MovieChat Forums > lemieuxreview
lemieuxreview (3)
Posts
Replies
Nice. When I finished the movie I was very disappointed, thinking the whole time Sparma was the killer, but then quickly realized how clever the director and writer were to make me think this way. It wasn't until further reflection and conversation with my better half (she's way smarter than me anyway) that I realized I had been lead down the wrong path, just like the police were. I feel this movie is actually very good now and will probably watch again with different eyes.
That is all hearsay evidence. The director is just trying to lead you on in pinning Leto as the murderer. Sorry, but no true, convict-able evidence is given, and that's the point.
1. The movie shows Sparma leading Deacon to the remote roadway mile marker 467 where the second murder victim was found a couple hundred yards off the road; a location that had never been previously revealed to the public. - This wasn't a remote mile marker, and Sparma had a police scanner where he could have easily overheard the call and went there to see for himself
2. Sparma’s fingerprint matched 11 identifiers from the one found at Julie Brock’s apartment where his appliance repair company had been hired to fix the fridge just days before she was found murdered. - They clearly stated that even the police forensic analysis had 9 identifiers and maybe "he was the murderer", meaning that 11 identifiers is not a guilty match.
3. In his trash was a beer can matching the brand from Brock’s fridge. - This is the director leading you once again. Complete coincidence and not true evidence.
4. The camera focused on the face of Tina Salvatore, the witness from the start of the movie, as she connected Sparma’s gait at the police station from when she was stalked off the roadway in October
1990. - Again, leading you on. Sparma never owned "fancy boots", and when she was at the police station she saw his face before the picture (she never actually saw his face or could identify anything but the boots at the gas station) then saw his picture and "guessed" that might be him. The cops were upset she saw him in handcuffs first because that is leading the witness and that can't be used in court.
Sorry but those are the facts and it's clear that Sparma didn't do it. This movie makes you think a little deeper than what is simply presented to you. The cops, in this particular case, were so infatuated with Sparma (yes, he was a sick, twisted guy who was infatuated with killers) but he never killed.
Sorry, but I think you are missing the whole point of the film. There was zero evidence of Leto being the killer. He drove a completely different car, his truck they searched had no evidence even though they tore it apart, his apartment had nothing but some news paper clippings in a badly hidden hole in the floor, he had a handy cap and was simply a wierdo wannabe who tried to turn himself in 8 years ago for a murder he didn't commit. One of the other cops even state "Walk-in confessors are never the killers" Yes, the film is made to steer you in the direction of making you think he is the killer, when he really isn't. This is a movie about police incompetence and them latching on to a suspect until they get what they want... a conviction.
View all replies >