Yes, this film certainly brings out the handkerchiefs, but why is everyone so oblivious of how poorly it was made? The editing was really amateurish and hard to watch, and the inserts from the home movies were carelessly edited in and even glib in tone. This film was so maudlin and over-the-top, couldn't the director tone it down a bit? The story was wrenching enough.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I agree with OP. It's a compelling story and the grandparents are the heart and soul of the film, but I felt like it was overlong. At one point I thought I should watch it while doing something else because many of the visuals were unnecessary. The sound editing was average and I felt like the music at the end was over the top maudlin.
However, I liked the mouth cutouts - thought it perfectly served to show how normal people would perceive the inane Canadian justice system. I also appreciated the foreshadowing where he shows Shirley putting Zachary under water in the swimming pool more than once. And of course all the parts with David and Kate are amazing, especially the emotional breakdown at the end (which of course is one time where the director lingers. IIRC he let shots linger when his subjects were emotional). And is there anything more icky than seeing imagery of them having to spend time with Shirley?
I also felt like where the director decided to edit himself into the movie was tone deaf. Even if he was Andrew's best friend ever, it almost puts himself above all the others that we heard from.
*SPOILER*
And as an aside, it's ironic that this movie that turns into a letter to David and Kate is something that would be a gut wrenching thing for them to watch.
Definitely agree with the OP. I don't think the snappy editing and rushed voiceovers fit the story at all, as good as the story is. I much prefer the style of documentaries like Capturing the Friedmans (2003) or Hoop Dreams (1994) in this regard.
As for the story, the legal system failings are just astounding. Luckily, where I live it's near impossible to get bail on a murder charge (the way it should be). The film really takes it to the judge who noted that the crime was 'specific' which it was. The grandparents and others were visibly confused and angry about that justification, and imo it was probably because the concept wasn't clearly explained the judge was wrong in applying it (this is obvious in hindsight with the child's death, but should've been obvious to the judge).
I believe the 'specific' idea refers to spousal killings generally. In homicide there's a common crime of one partner killing the other, and it can be said (probably seen in statistics generally) that this is usually the only killing that occurs - ie the husband/wife only intends to kill the other, and it is a sole act of violence against that person. Though this may apply generally, it shouldn't have been relevant in this case, though it seems as though there was some inability by those in the justice system to characterise the nature of the wife.
The killing was never sure to be specific given the profile of the wife. She wasn't, for example, a wife reacting to years of domestic abuse by killing a husband. She was obsessive and had multiple restraining orders against her. She had many relationships and was unable to hold them properly. She had attempted suicide and was unstable. She appeared generally to be very narcissistic. These factors should have led someone to determine that there was a chance she would be a risk to her child in a murder-suicide family case, but they didn't. The crime she was charged with was one in which the murder was due to the failure of a relationship she held...she then conceieved that the only release to prevent this failure was to kill the other person in the relationship...this is pretty much the way that family murders/family murder-suicides tend to go, yet it didn't seem recognised that the child or others close to the wife could be at risk...so it's no wonder the grandparents were confused about the 'specific' idea.
Anyway, that's all rather OT..
7.5/10.
Is this your homework, Larry?
Gail Welsh is her name and she made a stellar career...
my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings
[deleted]
Could not disagree with you more. As a filmmaker, I was devastated by the rawness of this film. It was perfect and no other filmmaker could have done this.
shareAgree totally with the OP, the editing in particular was abysmal, even if it was intended as a home movie. Almost unwatcheable in parts. It looked like it was put together by an attention deficit sufferer who was desperately trying to cram 5 hours of movie into 90 minutes.
--------------------
Duty Now For The Future
To me the most obnoxious thing about the movie is the editing itself. I love the movie, regardless of how extremely sad it was, but the editing was the only bad part about it.
The sound effects in some parts seemed unnecessary to me, and the #1 thing I can't stand is how it's edited as if everyone is talking over everyone else. There was times I actually felt I needed subtitles to be able to understand what the last person said before the next person started talking, it was a scrambled mess of nonsense at times.
I remember one part where they were playing a phone message from that whack job Shirley and I rewound it several times, still couldn't make out what she was saying because there was someone talking over it. And everything is so sped-up too at times. There needs to be a special re-edit version of the film where someone actually goes in and makes this movie coherent, where you don't have to guess what people are saying half the time, and where everything isn't pushed so close together between interviews. Or just find someone else all together to edit the entire movie. Other than the shoddy editing work, the movie is well worth watching. I've watched it more than a few times.
Well, it has a 94% rating on Rotten Tomatoes from professional movie critics. So maybe they and the director of this movie know more about filmmaking than you do.
shareYes, they must know how to make movies so well. 94% on rotten tomatoes.
That means everyone should like it, even if they can't understand what it's saying because of how badly everything is pushed together.
That must be why I've never seen another documentary quite like this one, where I have problems understanding people because of people talking over people, etc.
You know it's good if it's 94% on rotten tomatoes dude. It HAS to be.
Well, it has a 94% rating on Rotten Tomatoes from professional movie critics. So maybe they and the director of this movie know more about filmmaking than you do.