77 Minutes

I was 8 when this happened so I hadn't heard anything about it until now. It's absolutely heartbreaking. Unimaginable suffering in this community.

The questions Charlie Minn asked the police officers were ridiculous. I don't know if Charlie Minn was alive in 1984 when this tragedy occurred but knowledge of mass shootings was minimal. Every police department did not employ officers who had experience responding to them. It's not like it is today. People weren't carrying cell phones. Information was not received in minutes. Of course things could've been done differently, lessons were learned, protocol was changed. But to personally attack individual officers is so naïve and hurtful. No officer arrived on scene and thought "we'll just sit bank and let this play out". He makes it sound like they chose to let people die. These officers did what they knew to do at the time.

Brave victims tell their stories. Lot of information and footage from the time. Do not watch if you cannot handle crime scene footage. Director comes off as a guy looking for scandal and to blame the police. Asking victims if anyone could have grabbed the shooter. Why things took as long as they did. Comes off rude to victims who are speaking about a horrific experience. Very biased and misses the mark on what everyone involved went through. Director/interviewer is cold and clearly looking to be a person who's going to uncover some conspiracy. Asks a LOT of speculative questions that can't possibly be answered by those he asks.

Heartbreaking story and I can safely say no horror movie in my experience comes close to the real life horror of this story. That being said, I'll agree with 95% of the other reviewers who fairly criticize the slanted view the director of this film takes towards law enforcement. Hope you learn something from the well deserved slamming you're taking here, but I doubt it.

77 Minutes (2016)

*** (out of 4)

This documentary takes a look at the 1984 San Ysidro massacre where a gunman entered a McDonalds and eventually killed twenty-one people in seventy-seven minutes before he was shot by a sniper.

77 MINUTES is a documentary that I have mixed feelings on. As with most documentaries, the filmmaker certainly has an opinion on the subject and director Charlie Minn has no problem putting himself on screen. We hear him asking questions. We often see him asking the questions. The film even ends with him questioning what happened that day.

I'll get the good stuff out of the way first. The film does a very good job at taking a look at a tragic event and I thought it was great that it focused on the victims. We get to hear some heroic stories from that day and we also get to see the damage that the survivors had. The documentary pays a nice tribute to those people and it makes the right decision not to say the killer's name. These stories are heartbreaking and rather depressing to listen to but they are well told.

The controversy comes from two things. One, the director decided to show the actual police video, which includes a look at all of the dead bodies including an eight-month-old baby. These images are hard to look at and I'm sure most people would rather hit the FF button rather than look at them and that's understandable. I don't think the director was doing it to exploit the victims but to show how bad the carnage was.

The biggest issue I had with the film is the fact that the director decides to play a "Monday morning quarterback" and goes after the police. He constantly attacks the police and their decisions on that day and he even goes as far to attack a few of the people he is interviewing. To me this was just downright stupid and some of the questions were poorly done. I mean, what would you tell the victims today? Really? Clearly the director wanted the police to know they were the cause for this and this whole mentality was rather stupid to me.

Even more stupid was the final message right before the credits where the director attacks the police even more. It really seemed like the director was looking at this 1984 event as something that happened today. Things were a lot different back then and not everything was handled the same way. Mass shootings weren't common in 1984 so obviously they were handled differently. I understand not naming the killer but to attack the police more than the psycho who went in there and did the killing was just stupid.

Clearly, the documentarian is biased, attempting to incite anger and blame against the police department for their delay in responding to the scene. Poor fact checking as he questions former SWAT commander, Jerry Sanders, for faulty beeper (from 1984!), being at a gathering where "alcohol was being consumed" (false), and not giving sniper "green light". Documentarian degrades the memories of those lost and traumatized by focusing his film on blame while he himself has no tactical training. Such a shame.

Learning from mistakes made in approaching a mass-shooting scene, trying to apprehend the perpetrator(s) is how imrovements are made, how new generations of law rnforcement are trained. In 1984, mass shootings were relatively non-existent. The interviewer seems determined to ignore the conditions and point out hypothetical 'what if' scenarios - who can know those answers, those outcomes?