77 Minutes (2016) User Reviews

The Director/Interviewer Ruins It

[michellepitiris · 5/10 · 9 October 2021]

This could've been an excellent doco. It's an absolutely horrific tragedy and a piece of history that deserves to be told but it needs to be done with some class and sophistication. The director (who put himself in this more than he should have) who also interviews the victims and officers on the scene and is so incredibly ridiculous in his line of questioning.

There also should've been a content warning about the police crime scene video.

Blame the shooter not the cops

[cwilsonfcs · 6/10 · 15 June 2018]

It is very well done- except the obvious agenda of shaming the police that put their lives on the line for these people. It's not 20010 when everyone would have cellphones, telling the cops what they would need to help. Their reasons for not storming the building were totally valid for the time. I admire the director for giving the back story of the shooter but not the name. It would have been a much better documentary if the director had remained unbiased and realizes that the only blame lied with the shooter.

A political statement

[blumdeluxe · 5/10 · 9 March 2017]

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.

Completely disagree with the approach of the Director

[Jg0848 · 2 October 2018]

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.

What is the filmmaker hoping to achieve?

[Gtchuckd · 3/10 · 13 June 2017]

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.

The documentary is okay, the directors approach is not

[tmdarby · 1/10 · 16 December 2020]

It was interesting to see some footage and some interviews about this horrible event that I had never seen before. Seeing the director continually go after the police about something that A) he doesn't understand and B) only based on rumor, is kind of appalling in a documentary. The fault of this horrible moment in history lies with Huberty and the director trying to blame other people while making sure he's in front of the camera A LOT, says this is agenda driven.

Shameful and embarassing

[richv-41817 · 6/10 · 23 August 2022]

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.

Great subject; shoddy journalism

[Mr-Fusion · 4/10 · 2 May 2018]

The McDonald's Massacre. Thirty-four years ago, it was the worst shooting in American history and forced the producers of "Red Dawn" to remove a shot of a tank rolling up to a McDonald's from the movie. That little piece of trivia is the reason I was aware of this tragedy in the first place, and it's for that reason that I was psyched for a documentary. Hopefully, a good one.

But "77 Minutes" does not measure up. The movie was produced with an axe to grind, and filmmaker Charlie Minn leaves no illusions about it. His beef is with the police who failed to take immediate action, and almost every officer interviewed is taken to task. You can understand a person in Minn's position who wants answers for those wronged, but this isn't a quest; he's already made up his mind and now the police have to explain why they screwed up. That's not journalism, and it becomes grating after a while.

What Minn does get right however is a refusal to celebrate the killer (I don't think the man's name is even uttered in the film), and instead letting the survivors speak. That's the reason to see this movie. I even appreciate the use of graphic crime scene footage to impress upon our current desensitized state the horrors witnessed that day. Yes, even the gratuitous dead infant shots. It all works to convey the victims' traumas.

I found myself on the side of the police in this movie. Not all of them became politicians, and you can tell that they're sincere in their appraisals of the operation carried out that day; they've clearly wrestled with this for years. And I liked hearing from them. But it's as if Minn lets off the killer as an anomalous crazy and instead demands to know why the police were the bad guys in taking so long to take him down.

And that is abhorrent.

4/10

One of the Earlier Mass Shootings in Depth!

[Sylviastel · 8/10 · 5 March 2021]

Charlie Minn means well but he doesn't try to be objective about the fact that it was one of the first mass shootings in the United States. The massacre occurred on July 18, 1984 in San Ysidro, California right by the Mexican border crossing. The shooter was from Ohio. Minn does not mention the shooter's name as respect to the victims and survivors. Since the shooting happened at a McDonalds fast food restaurant in San Ysidro. There were two in the same city. The casualties were 29 plus the shooter. The police and swat team were unable to determine how many shooters were in the restaurant. The shooter had a home arsenal of firearms. The compelling interviews are with the survivors who still live with the horrors. Why did the shooter do it? While I was enlightened by the news footage. The documentary does show actual police footage which included the deceased victims and the shooter as well. At the time, it was the biggest mass shooting in the country's history. It now comes in at 5th place with the casualties. The shooter was executed by a Sniper. I don't think anyone was prepared for it in 1984. We now have active shooter drills in public schools. We've had many more shootings but the McDonalds massacre should be studied more. The director does pay respect to the victims. I think Minn's final statement was out of line though. You can't blame for police and law enforcement for why they didn't take action sooner with the shooter. I still find the documentary compelling but I didn't like the director's approach.

Heartbreaking, Sad, and Disturbing.

[jay_amer · 7/10 · 17 December 2021]

This Documentary about the horrific Tragedy of 1984 in San Ysidro at a McDonalds, The massacre that happened that day shook the people who lived around the area, and the Mexican Community. It was a tradegy that was considered at the time "The Deadliest Mass Shooting". Watching this documentary about a history in time of the deadliest mass shooting in 1984. A sad and disturbing documentary that sheds light on the victims, the victims families, what happened, could there have been anything done different, etc. Overall, a very sad and tragic documentary of the true Event thats happened which was considered the Deadliest Mass Shooting in History.... 7/10.

Really Good and Really Bad

[lyndalu-45740 · 3/10 · 25 June 2017]

I would have given this documentary a really high rating but they absolutely tried to put the blame on law enforcement rather than the gun man. I finally turned it off, it was disgusting how the interviewer tried to make it sound like it was the police officers did something wrong. Shameful. Because of how much the film maker tried to get the audience to blame the police, I DO NOT recommend watching this. It is a story that needs to be told but not by this obviously biased filmmaker.

Documentary

[vjavierguerra · 9/10 · 27 September 2016]

Seventy seven minutes is depicting the massacre that occurred in San Ysidro, California in 1984. This documentary is based on the victims of the massacre. You never learn the name of the shooter. It is a sober and serious analysis given from the victims point of view. Facts unknown are shown in this documentary. This was a hate crime massacre. It was directed to immigrants of Mexican origin. It was not published as such. It reveals data unknown. It opens your eyes to reality when events unfold and they are not like in the movies. The pain afterwards this massacre in San Ysidro left an eternal mark on the survivors. It is a great documentary!!!!!

Great documentary ... if you can ignore the director

[sei-mein-kollaps-405-394295 · 6/10 · 26 October 2021]

I have no problem with the use of graphic footage and crime scene photos in a true crime documentaries, it's usually expected.

The problem with this is the clear bias of the director, nagging the police over and over about why they didn't go in earlier. He clearly does not know how police operations work, especially when there's no knowledge of exactly what is happening. There could have been hostages inside, it could have just been one robber, it was the 1980s so it's not like they had the same sort of Intel we would have now. He refuses to let it go, and inserts himself into a documentary of which he should be only behind the scenes.

I like true crime documentaries because they are normally properly nonfictional and outline something that has happened. Adding such an insane bias to it changed the responses of those being interviewed into constantly having to defend their decisions. He went out of his way to try to catch them with conflicting stories.

This could have been a great documentary, but it was ruined by terrible questions coming from a clear place of personal opinion.

Shameful Director

[teaganabrahams-27201 · 1/10 · 3 December 2022]

Charlie Minn. I've never been so disgusted. There was no need for all the footage of the victims, especially over and over again. The families shouldn't have to see this. I don't feel they could watch this and feel a sense of happiness with their loved ones stories being told. Your so called investigative reporting just came across as rude and disrespectful. Sure mistakes are made and tactics can always be improved. But in a situation never before seen, in the heat of the moment, trying to follow your training but adjusting to the situation at hand with information from all angles. I'd like to see how you could of perfectly saved the day.

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

[thetonyroll · 2/10 · 11 June 2017]

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.

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

[Nicsho · 1/10 · 31 October 2017]

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.

Heartbreaking Documentary but Some Stupid Comments From the Director

[Michael_Elliott · 6 July 2017]

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.

WARNING!!

[claudiacrane · 7/10 · 10 February 2021]

Extremly graphic! Sensitive viewers please be aware.

Filmmaker plays the blame game

[leengirl · 1/10 · 12 October 2022]

This filmmaker does not hide the fact that he is trying to blame the police for this tragedy. He's antagonistic and tries to badger the police involved into admitting it was somehow their fault that Huberty walked into that restaurant and opened fire. I lived less than 10 miles from where this occurred. I remember this very well. We were all in shock. This was 1984. Things like this never happened, except for the Brenda Spencer shooting several years earlier. Mass shootings were just not commonplace. This happened at the busiest time of the day very close to the busiest border in the world. How dare he try to blame the police who were trying to do their best. People didn't have cell phones. They didn't even have pagers. Nobody was prepared for anything like this. The police, who has been trained, absolutely did the right thing. How are they supposed to know how many shooters there were, who they were, where were they? Several people admit that you couldn't see in the window at that time of the day. Were the police supposed to shoot anyone who came near the window? It was chaos. Were they supposed to run into the building without having correct information and possibly get shot themselves? How would that have helped the people inside? To blame the police like the filmmaker did was vile and disgusting. I was so mad when I saw this. How dare he. It was a traumatic event for all of us in that area and he just came in and invented blame, not on the shooter, James Huberty. I'll never forget that man's name or face. I feel like he needs to apologize to the SDPD for his accusations. You can't look back at something that happened 40 years ago and draw conclusions that he did.

Don't bother with this garbage. Apparently this is a common theme in his docs.

Documentary about the victims of a mass shooting at a San Ysidro McDonald's in 1984

[mike-41483 · 9/10 · 30 September 2016]

Charlie Minn directed and produced this film which focuses on the stories of the victims of the 1984 McDonald's massacre. The shooter's name is never mentioned in the film.

Minn said his goal was to get the victims' stories out there and he was very successful at reaching that goal. The film is filled with many excellent interviews with victims, police, friends and family of the victims. I found Minn's interviewing techniques interesting since he included many controversies as part of his questions. From complaints over slow police response times to the huge question of why the police allowed the shooting to go on for 77 minutes...Minn approaches these and other concerns honestly and in a straight forward manner. Some questions are answered while others are left up to the viewer to decide on.

I was also impressed by the fact that the film contained no active violence but instead focused on the result such extreme violence has on people and on a community! As you might expect, the film is very difficult...but very important. Actual police footage of the carnage is included as part of the film so I do not recommend it for young children.

I hope the viewing of this film will lead people to have conversations about why we continue to have mass shootings.

Director is awful. Very powerful, heartfelt story.

[kristenmcfarlane · 7/10 · 12 October 2023]

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.

Shame on the director...

[clintstevens · 1/10 · 3 January 2020]

The director obviously had an agenda; to put the blame on the police department for this horrific mass murder. I commend the members of law enforcement for their grace and composure while being subjected to the merciless slanted questions put to them by the director of this 'cheap shot' documentary.

Shame on the director/producer for his blatant bias and contempt for the police. I refuse to mention his name for the same reason the shooter has remained anonymous; why give him a platform to make himself famous at the expense of others?

Must watch

[nigelmacdonald-97173 · 10/10 · 13 June 2022]

Sadly, almost 40 years later none of the lessons from this horrific massacre have been learned. This should be watched by every American. Especially those who use the second amendment of the constitution to espouse their 'god given' right to arm themselves with assault weapons. The lunacy of one man is only matched by those who choose not to do anything about stopping this from happening over and over again.

BIASED REPORTING

[billseamans · 6/10 · 7 November 2023]

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?

Cringe Worthy

[Fancytower · 2/10 · 26 August 2018]

This is a "documentary" about the massacre at the San Ysidro McDonald's in 1984. It was a horrific attack at a McDonald's by some crazy guy. This in itself is worthy of a documentary.

But the director, Charlie Minn, decides to insert himself in the story and that's why I give it such a low score. It's not JUST that Mr. Minn blames the police, it's his interview techniques and his weird way of focusing the camera on himself. So weird. Minn is trying to play Monday morning quarterback 35 years later and it's embarrassing......for him.

This was a horrific massacre that should have been made into a fascinating documentary in the hands of a more skilled and less egotistical director.