3-4. I can see why some people are saying what they're saying about the film being edited in such a way to evoke emotion from the audience. But on the other hand, this isn't an outsider's perspective on the crimes and their impact on the victims' friends and family. So, in a sense, I get why the director chose to edit and texture the events with the feelings he has about them. It isn't objective, but kinda justified.
What a bad piece of filmmaking, with an awful, fast-paced, repetitive narration and unbearable, nauseating, MTV-like edition. The harrowing sequence of events of this heart-wrenching story are appropriated by the director and trivialized with the purpose of persistently forging a video memorial so one-sided that it will likely trigger feelings opposite to what is intended.
When I watched this, I didn't know what the movie was about at all. I just guessed the story-line by its title. But...even when I write this, I breath deeply, I'm still ******* mad. I got surprise and more surprise when the documentary playing until its last minute. Will shake everyone emotionally.
Composed almost completely of home video footage and interviews shot on consumer camcorders, the technical intimacy of Kuenne's pet project underscores just how sad and beautiful his friend's (and friend's parents') life was, and fully enables the audience to know a dead man and his plight. Exploitative? Perhaps (but then, what was Hitchcock?). Its audacity and ferocious editing lingers with the viewer for days.
5 - Ironically, what made it hard for me to get into this film might be one of the reasons for which people love it the most; the way it's scored and cut together (melodramatically, and occasionally employing repetitive, slightly-altered loops for effect) is thematically-reinforcing to an extent where I just found it off-putting and condescending.