After an entire town is massacred, the lone survivor Francisco Salazar is arrested for the murders. The police say he killed everyone even though he had his camera and took photos which show others committing the carnage.
So why is Salazar accused without any real proof? Is it racism? The sheriff is white and Salazar is a Mexican immigrant. Do they need someone to blame and he’s the only one alive? Is it pressure for a quick arrest? And why does the prosecution and sheriff ignore the roll of film Salazar shot?
The movie is done as if it’s a documentary. The story is laid out by a narrator who takes us in chronological order to the different locations in town as he spells out what happened. There are maps of the town and a clear path of how the carnage occurred.
There are interviews with people who knew Salazar and people who are angry at Salazar because they think he killed their family members. There are photographers who comment on why someone would take photos of this carnage - you want someone to know what happened. Plus when you’re behind the camera, you feel indestructible, like nothing can touch you. And we get to see Salazars photos in order of how they were shot which gives us a feel for things getting more and more out of hand.
This is a nicely done footage movie with an interesting story. It was so well done that when I started watching it, I wasn’t sure if it was actually a documentary about something that really occurred. I had to google it to confirm if it was real or not. That’s impressive because usually found footage movies are obviously not real. It was the way they wove the interviews with the maps and photos. Plus the people seemed real rather than actors playing a role in a film.
No comments:
Post a Comment