Movies Reviews
Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father - Movie Review
By Ron Wilkinson Dec 7, 2008, 19:35 GMT
On the Web
Latest Headlines in Movies
- 1. Dominic Cooper replaces Clive Owen in Cities
- 2. Michael Bay confirmed to direct Transformers 4
- 3. Nicolas Cage's 'wild' Ghost Rider experience
- 4. Peter Jackson to direct Tintin sequel
- 5. Abraham Lincoln kicks supernatural ass in first 'Vampire Hunter' trailer
Older Talkback
page: 1
this is a horribly callous and thoughtless review. I didn't know either Mr. Bagby or his son or anyone in the film, and I am profoundly affected by it. This film is about humanizing the victims in what could have been a horrible tabloid story when profiled on Court TV. I do not see it as tabloid journalism in the slightest - I see it as a profound act of love on the part of the filmmaker. If you did not find yourself moved at the very least by the death of the child, then maybe you need to search in yourself just when and where exactly you lost your heart,and how you can get it back.
I disagree. I saw Dear Zachary at the Hot Docs Film Festival in Toronto this past spring and have thought about the movie off and on since. Of course, as you have seen the movie, you know that there is a difference between killing a lover and what happened here. It was not at all straight forward.. there were more than two people involved. As well, what is so unique about this film is the amount of footage the film maker had as he and Andrew were best friends. As far as it twisting and turning, Kurt did start out to make the film to give to Zachary. He was not trying to exploit Andrew B., but provide a recording of who Andrew B. was for his son. It is impossible to not react to this film, whch you did in your own way (dismissive). For me,it is pretty hard to not be angry at the lack of background check that should have been carried out with Shirley Turner. I am assuming that you looked at the website and reviewed her crazily crazy past, of which the authorities were either unaware or disregarded. This film has received almost all wonderful reviews (see New York Times,New York Post). I am guessing that either something struck a chord with you or you have (sorry) a case of the 'lofties', where you cannot relate to such a personal story of no international or ecological significance. Whatever...I disagree with your review and tend to think the other fifty reviewers and numerous granters of film festival awards are right about this one.
wow you should be ashamed of yourself for writing such a review and making assumptions about the filmmaker. this isn't just a documentary. its a gift to all of us that didnt get a chance to know andrew bagby and for you to piss on it like that... you live up to the name of this website.
i suggest you stop reviewing movies and go find your soul.
Heaven forbid you ever have to witness such an injustice by a so called 'justice system' that would allow something so tragic to happen to anyone near and dear to you.
The mere evolution of the experiences as they unfolded demands an audience especially of those who could make a difference to avoid future tragedies like this which are almost certainly happening at this moment in Canada, from happening in the future.
That alone justifies the release of this documentary. Putting the hundreds of faces and names tied to the tragic events of this horrific story merely allows it to hit home and not be lost amongst the hundreds of other stories out there.
It's sad that something this basic needs to be explained to some people. Surely the fact that you get paid to be critical has gone to your head and has completely done away with any trace of humanity you may have had at some point in your life....if you had any to begin with.
Perhaps what bothers you the most is the fact that Andrew's friends number well into the hundreds for each of the many memorials that he was given in the U.S., England and in Canada, while I seriously doubt that you could scrape up enough people to say a kind word at your passing to fit in a sub-compact car.
What an awful review! This film was so moving to me that after seeing it last night it was the first thing I thought of when I woke up. Are you that heartless to write something that cruel and negative? It was wonderfully done and heartwrenching. Andrew's parents are to be commended for having to accept and overcome what they have. Andrew definitely got his amazing spirit and love of life from them.
I totally disagree with you. I was moved so much by this film.
Please pay no attention to this heartless and ignorant review. It's dead wrong.
Ron Wilkinson obviously is hiding his true motive or has some serious empathy issues to address.
Your review is completely missing the boat on this exceptional, well done documentary on life, love, death and the enduring strength of Andrew's parents. As a parent I learned so much from this movie. It should be nominated for many awards. In life atitude is everything. You had the wrong/bad atitude when viewing this movie and writing the review. Your entitled to your opinion but how dare for you to assume what others will get out of the movie.
I thought this review was off the mark. I've read and watched hundreds of true crime cases and this one touched me deeply, not because the crime was so unusual but because of the strength of Andrew's parents. Even before the director wrote 'Dear Kate and David' at the end, I knew it was as much their story as Andrew's. Their love and selfless devotion is what makes this movie so memorable. The film also shows the saddest and most ignored part of violent crime -- the victims left behind and all those affected by one person's death. I think this country's callous attitude toward violence has a more direct link to this particular crime than it does to the war in Iraq or African genocide.
I just saw this film, and out of curiosity I went to Rotten Tomatoes.com. There I was assaulted by RW's review. This guy has got to be out of his mind. Or perhaps it's just sheer incompetence that led him to write so brainless a review. Dear Zachary is one of the most powerful documentaries I have ever seen. Although I have no connection to the people involved (the parents), I came away feeling as if I had come to know them intimately, and I cared deeply about them and the agony they endured. To compare this film to one of the countless true crime shows on television is as idiotic as anything I have ever read. RW might visit Rotten Tomatoes to get a dose sanity and some insight into just how out flat out wrong he is. Actually,as I look back over the review, I have to ask myself - is this a gag?
I cannot believe that anyone would come away from this documentary and not be moved. I knew nothing about these people before watching and could not stop thinking about it the next day. While there are many other cases similar to this (in terms of the crime), the raw emotions of Andrew's parents is something I've never seen before on other crime shows or news pieces. This film very effectively gets the audience to connect to Andrew and his parents, and as a result there are going to be a lot of angry people who will actually take the effort to demand that laws and procedures be changed to prevent something like this from happening again. That can't be said for most movies, tv shows, documentaries, etc.
This film won't mean much to those who didn't know the man? WHAT?! Is Mr. Wilkinson saying that the rest of us are so lacking in empathy, compassion and morality that we will fail to be stirred by outrage at the murder of a man, and then his only child, while the Canadian justice system and Child Protective Service looks on?
Unfortunately, this is not just a story about poor Zachary, but about too many children left in horrifying circumstances by officials too lazy and complacent to take a stand.
In fact, I say Thank God this film was made. Thank God Mr. Bagby wrote his book. Perhaps the deaths of Andrew and Zachary will not be in vain because of this film and because of Mr. Bagby's book. Mr. Wilkinson must be a nazi.
This review left me speechless at the comment that no one should read this that didn't care about Andrew Baxby. Hmmm. I didn't know these people - within 5 minutes of watching, I WANTED to know these people, and by the end of this film, I felt as if I DID know them. I certainly cared about them. And will remember them. More than I can say about this reviewer. Cinema is not just entertainment but an art form that invites us to know, to think, to feel - by this reviewer's standards, only people who know the people in the movies should care to watch any of them, otherwise what's the point...I hope his friends and family read his reviews.
I could argue about the intrinsic merits of the film, which never pretends to be objective but started as a personal document for the family.
Instead I must point to the rank idiocy and coldness shown in this review.
Only watch the film if you already knew and cared for the guy? Are you kidding me?
Ron, I say this seriously. Don't even bother trying to review for the vast majority of the human race. Most of us go to see films at the theater, (as well as those of us who write or produce films) because we want to be told a story, about people we can care about, fictional or not.
It's called empathy. The best filmmakers, novelists, journalists, storytellers, etc., manage to make us feel that about strangers, about people who never existed and never will.
You're apparently missing equipment the rest of us have, which enabled you to write a blatantly envious, jealous but most of all, oblivious review. Yes, your envy is that obvious (you even start out the piece with a thinly veiled snipe at Kurt, the filmmaker, and the film's success among festival audiences). Your jealousy, and your lack of ability to empathize, probably caused you to fail in your attempt as a writer and/or as a film director. But that lack of empathy also caused you to see no redeeming value in this film. I suggest you take up horse insemination, that requires no empathy, while filmmaking and film reviewing does.
Even the most ardent film snob or would-be auteur among us knows this has nothing to do with a fancy shot of a ceiling or a hot jump cut, this movie was about the pain of a couple who had lost their only child, and how they managed to stay good above it all, for their love of their grandson. The most important moment of the film is where the grandfather admits he and his wife wanted to bring their son home and then kill themselves, and then you see why and how they managed to stay away from the brink.
You probably do have 'a case of the 'lofties', where you cannot relate to such a personal story of no international or ecological significance.' But it's obvious that your review is tinged with much more bile and envy than mere snobbery. You can review a piece of art, even find its flaws (and yes, 'Dear Zachary' had its flaws), without being a total douchebag.
In order, first crucifixion first.
The review is not a gag, the film is. I found it so maudlin and hackneyed that I honestly thought it was a mockumentary until the final scenes where the woman drowns herself and the child.
I commend Andrew’s parents for loving him. In fact, I commend my parents for loving me. After this review, they are apparently the only ones left.
I am sure this film will go a long ways in preventing this kind of tragedy, where an insane lover kills the partner who left her. It will definitely make an impact in that area. I am sure of it. It should be watched by insane lovers everywhere.
I am a monster and I will stop reviewing movies and find my soul immediately.
I, too, love the film maker.
Keep those cards and letters coming!
I agree with this review. This is a unique family tragedy. When Zachary was killed I stopped watching it. The movie was a build up to be inspirational and then the rug is pulled out from under you. And why did the grandparents give the mother so much control and jumped through hoops to do things right.
She was a psychopath and when she perceived that her son loved them more than her, it was predictable what might have happened.
The grandparents should have stopped playing by the insane rules in Canada and taken off with the boy back to the US. Anything to get him out of harms way. And then worked out the consequences.
Bad choices made by the government and the grandparents only enabled this to happen.
With all the mass killing in Africa and Iraq, this is a sad story but then sad stories happen globally in large numbers and Americans turn away from it.
OK—Starting from the top down (with Lindsay):
You will be happy to know I am searching within myself for when and where exactly I lost my heart and how I can get it back. But for anybody to have enjoyed this mocumentary they would have had to have lost their brain.
Apparently IMDB and I have something in common, neither of us could find the “numerous granters of film festival awards” mentioned by Lunarosa. I’m sure they are out there.
I am searching for my soul along with for when and where I lost my heart.
Nisa—I get paid so little to be critical it is a joke. But then again, the makers of this film will get paid very little, too, and the film is a joke.
Bill—If you hear of any award nominations, please let me know. Let Lunarosa know, too.
Thanks all, keep those cards and letters coming!
I found this documentary to be compelling. It is a successful endeavor not only because the filmmaker's personal and emotional investment radiates throughout the piece, but because he so poignantly juxtaposes his sense of personal love, loss, and commitment with a sense of moral outrage. To refer to the film as exploitive is a specious claim, at best.
Since that woman murdered her child as well as his father, and since the justice system in this case seemed lifeless as well, the filmmaker has shown remarkable restraint and balance. He treated his beloved friend's memory with dignity and honor, and he has made this film relevant way beyond those personally invested. I could only hope to leave the kind of mark on my world that Andrew Bagby did on his. And after all, isn't it the nature of art, music, film, literature to serve in some way as a bridge that joins the intensely personal to the profoundly universal?
I appreciate your opinion, but it is hard to take seriously. The scale is so heavily tipped on the bias scale, that this review smacks of someone who is a bitter 'wannabe' who, failing at his/her own film endeavors, gets a sense of power or a self-esteem boost by trashing others. Had I sensed even an ounce of objectivity I may have regarded the reviewer as credible, but I am having a hard time giving it any regard at all. I am reminded of the blowhard who believes louder is mightier. While he may be difficult to ignore, most just find him foolish.
Hey Ron Wilkinson - It's so nice to see you attempt to defend your pathetic excuse of a review. You clearly have a lot of support here and I'm sure your future reviews will carry as much weight.
You're pathetic. I don't even think that you gave this film more than a passing glance while you were doing your laundry. It's either that, or you somehow relate to the plight of poor Shirley Turner and the conspiracy against her. That wouldn't surprise me at all, since there is clearly a conspiracy against you with all these negative comments you have managed to generate.
I'm sure that you are right and the 98% who disagree with you are just too emotional and not bright enough to see this film for what it REALLY is. You are just so darn clever.
Do us all a favor and spare your critics your self righteous indignation.
The comments here are 100% on the money. This clown RW is truly a dolt. Obviously there are thousands of people who have been moved not only emotionally by this film, but moved to action and have written the Canadian authorities to express their outrage and to hope bring change about in their joke of a legal system. An unbelievably powerful film that is not for the faint of heart, but shows the true strength of the human spirit amidst a world of sorrow and pain that one wouldn't wish on their worst enemy...not even on you Ron Wilkinson (though I know you couldn't handle 1/100th of what Andrews's parent have and still endure).
'If you don’t know Kuenne and/or if you didn’t know his best friend Dr. Andrew Bagby, this film will mean little to you.'
How about if you have absolutely zero sense of empathy?
MSNBC aired this documentary tonight, and I must say, if you are this out of touch with your emotions and any sense of humanity, that watching this film would provoke an attempt at scathing criticism that just falls flat and makes you out to be a callous douchebag, you should really consider therapy.
You are such a fool!Looks as if you missed the whole point of this documentary,the gross neglect that our systems have allowed has once again failed very innocent people and could have and should have been able to save one little tiny life.....I do feel now that I too know Kate and David and they deserve along with many others real justice!To say that this is only significant to Andrews friends,well I suppose Andrew grew more friends in death because I find this a very enlightening and telling way of what 'the so called'system can destroy!It could be you next so never say this was good for only the family and friends involved.This was done as a wake up call for justice for all!You ninny...
This review is worse than a simple slap in the face of those who lost their loved ones. It is a shameless and cynical attempt to draw hits, exploiting this tragedy in a far more horrifying manner than that which the reviewer insinuated about the filmmaker.
Interesting to note that the reviewer makes no attempt to clarify or justify his shocking lack of humanity -- he simply visits his sarcasm upon the comments.
What sort of monster can call a story about the murder of two innocents 'a joke?'
Yes, keep hiding, Ron. Don't answer your critics. Don't acknowledge that your cynicism overpowered your humanity in this piece. Nobody agrees with you ... what does that tell you? You're not in a minority -- nobody agrees with you.
You're wrong, is what it means.
This is a beautiful, heartbreaking, infuriating documentary for anyone who is human. Own up to it, Ron. You were way, way off here.
I'm hard pressed to think of a more thoughtless and careless film review, ever. I'm totally serious. Just mind-blowing.
Ron, seems not a single person agreed with your review. Regarding your comment reply, please see the website www.dearzachary.com and note the numerous award nominations for this film.
'Maudlin Tabloid'!?!?.... what is your problem?
...because they allow me to think about the films from another perspective. Sometimes they provide 'I hadn't thought of that' material to stew over.
No such luck with this review. To say that only personal friends of the victims will care about this film is perhaps the most bizarre and ridiculous piece of criticism I've ever read.
Dear Sir:
The beauty of this country is that you are ALLOWED to dislike a film, or a book, or a color, or whatever. So be my guest, dislike the film. Is this movie a true-crime 'Citizen Kane?' Clearly, no. It's not a 'good documentary' in the sense that it is not neutral, that it guides the viewer's emotions. But does that mean it is not a good FILM? Depends on your perspective. Is film nothing more than a record of events, or can it also be like a poem, or a song? Is this movie a cry of outrage, of pain, and of honest emotion? Is it any less valid for all that? That, I think, is where you part ways with most of your 'fans' herein.
Here's the one place in your review where I do think you've missed the mark, and badly:
'It is no more or no less than a thousand stories like it..'
There, sir, is the human condition. Very few of us lead lives of immense import. A thousand stories like it = several thousand people in their own kind of pain over the tragedies that made all the difference to their lives. Life is small, but it's all we get (if we're lucky). You say that this is not as 'important' a subject as, say, genocide. Don't mistake me: Genocide is huge, monstrous, but is also made up of a thousand - or hundreds of thousands - of individual losses, individually felt. Just like this film. An expression of grief, over a senseless loss.
That is why so many people had such a visceral reaction to the film: we rarely can understand the true horror or war, genocide, holocaust,torture - UNTIL we can put a face to it, a story that is 'small' enough to understand. That is what this film does, effectively.
I loathed Dear Zachary, its not about Andrew, or Zachary, or even Shirley, its about Kurt's revenge venting. It is indeed shock tabloid sentimental tripe, and I dont care if its mean to pick on a grieving person, this film is trash.
I recently posted this on another site, but I think it bears repeating her
I watched this film last night. I had no idea what it was about. I've worked in documentary filmmaking for the past years - as a producer, writer, and recently as an editor - and I felt very manipulated while watching this film. Were it not for the horrific subject matter, the poor editing style would have occasionally bordered on comical. For example, there is a sequence towards the end when the filmmaker uses old video of Andrew Bagby and does quick cuts with gun shots audio and other soundbites. Terrible...aesthetically and conceptually...
Additionally, the filmmaker clearly goaded people he was interviewing so that he could get some extremely emotional soundbites. When Bagby's ex-fiance makes a remark that coffins should not have to be made so small (in regards to Zachary), the filmmaker starts asking her what was in the coffin, etc? Obviously this chokes the woman up even more as she tries to supply answers. The filmmaker's clearly goading her, trying to get more sentimentality out of a story so full of sadness that why the filmmaker needed to eke out more is beyond comprehension. How would that kind of sentimentality help the Bagbys (if indeed the film was for them)?
If he really made this film for the parents or Zachary or whomever, he could have just handed it to them in person. And frankly, I can't imagine those parents having to watch this film. It would be like another injustice to them. And jeez, those last several minutes when people tell the Bagbys how much they love them seemed like guilty icing on the cake. Okay, we get it, ya know? Why did the filmmaker do this? Did he really think the Bagbys will watch this movie again and again, and that the occasional lovefests (particularly at the end) would justify the means?
Why didn't this film explore Shirley a bit more, i.e. her past, her family, etc? (And before all you guys start jumping on me and saying she was evil, etc, I pre-empt your strategy by saying that a good documentary tries to explore its characters; exploring Shirley might give us more insight into her insanity). Also, why didn't we learn more about Andrew? Having everyone say they love him is all good and well, but I barely learned anything about this young man.
On another note, a few people posted comments about the the Bagby parents, questioning how they put up with the home visits with Shirley. Indeed this part of the film naseauted me. How on earth did they do it?! With all due respect, and I feel so sorry for those parents, there had to be another way. Sneaking the baby out of the country would have been a start. But I can't pretend to really know anything about this, so I'll refrain from saying more.
This film could have been done so much more honestly, in a way that was more sober - no music, soundbite, editing theatrics. Just a simple telling of a horrific story. The laws in Canada could have been explored with more intelligence and calm, so that its failings would be better understood by viewers.
Lastly, for all the people yammering about the initial film review, for heaven's sake - relax. The film reviewer wasn't asking to resuscitate Shirley and set her loose on the streets. The reviewer was merely, and in my humble opinion - wisely, pointing out the manipulation of a subject that - by virtue of its subject matter - didn't need to be treated that way.
Nice try Ron
I understand attacking this film on the merit of its craft. It was pretty amateurish in parts and the editing is not to every taste. I also understand how a critic could attack the film on its manipulative approach and lack of a balanced viewpoint.
However, to say the story has no merit to anyone who doesn't know the people involved is just untrue. Obviously, this story has touched many people on a personal level, myself included. It's fine if you are emotionally dead inside and feel nothing when watching this movie, but don't consider that worthwhile criticism. Saying the film felt like a mockumentary is just downright silly. If it was a mockumentary, it would have been the worst mockumentary ever.
Sadly, I just think you are a hack writer trying to get some hits for you site. It worked. You pissed a lot of people off. The problem is that you aren't criticizing a film, you are criticizing a real life event. You aren't saying the film has no worth, you are saying that these people story has no worth. You are poor writer and a true hack. I would be extremely embarassed if I wrote something this poor.
I agree with the comment above. It is fine to criticize the film in regards to the production (editing, transitions, bias) but to say that the film has no worth watching if you didn't no Andrew or the family is ridiculous. You have to have zero empathy to watch this and have no feelings of sadness for the family and friends
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story