outspoken right wing nut in Dallas, and according to his wife, was ready to assassinate other politicians (such as Johnson or Nixon) who happened to come into town. To run with the idea that it was a conspiracy (which it still may have been) and that Oswald was merely a patsy is to ignore quite a lot of evidence. That ongoing controversy aside, I still found a number of small objectionable inaccuracies that were made out of ignorance or for artistic effect. Was the director even alive in 1963? I love all these younger people who think they know more about this traumatic event than all of us who were traumatized by it long before they were born and who have devoured everything we could on that and related subjects for several decades. Such criticisms aside, after seeing the movie, I went back and reviewed a number of materials I have in my library that relate to the events depicted in the movie. As such, it has made a contribution, getting people to think about and remember what happened. However, I have to wonder why Hollywood is so completely unable to bring actors to the story who really resemble JFK and Jackie Kennedy or who even remotely remind me of them. In this flick, you never really see the president but the actress who played Jackie, although sympathetic, is not really all that convincing, save for the pink suit she wore that day. Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy was very beautiful and sophisticated, not at all mousey. She gave men the hots all over the globe.

After they survive the tsunami, his indulgent mom calls Lucas so many times that it will drive you up a tree, which is where the pair finally find themselves after being hit by the wave and nearly dragged out to sea in the backwash. Somehow, they didn't drown outright, which comes off as a tad hard to swallow. The experience scratched up the kid and hurt the mom more seriously, but the worst part was when a local villager drug her through the mud in a misguided effort to save her. That, I seem to recall, is what made her absolutely filthy and she never got cleaned off, not even when they were delivered to a hospital. There, she ended up in surgery, still muddied of course, even though the doctors and nurses were decked out in scrubs and masks and both they and the operating room were spotless. The contradiction between the filthy patient and the sterile surgical team was rather startling and silly. Movies and television don't understand the first frigging thing about sterile procedure, and I include in that pointed criticism the stupid show called "ER" that made George Clooney's career take off. Just because a health care professional or a detective dons latex gloves doesn't mean they can touch any nonsterile object (like a gruesome corpse), grab their pen and notebook or a doorknob, and then remove said gloves and regrab the same now contaminated pen and notebook or doorknob. If you don't understand why, then I don't know how to explain it to you any plainer than that. It's why public restrooms still have a door that opens in rather than out, despite other improvements that limit cross contamination. You have to grab the door handle to exit, and you must have noticed how many people simply don't bother washing their hands after using the facilities. If, after washing your own hands, you don't grab that handle with a paper towel, then you just got that guys germs all over your hand, you know, the dumb slob who just emerged from the stall after making a real stink. Think about it. In any case, wouldn't someone have cleaned these people off at least minimally when they were given a bed in a hospital? And wouldn't a person brought into surgery certainly have been properly prepped for the experience? Not in this movie. The entire family was muddied from the getgo and still muddy by the time they hopped on a jet for Singapore. It was absurd. "Hey, folks, just allow our seats to absorb all that disgusting filth. Considering what a bad day you've had, we won't insist that you minimally clean up before boarding." Not to harp on this issue too much, but one of the first things you should do after you are caught in a catastrophe and survived is to clean up. Those cuts and scratches and abrasions will become infected, especially in floodwaters, which are frequently swarming with bacteria. I guess they forgot about that niggling little problem when they made this dumb flick. Better to leave the actors "realistically filthy" so as to emphasize the extent of the terrible ordeal they had just experienced and the level of shock they are exhibiting. That major objection aside, this movie was schmaltzy, unrealistic, and rather stupid. In no way does it communicate the extent of the real tragedy that occurred that day, when upwards of 200,000 people were killed. The best scene is the flashback of the moment the tsunami hit the resort, in which the mother tumbles over and over in the water, gets hit by objects, and somehow doesn't need to breathe. It's better than the depiction of the tragedy when it occurred, by the time of which you are totally sick of the family and don't much care what happens to them.

I've seen Karen Black in several roles where I didn't care for the character she portrayed. The thoroughly dependent and constantly whining waitress she played in Five Easy Pieces was a good example. You could understand why Jack Nicholson had trouble committing to a serious relationship with her. In Born to Win, however, she is easily the most likable personality in the film. How many women would start an affair with a man who was attempting to steal her car? Her beauty, her sense of humor, and her spirit shine through immediately and continue throughout. George Segal's unrepentant junkie character, who lost his wife to a sleazy, backstabbing, pimping drug dealer, somehow manages to charm us more than most of the other actors, including the police, who think nothing of planting evidence on anyone they feel like at the moment. There is something hip about this movie, not because it glorifies heroin addiction, which it certainly does not, but because it seems to show a slice of New York life in a fairly realistic manner. The death of JJ's best friend, Billy, from "a hot shot" that was meant for JJ, the armed "take offs" that the dopers pull on one another simply because they really need a fix or are having a bad day (with no offense otherwise intended), the way the corrupt cops are portrayed, the shots of the city, too often grimy yet somehow alluring -- this is interesting cinema. I think I bought this DVD for a buck and have watched it a number of times. It's a good movie.