Without those four words "inspired by true events", this would rate a slightly higher 6/10 than the 5/10 it gets.
The pace is unduly slow, and the acting, particularly by Marilyn McIntyre as the Lieutenant, was just awful. This could probably have been done better as an episode of any of those unavoidable CSI or Law & Order shows.
The overall story was not bad. A drunk man is found near the scene of the murder of an entire family, and is pressed to confess to the crime, which he does. He had a gun at the scene, and had motive to use it, and in fact did use it.
Except, he probably didn't do it. We're shown red-light violation photos of him heading to the crime scene, at the time he was supposed to have already committed the crimes and was still in the house. Not that it really proves anything one way or another, but it's an uncomfortable question.
Then, it comes: "inspired by true events". Typically when you see this, it's supposed to artificially jar the audience into a sort of "wow that actually happened" moment, and add gravitas to the film. But really, so what? What's a true event? What film ISN'T inspired by "true events" one way or another? After dropping this on the audience, the filmmakers don't bother to tell you what true event was, or who the real people involved in the event were, what happened to them later, or where to read up on it. I just hate that. If you want to tell a story that actually happened, make a documentary. Otherwise, leave the "true events" label out of it.
The pace is unduly slow, and the acting, particularly by Marilyn McIntyre as the Lieutenant, was just awful. This could probably have been done better as an episode of any of those unavoidable CSI or Law & Order shows.
The overall story was not bad. A drunk man is found near the scene of the murder of an entire family, and is pressed to confess to the crime, which he does. He had a gun at the scene, and had motive to use it, and in fact did use it.
Except, he probably didn't do it. We're shown red-light violation photos of him heading to the crime scene, at the time he was supposed to have already committed the crimes and was still in the house. Not that it really proves anything one way or another, but it's an uncomfortable question.
Then, it comes: "inspired by true events". Typically when you see this, it's supposed to artificially jar the audience into a sort of "wow that actually happened" moment, and add gravitas to the film. But really, so what? What's a true event? What film ISN'T inspired by "true events" one way or another? After dropping this on the audience, the filmmakers don't bother to tell you what true event was, or who the real people involved in the event were, what happened to them later, or where to read up on it. I just hate that. If you want to tell a story that actually happened, make a documentary. Otherwise, leave the "true events" label out of it.
