Barbárie em Sangre de Cristo

This story is a fictional documentary. Very creepy in the way the story builds, but then when it's time to explain what happened, there's nothing. Do these events make sense? We'll never know. How disappointing.

Like the podcast "Serial," this film attempts to uncover what really happened one night when the residents of a small town in Arizona on the Mixican border are massacred, mutilated, and disappeared. It focuses on determining the involvement--guilty or innocent--of the lone survivor, arrested for the apparent crimes and railroaded toward a death sentence.

Not really a mockumentary--it's not making fun of documentaries--but a documentary style of storytelling to recount a fake event. Not really found footage but found photos. The content, documentary style, is mainly interviews with law enforcement, journalists, and photography experts. The discussion is illustrated with clips from a jail house confession and photos taken of the event as it unfolded. A 3-D drawing of the town shows what occurred when and where. The photos are unclear, adding to the mystery of what happened. Likewise, the survivor is alternatingly uncommunicative and incoherent, open to interpretation of what really happened and how he was involved.

For this style of storytelling--where you're told what happened, not shown--the film is pretty good. Tension builds as everyone interprets the vague evidence according to their own biases. As the documentary tries to unravel what really happened, each revelation is even more horrific. I kept thinking, "I can't wait to find out what really caused this!" Unfortunately, I never did. My rating is 8 for most of the film but 2 for the ending.

Unlike the fake 9 and 10/10 reviews, I'll keep it honest and give it a 6. Interesting story and the images are indeed creepy. The problem is, at about 30 minutes in, it's like alright cool, we get the point..now what? What's the twist or turning point gonna be? Well, there's not one. It just continues the same formula..talk, interview, show a couple more scary photos, reinforcing what we already know, and repeat. Over and over. The best way I could describe this is as a one trick pony. You could turn it off after 30 minutes and you'd have gotten the story, minus a few other creepy pics.

I love found footage movies so I'll throw it a 6/10. I can't see traditional viewers enjoying it. **The best part of the movie is an enlightening statement made by a photographer they're interviewing. He talks about the false sense of security you get when looking at scary events through a lens as it makes you feel detached and safe. A great point..logic that should apply to found footage films..kill that whole "why is he still filming complaint

I didn't expect nearly as much as I got, particularly with such a low budget, but it delivered. The film actually doesn't spend much time with the man charged in the murder of an entire town, but instead we get to see what he saw that night using a set of blurry, yet unsettling photos depicting the carnage that went on as he made his way through town. There is no shortage of plot holes that can't be so easily filled in with the racism theme the movie is going for, but the creep factor is dialed to 11. You catch on to what is happening fairly early into the movie, but the most interesting thing is the way it makes an old trope feel new. You'll have a much better experience with it if you avoid any and all spoilers.

I guess that's too many genres for one movie, but I think they're all accurate. The story revolves around an apparent spree-killing in a tiny, destitute Arizona border town near Nogales, Mx. The main suspect is also an amatuer photog and though not initially found, when a roll of film that he had taken during the entire night of the killings is developed, the story takes on a much darker tone. I have a soft spot in my heart for low budget horror films, but this one really is pretty high quality. Only one or two of the actors couldn't pull off the doc/reality part (the sherriff being the most annoying of them). There is a bit of a twist at the end, when one of the characters' book is published, and a "cover-up" is potentially revealed, but for the most part this fizzles at the end unfortunately. Over all, it's really well done for the resources they had, and the photo vs video aspect of the found "footage" was unique and really something I hadn't seen before. If you like "The Bay" but weren't really into the heavy-handedness and lack of "fright" you may just like this a lot.

Sometimes the trailers lie...not this time. For some reason, this movie took some digging to find, a part from its trailers. As far as this sub-genre goes, this movie will be hard to top. I usually fast forward or pause a film, not this time. Not quite a mystery. More like a puzzle that someone keeps handing you pieces of, and even after you can see the basic shape, the pieces keep coming faster.

By my usual 3 categories; story, acting, effects. 1, The story was interest all round. From how it was told; using video interviews, photos, and lastly a clip of found video, and point of view. Pacing was near perfect as we are carried a long. Skillfully put together. 2, the acting was really well done, very believable, no over acting. 3, effects. How do I explain this without spoilers? There is a definite art to what is clearly shown and what is indistinct, hinted at, in a horror movie. This balance was masterfully achieved in this movie. There are no big budget effects. In truth only one small snippet of live action at the end. Mostly its done with B&W photographs taken by the main character. 30 some photos that will leave you very uncomfortable. This film has a great sense of realism. The movie ends, but the story goes on.