77 Minutes (2016) Reviews

• A political statement

  blumdeluxe2017-03-09

  One of the main characteristics of a good documentary for me is that it provides objective information about a certain topic or incident, leaving it to the audience to draw their own conclusions. While it is of course fine to raise questions, also those that can be discussed controversially, it is in my belief not the task of a documentary to serve as a subjective political statement. This is a movie about a terrible mass shooting. I appreciate that it focuses on the victims and gives word to their loved ones. I hope that they feel that their destinies are not forgotten. At the same time I do not understand why footage from the crime scene has to be shown, that seems a bit respectless towards the victims. My main problem with this otherwise highly interesting documentary is that it draws easy conclusions to find a guilty one, in this case the police. Even though the police men in this film provide believable and serious reasons for why they could not save more lives, they are permanently portrayed as being responsible for the death of the victims. First of all this is a terrible crime. No one else but the shooter should be held responsible. That of course doesn't mean that the case shouldn't be investigated and that there weren't perhaps mistakes in how the police forces were organized. But to attack them time and again and blame them for hesitating to shoot randomly or be heroic enough to trade their lives seems highly unfair to me. The movie shows that there are a lot of untold stories and tragedies surrounding this incident and it portrays some of the aspects in a very professional way. But in the end I cannot help but get the impression that here a filmmaker placed himself and his believes above objective information. And that cannot be good.

  More

• What is the filmmaker hoping to achieve?

  Gtchuckd2017-06-13

  There are always tough aspects when you watch a documentary about such an awful act of violence by someone. The overall incident was well documented and the interviews with the victims gave the sense of how awful this was, though the crime scene video of the inside of the restaurant seemed a little gratuitous but that's fine. What really overshadowed the whole situation was the filmmakers desire to position the police as being incompetent and costing an unknown number of lives that would have been saved had they not been the worst police in the history of the world I guess. As someone wielding a camera and a microphone he seems to have a lot to say about what officers should have done and that protocol should have been different. The only reason 21 people were killed here was due to a single man who was a monster. Leave your feelings towards police out of it and just focus on the story. Too over the top with that slant he was putting on it.

  More

• Unbelievable tragedy. confused about film maker's agenda though.

  thetonyroll2017-06-11

  The content could speak for itself. What happened that day was awful and unimaginable. Watching news reports and segments on YouTube would probably serve the story better though. Showing the actual images and video of the murdered victims was unnecessary and irresponsible. In addition, the way the film maker seems to provoke a sense that somehow it was law enforcement's fault without asking questions to actually explore the situation leads me to question his motives and the message of the movie. My guess is he was using the victims and their story in his own cheap conspiracy.

  More

• Worthless. Below Amateur. A Perfect Example of What Not To Do

  Nicsho2017-10-31

  IMDb has a 1,000 word limit on reviews. My first draft for this movie, 77 Minutes, came in at slightly under 10,000 words. Point by point, I wanted to make myself very clear as to why I thought this was one of the worst documentaries, if not one of the worst films I've ever seen in my entire life, but since I need to cut it back, here's the basics: -The graphics are fantastic for 1986. I specifically remember NBC running bold, square & solid-color graphics like this as promos for the Olympics, so that's cool. But in 2017, this is just a hint that maybe Charlie Minn, the director, had no idea what he was doing. There are MSPaint-quality arrow graphics pinned to the screen, supposed to point at a person, I guess, but the cameraman is dodging bullets and thus the camera is flailing around wildly, so the crappy arrow graphic pointed at nothing. If nothing else, Mr. Minn, please look into "Motion Tracking" for your next tasteless film. -I wouldn't be surprised to discover the "Music" was royalty-free Halloween sound effects. Silence would have been much better than this garbage. -I have taught editing on multiple NLE's for 10+ years, and in that time I've never seen a student project edited worse than this film. Director Charlie Minn clearly has no control over himself, and will use extremely graphic footage of massacre victims bodies essentially as filler video during interview subjects, mentions of the scene, or just cause someone sneezed, I guess. Any chance to be tasteless is taken, and it feels more like he's trying to be edgy than portray the horror of the massacre itself. It's tasteless and disrespectful, and based on his previous work, not out of the ordinary for this director, Charlie Minn, very important you know his name, FYI. -This should be called "The Charlie Minn Show", because director Charlie Minn is in many interview shots, including one that starts with him fully in-frame, then pivots to the interview subject, out of focus. It screams "LOOK AT ME! I'M CHARLIE MINN! DON'T FORGET ABOUT ME, BECAUSE I'M THE DIRECTOR, CHARLIE MINN!!" There's even a graphic 5 minutes into the film with him pointing out the shooters house that reads "Charlie Minn-Director" just so you know. He's everywhere in this film, and it reeks of ego stroking. -His interviews have a strong agenda he refused to pivot from or even learn to change his mind regarding: the cops could have moved faster. Maybe that's a good point, but he presents his thesis in the worst possible way here, with questions ranging from "So, in retrospect, no guilt?" To "A bullets a bullet, right?" (As in "Why not shoot at the gunman?" despite civilians still being trapped in there). Charlie Minn, don't forget he's the director, is such a terrible interviewer that during his questions with the SWAT Commander, I cringed so hard I cramped my jaw up. -A documentary like this should be about multiple subject matters: the victims, the aftermath of the shooting, cleanup efforts, memorializing, the long-term ramifications of the shooting in the context of the local community or even the nation, etc., but instead Charlie Minn, the director, hinges everything on "The cops weren't fast enough", despite the interview subjects showcasing very clearly why Minn's action movie hero tactics of rushing a hostage situation or shooting wildly into a scene with hostages is a terrible, stupid, no good, very bad idea. He has powerful interview material, but squanders it, which is a damming indictment of his lack of skill. Charlie Minn should not be handling material as serious and tragic as this. This is a worthless little film, and I feel terrible for everyone involved. Except the director. Charlie Minn. He really wants you to know his name. And you should, so you know to steer clear of his work.

  More

• Completely disagree with the approach of the Director

  Jg08482018-10-02

  If you didn't know who Charlie Minn was before this documentary, trust me he'll make sure you won't forget. The guy inserts himself in almost every interview and it comes off as a desperate egocentric way of saying "Remember I'm the director! Don't forget who I am!" You'll hear testimony from victims & responders & then out of nowhere for no reason at all, Charlie Minn will insert himself into the film just to make sure you remember who he is. If you aren't familiar with the tragedy that occurred in 1984 then you might find the 1st half engaging, to his credit, Charlie Minn does do fairly well showing the perspectives of victims & 1st responders and balancing it out with pictures & news report stock footage. Where the film falls flat is with Charlie Minn's journalistic approach, Charlie Minn doesn't come off as a level headed documentarian but a biased news reporter. One of the biggest issues I have with this film is that it has an over reliance of stock footage from the crime scene and it's not just shown for a few seconds it's shown throughout the film and it's beyond disturbing to watch. You see the bodies of men, women & children & even a baby. It's clear Charlie Minn is trying to use shock value to get the audience more engaged into the tragedy but it's completely unnecessary, we know this is a horrible event and we don't need to be shown the corpses of the poor victims every 30 seconds. Another issue I have is Charlie Minn's approach to directing, as a filmmaker myself I know that documentaries shouldn't be biased and try to keep everything neutral that way the audience comes to their own conclusions. Charlie Minn tells the audience how they should feel, he wants you to be mad at the police and blame them for so many lives lost. It's clear from his questions & answers what his goal is. He's trying to point a finger to blame and he focuses a lot of his blame on the police for taking so long to take the shooter down. I understand he thinks the police should have acted much faster but it's clear from his answers to first responders at the time that he's very naive and ignorant to the protocol and orders of law enforcement. Mr Minn needs to keep in mind that this took place in 1984, a time when mass shootings were not very common, he also has to take into account how the shooting effected the community and how it is today, has there been any other mass shootings in this city? Is crime in this city an issue? Do citizens feel unsafe still? Are citizens content with the way police do their job today? These are questions left unanswered that I wish the documentary went more into depth with. One of the first responders says he had a chance to take out the shooter at one point but didn't because he didn't know the circumstances of the situation, he didn't know whether or not the shooter had an accomplice and the shot he would have taken would have gone through a glass door which means there was a high chance it would have ricocheted off and missed. Personally I think the officer's reasons are valid and completely understandable, but Mr Minn makes it clear he thinks he should have taken the shot when he says "A bullet's a bullet". That response alone tells you everything you need to know about Charlie Minn's naiveness. In conclusion I would have to say this tragedy deserves better, the film is mostly just a recap of events. Aside from the victims & first responders perspectives, there's really not much else the film adds, it doesn't even have much follow up with the victims, it's just having them relive that horrible day & a couple of sentences of what they're doing today. Charlie Minn may have had good intentions but his "style" and ego get in the way of maintaining a balanced and neutral documentary. Whether you agree with his views or not, it still comes off as unprofessional and biased. That's not what documentary filmmaking is.

  More