Avis des utilisateurs

I hate to criticize a documentary that is about a school shooting - but this should have been far better.

I don't deny that intense emotions were involved, but at the risk of sounding politically incorrect this drifted at times into self-indulgent sentimentalism.

Certain scenes were repetitive. This film should have encompassed more than the three or four survivors and parents of victims than the film showcased. We learn nothing of those who were physically injured - what about them?

We learn from the father of a victim that the shooter was involved in many other incidents known to the police - this could have been explored more deeply.

The sequences of basketball games were overly long and a distraction.

This film needed editing. It should have been far more visceral than it was.

Why didn't the documentarians interview Emma Gonzalez who gave such an impassioned speech in Washington DC??

I agree with one of the main points of the film. NO ONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PURCHASE AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON.

This documentary is a great example of what some documentaries are capable of doing. Many struggle to accomplish this feat because just finding enough pieces to create a movie that makes sense can be difficult when you are having to rustle up footage from years ago and splice it into interviews conducted later. For the team that made "After Parkland" they were fortunate to not only be covering a story which captivated millions and played on the news for weeks (meaning lots of footage to work with), they also were on the ball when it came to flying down within a day to start filming for the movie. With circumstances like that, they are able to be assured that the plot driven part of the film will come together more easily and focus on the truly rare find in documentaries, something that transcends plot.

I'll admit it. My expectation of this film would that it would primarily be political in nature and chronicle various efforts to pass gun control reform measures into law. I thought it would be primarily about activism. It is about those things but it does several things I did not expect and, I would argue, is not primarily about gun control.

First, this film is far more balanced than I thought it would be. Maybe balanced isn't the right word. Balance implies that there is a debate in the film about whether we should pass new gun laws or arm teachers or a million other things and they all get equal time and treatment. This is not the case. It does, however, present a holistic picture where the various viewpoints of many people are given. Some of the parents who lost kids are for stricter gun laws. Some are not. Some kids who lost friends want to march in the streets. Others do not. Some want to go into politics. Some just want to return to normal life.

This is actually how the film transcends. By not choosing to emphasize one side over the other we end up getting a window into people's hearts and lives that wouldn't be possible with a more propaganda style film. Because the choice was made to not make a propaganda film the film begins to feel sub-textually about grief. It's about loss. It's about the ways that people react to grief and loss differently.

It's intense but SO powerful and important. It's raw and shows what the public hasn't been shown. It hurts to watch but it's really eye-opening.

This is the heart breaking story of the people left behind when 17 students were slaughtered at their school in Parkland. Hundreds of people shattered by the murders and all so some moron can own an assault rifle.

Appalling that adults would come on this site and add 1 star reviews of the movie because of their sad support for guns and the slaughter carried out by them.

This shows just how devastating School shootings are and why we need to do EVERYTHING in our power to prevent them from ever happening again.