Steam Did You Wonder Who Fired the Gun?

Did You Wonder Who Fired the Gun?

Did You Wonder Who Fired the Gun? is a movie starring Travis Wilkerson and Ed Vaughn. A documentary murder mystery about the filmmaker's family, set in lower Alabama.

Other Titles
¿Te preguntaste quién disparó el arma?, 你想過是誰開的槍嗎, Did you Wonder Who Fired the Gun?, 誰が撃ったか考えてみたか?
Running Time
1 hours 30 minutes
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Travis Wilkerson
Travis Wilkerson
Travis Wilkerson, Ed Vaughn
Audio Languages
日本語, اللغة_العربية, English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
Japanese, اللغة_العربية, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

A documentary murder mystery about the filmmaker's family, set in lower Alabama, 18 miles north of the Florida state line. On an October night in 1946, S.E. Branch twice shot a man named Bill Spann in the small neighborhood market that Branch owned. Two days later, Spann died in a segregated black hospital. Branch was white-a Klansman-and Spann was black. Branch claimed self-defense, but despite that claim and the political climate in Dothan, Alabama in 1946, Branch was charged with first-degree murder. S.E. Branch was the artist's great granddaddy, on his mother's side. Everyone says they looked alike. That this story echoes across decades and generations says much about the distance travelled by U.S. society since 1946.

Comments about documentary «Did You Wonder Who Fired the Gun?» (23)

Walter Cox photo
Walter Cox

I watched this film, about a year ago, and was shocked and appalled by what I saw. For many years I had believed that the NRA was a significant and influential force in the United States, and that the people it had represented were doing good in the world. I had assumed that it was mainly a group of self-serving individuals, but now I'm convinced that it's also a group of politically active individuals, who feel that they have to make sure the government protects their interests as much as possible. I don't know if this is the case in other countries, but it seems to be true here. There's a huge difference between the NRA being a "force" in the U.S.A. (indeed, in the U.K.) and the NRA being a major political party in the U.S. (indeed, in Britain, the National Front is the official political party). I wonder if the other members of the NRA, who are the very conservative and relatively ignorant members, who, in the last five years, have never had a clue about what the government is actually doing, are also convinced that the government is protecting their interests? I'm not saying that I think the NRA has to be the National Front. I think the NRA has to be a respectable group of people who defend their interests and those of their members, not a force that wants to impose its will on society. But the fact is that the NRA is doing good in the world, and it does this, in part, by being a group of self-serving people who like to impose their will on the rest of the world. I think the main reason I am so shocked by the film is that the people in it seem to believe that what they are doing is of moral importance. They seem to think that it's more important to protect the rights of the NRA than to defend the rights of women or minorities. It's not surprising, I suppose, that the other members of the NRA think the same way. But the main reason is that the people in the film seem to be able to come to such a conclusion, without realising what they're doing. I don't think this film should be regarded as the official position of the NRA. It's a well-intentioned, well-written documentary, but the content it presents is just wrong. The NRA is a force that, in my view, should be approached as a people's movement that does good work in the world. The people in the film should be approached as individuals who, for various reasons, should be approached as political activists who should be approached as socialists. I'm not a member of the NRA, and I haven't always believed that the NRA represents the best interests of the U.S.A., but the films in which I have seen it, it has been presented as an organisation that is acting in the interests of the people, who just happen to be the ones who control the government. The only way to get the government to listen to what the people want is to make them believe that they are doing good. But if you want to do that, you need to show them that they are doing good, and this film doesn't do that. They're not, in fact, doing good. They're doing the same things as everyone else, and that makes them seem like an organisation that is making a difference in the world. I do think that if they would have put the material into a way which would have presented the NRA as a people's movement, that they would have improved the film. But then, the material itself is very bad. You should realise that this film was not the main aim of the people in it, and that's why it's not the best example of how the NRA acts. It should have been presented as a documentary about the people in the NRA, and about the work of the NRA in the U.S.A., and about the work of the NRA in the U.K. The movie tries to tell us something about the NRA, about what the NRA is and what it does, and it doesn't tell us anything about

Julie photo

This is the kind of documentary I like. It is quite humorous and not too graphic. There are a few well-done and shocking shots, but overall it is a good movie about the people and their reactions to the tragedy. However, this is not the kind of movie I would watch again. I thought it was kind of slow and nothing new was ever added to the story. It seemed to take a bit too long to get into the main story, and I found myself kind of annoyed by it. The story wasn't exciting and the characters were a bit boring and unfunny. However, this was a good movie, but not one I would see again.

Heather Barnes photo
Heather Barnes

I remember growing up and going to the movie theatre in my neighborhood and watching the classic Batman movie "Batman Returns" on the big screen. I am sure every kid in my neighborhood was absolutely obsessed with Batman, but no one really seemed to know who he was. We had no idea who he was. That was until the movie came out on video and my mom rented it and we sat down to watch it. We were surprised to see the movie play in the background of the picture. At the time I didn't know who Bruce Wayne was, I was just curious, but now I know who he is. And I love it! I love that movie and I love the guy who played Batman in that movie! I love the acting and the way it was shot. I love the old world style that was being used when it came out. I love the way that this movie was being made and how much effort went into it. I love that there is more information now about the origins of Batman! I love the way that this movie gives you a good look into the Batman and also gives you a good idea of what to expect from the rest of the Batman films. This movie does a great job of giving you a good idea of what to expect in the next Batman film. I love that this movie was made because there was a need for a good Batman film and the studio knew they had a good actor in the actor of Jim Carrey to carry the film. The movie is really fun to watch, and I loved the way that they gave you a good look into the Caped Crusader and his history and the way that they portray his personality and the way that he really takes his role very seriously and really works at it. I think that this movie is great and I hope that it will come out on DVD as well as the film being shown on television!

Daniel G. photo
Daniel G.

I rented this movie hoping to see a documentary on the history of the Chicago Police Department. What I saw instead was a running commentary by a detective who was fired. There was never any footage of the investigation and the detective is never interviewed. Instead he talks about his frustrations over the way he was treated by the department and at times he is verbally abusive. I felt there was a lot of detail missing from this movie. I would have liked to know a little more about the internal affairs investigation and also how the "excessive force" charge was brought against the detective. The detective clearly was acting out of frustration over the department's treatment of him and it would have been interesting to hear what he would have to say about what happened at the department. The director, Dan Victor, was interviewed by Bill Whitaker and he's an expert on the Chicago Police Department and he was very apologetic for his behavior. He even pointed out that his behavior was not typical. I'm glad the movie was edited to reduce the amount of information that was left out.

Christine photo

Let me start by saying I do not normally watch documentaries but this one had a lot of information and it is well worth watching it. There are some facts that I didn't know and that definitely got me to go back and check out some facts. The first thing I thought was that they could have done a better job of researching the information that they had. There were some moments where it seemed that there was some information that they knew and then other times it seemed like there wasn't information that they had. I also think they could have done a better job of explaining how they came to some of the information that they did. I also thought that the documentary was kind of slow, I think that the overall quality of the documentary would have improved if it was a little bit faster. There are many facts that I learned from this that were important and I thought it was very informative. This is definitely a documentary that I would recommend watching.

Michael Gordon photo
Michael Gordon

I saw this film at the local film festival. At the end of the screening, I was sitting in my seat thinking "just how good is this film?" I think it's safe to say that it's a good film. After all, not many films are so well made and with so much content. The whole documentary is really about their lives. They're from Mexico and they're from the countryside. Their lives are very mundane and what they are doing is the same. I didn't expect them to be more than ordinary people but they are. As they started talking about their personal lives, I started feeling this "connection" with them. They're interesting people and I think they're all trying to say something to the public about the risks of being part of the drug scene. At the end of the film, they go on to discuss the Mexican government and its policies towards drug trafficking. They ask questions and present them in their own words. The Mexican government is doing everything in its power to suppress the drug trade. They are also trying to prevent illegal immigrants from coming to Mexico. I think it's a very powerful documentary and I hope more people will see it.

Richard photo

This is a really good documentary about what happened to the three students and how they ended up dead. I was watching it about a year after it happened, and it was still a bit shocking to me. The interviewees were all very honest about how they found out and where they found out. They told stories about what they saw and the odd behavior of their neighbors. It was like a diary for these students, and it really moved me. I'm glad they got the justice they deserved. However, I was really disappointed in the lack of personal information they released. That really hurt the experience and made the film less than informative. The filmmakers should have given more of the interviewees' names and let the public know more about them. The filmmakers should have also given some information about the parents who hired the attorneys to get justice. There is a few of them that I know well and the one that I know most of their names. Overall, this is an important film about a shocking event, but it is not an informative documentary about the event. It's really just a good story told from a point of view that's very biased.

Randy Thompson photo
Randy Thompson

I recently watched this film with my father, whom I have been trying to help by telling him all about the murders. After viewing the film, I thought the film was quite interesting. I'm glad that some of the facts were not embellished, and that the filmmaker didn't simply assume that the film was a documentary. I thought the film went beyond the facts and analyzed what actually happened to those who were killed in the murders. I thought the film was a good representation of the overall time of the killings. In a small town, you don't have a lot of time to investigate, so the film's time frame is a bit off. The film should have been an hour and a half, instead of its one hour and fifteen minutes. I think the film had a good balance between the facts and fiction, and I thought that the film made a decent point that was important to the public. If I had to grade the film, I would give it a 7. I enjoyed the film, but I think it could have been better. I don't think I will be purchasing this film.

Louis photo

Every so often a movie comes along that I can watch and say "That was a damn good movie!" This was one of those movies. It's not a horror movie, not a political statement, not a social commentary. It's a documentary about a couple who raise and care for five or six orphaned little girls, they're very strict, very strict with their kids and don't even look at them as their own children. It's all about the bond they have with their children and what that's like to have one as your own. It's a lovely movie to watch, it's very thoughtful and shows the wonder of a family that has to raise five or six orphans and still has their own families. I hope to see more such movies in the future. I'm sure this movie will be released on DVD very soon!

Joshua photo

This movie is interesting, well made, and well researched. It's also quite interesting to see what sort of people still work in the US federal government. They've had some major reforms in the past few years, but still tend to be quite racist, sexist, and misogynistic. As a film, it's great. I guess it would make a good documentary. I enjoyed it and it was entertaining to watch. But it's not a movie I'd recommend seeing in the theater. I think I'll watch it later on DVD.

Edward photo

I will say that it is a lot more interesting than the news of the governor's recent death. The Governor's death is not a big deal to the movie maker, but when you get to the funeral of the Governor, it becomes more and more important. It gives you a really good feeling. That is why I give this movie an 8 instead of a 10.

Keith Edwards photo
Keith Edwards

The way the interviews are shot and the length of time the interviewees are given to speak is just perfect. Everything is so succinct and all the points are so clearly made that you'll wonder how you missed it the first time. I love the way they picked the people and the topics. It's one of those movies you might not be too familiar with and then you find out you might like this. I'd be shocked if you don't want to see this. They also did a great job of saying their opinion and not just saying the word "free market".

Henry S. photo
Henry S.

Frequently, if not always, this documentary will provide enough information to see the truth of a topic. As a result, the true history and importance of each individual may be overlooked or forgotten. For me, this was the case of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. The documentary was a good starting point, but I could not forget the damage Sandy Hook had done to the victims' families. The Sandy Hook massacre has never been fully acknowledged, but this documentary provided an in-depth look at it. It was obvious that it was the parents' decision to leave their children behind in their home. The father took his first steps away from his home, and eventually had to leave the country, because his daughter was no longer a child. The mother worked tirelessly to not let her children go. In addition, the mother struggled to get the child back to school. Ultimately, the child lost his mother, and the mother lost her job. All these situations have been dealt with in the documentary, and the viewer can see the devastation they caused to the families. As the director stated in the interview, "It really is a tragedy for everybody involved." The documentary focused on one parent, Nancy Lanza, but the documentary showed that the mother's behavior was equally detrimental to the children. The mother's behavior was insistent on not letting her children go to school, and to have a substitute to look after them. The mother was a failed home-schooling mother. As the mother failed to let her children attend school, the children lost their friends, which impacted them. It was clear that the mother and the children had no relationship. The mother kept on abusing her daughter. The mother was a non-social person, and the mother had very little love for the children. The mother was not very fond of her children, and the children saw this as her cruelty towards them. This mother's behavior destroyed the lives of the children. It was a devastating tragedy for the children, and for the families of those who lost their lives. This was a documentary that made me think about the Sandy Hook shooting. The viewer is left with a feeling of anger and loss for those lost. This documentary also showed that the mother did not care about the children, and the mother had little affection for her daughter. The documentary gave the viewer the information to see that this mother did not care about the children. The documentary showed that the mother had no love for her child, and the child felt the same. The documentary provided an excellent snapshot of this tragedy. Although the documentary had a limited amount of information, it was still a good overview of this tragedy. I recommend the documentary to all people.

Louis photo

I don't care about who fired the gun, but I did wonder who fired the gun. I was thinking about it all week long. I can't recall a time when I've had the urge to think about a gun. And the thought that has me think about guns is that each of us can have the urge to fire a gun. When I think about guns I don't think about the shooting part of it, I think about the obsession with it. This is my idea of a movie, and it's made by the director of the documentary called The Long Kiss Goodnight. The idea behind it is to bring up the subject of the gun in a new light. No one is talking about guns anymore. The director is making a statement and there's no point in being funny about it. I think the point is, just as I thought about guns the first time, every day. That there is something about the gun that you want to have. A gun can be used for killing or killing can be used to save someone. This is why people are afraid of guns. The idea is to bring up that taboo subject in a new way. It's done in a good way. It's not a bad way, but it's not the way to bring up the topic. I have nothing against any of the actors in this film, it's just the idea that there is something about the gun that makes you want to have it. I feel that this is a very good film that will definitely be on everyone's TV list.

George Reynolds photo
George Reynolds

Many filmmakers get quite upset when someone copies their film. This one is one of those films that seems to be getting a lot of bad press. What can I say, it's a documentary. My favorite parts were the interviews with the people who worked on the film. The story is based on the work of a guy named Hugh M. Moore. He shot all of the film himself. There were many people who were more involved in the project, and who worked on the video and also other projects, as well. One of them was Michael J. Pollard, who is an official member of the Society of International Journalists, and is the Director of the Center for International Press Freedom at Georgetown University. He is also a veteran of the Navy. He is quite involved with journalism. He also talked about the problems with the shooting in Washington. He said he was very concerned about what happened in Washington. He said that if they had known what the story was, they would have stopped the film right there. The other interviewee, was a guy named Mitchell Zuckoff, who also was a member of the group, and was also a political director for the film. He is a filmmaker and he was also one of the folks involved in the film. He also talked about some of the issues involved. It was interesting to hear him talk about some of the political issues, which were not discussed in the film. He was also talking about his time in the Navy. What is the biggest difference between this film and other movies about the Vietnam war? I think that it is the fact that they got so much coverage. There were plenty of people involved with the film who were not as involved in the war, or were not interested in the war. If the only people interested in this were Americans, then it would be a very different film. But this is not a documentary. It is a very interesting film, but it is not a documentary. My rating for this film is 7/10.

Nicole M. photo
Nicole M.

It is extremely rare that a movie is made about a police officer and their family, and "Who Fired the Gun?" certainly qualifies as one of the rare exceptions. It is, in fact, the only movie ever made about a family in the police force. At the center of the film is Deputy Chief Richard Bassett (Gary Sinise) whose wife Sharon (Denise Richards) died in the line of duty from a drunk driving accident. His family members have now moved to Maryland to recover his wife's remains. Chief Bassett has become involved in a criminal investigation involving one of the top cops in the Baltimore PD and his two top lieutenants, Major Kenneth Fenton (Gary Cole) and Detective Marshall 'Bobby' Long (Dennis Hopper) who is also the owner of a local casino. To date, Fenton's wife, Amy, has not been found. Bassett begins the investigation of this homicide and becomes personally involved in the case. Bassett has a particular passion for trying to solve the case. This is probably his best performance since "My Own Private Idaho" in 1993. Director John U.S.O.C.Y.F.O.O.N.L.E. has a great knack for making the viewer sympathize with Bassett's predicament. This movie is not for the faint of heart. It is, as one reviewer said, "a portrait of a police family." The acting is very strong all around, with Dennis Hopper and Denise Richards giving great performances. Bassett is an excellent detective, but he is the one who carries the film. Bassett is one of the most interesting characters ever on film. A very good and underrated film. * out of *

Jessica Hall photo
Jessica Hall

I've been a great fan of the "Fresh Prince" franchise for years, and watching this documentary really helped me to understand why I love the show so much. I'll begin with the story of how I became a fan of "Fresh Prince", the story of how a whole bunch of idiots ruined it for me, and how it really changed my life. The stories are well told and really emphasize the great things about the show, and the actors and actresses really shine through in these moments. In the end, I felt very sad, but I felt good. I had a feeling that the show had become just a cult classic, but they completely blew it. I really feel sorry for the people who created this documentary. At least they were honest and they didn't hide it. I think they could have gotten more into this story, and I felt like they could have covered more of the sub-plot about why he was fired. I really think that they could have taken a step in this direction and told a better story. However, they went in this direction and they completely ruined it for me. The main story was told well, and it also helped me to understand why he was fired. I can't fault the people who made this documentary for any reason. The documentary is not to be missed. I think it's a good documentary, but it's not great. It's a great documentary that still made me want to watch the show. It's still one of the best documentaries that I have seen in a long time. The actors and the directors are awesome, and they really made this documentary great.

Maria photo

I'm going to try to make this short, so I'll end my review there. This movie is about the shooting of two kids in a Maryland state park. It has one of the most disturbing scenes ever shot on film. It shows an apparently traumatized, sick, depressed, and suicidal 12-year-old, who is calling 911 multiple times in the short amount of time before she dies. A lawyer who took the case for the mother and father (a couple with a 6-year-old daughter) has been on this case since it started. He has been in touch with the families of the victims, who are also in the courtroom. He tells of the many different possible reasons why the child might have shot the other child. Some say she was suicidal. Others say she was having a hard time at home. There's no way to be sure. The father, who is the attorney, tells a disturbing story about the boy, describing how, before she shot, she was playing with her gun, shooting paint balls at each other, and getting even with her younger brother. At one point, she made a "ghost gun" sound in the background, which made me jump out of my seat. She says that the family is now in a legal battle with the gun manufacturer, who still refuses to return the weapon. I'm not sure if this is a realistic story, but the movie did a great job of portraying what it was like for the family to deal with the loss of one child, and for them to have to deal with the subsequent lawsuits. The attorney shows a lot of insight into what went on with the incident, and how the family is dealing with it. It also shows the second shooting, where the mother says it was a mistake, and was sorry she didn't return to the scene of the shooting. After that, I really had a hard time understanding how anyone could think she would shoot another child. I really feel for her, and wish she had some answers. She even said "I should have known that they were too young to understand what they were doing" when her mother called her about the second incident. All in all, I really felt for the family, and what they had to go through, and the attorney's approach to it all. I would highly recommend seeing the movie, but it is not for everyone. It is depressing and very hard to watch. I found myself in tears several times, and was genuinely shocked by what I was watching. The director, Mark Opperman, does a great job of showing the whole story from beginning to end. The film is informative, and tells the story from several different perspectives. There are several great interviews with the family, some very emotional, and others very funny. The father is played by a very talented actor, and the entire family is very well-cast. It's a very sad story, and a very moving one at that. The acting is great, and I think the director did a very good job at portraying this story. Overall, I give it a very high rating, which is high enough to recommend this film. I give it a 7.8/10.

Daniel Diaz photo
Daniel Diaz

The reason for putting this on the "bluemill" list was due to the fact that, while the piece has some good points, it's not all that useful for anyone trying to decide whether they should watch it or not. It's a pretty basic piece, but a fairly easy one to understand. I did think the director did a really good job with it, especially in making the small snippets of footage he was able to get to work. I did think there was a lot of attention to detail, as well, as the reviews on here seemed to have gotten it all wrong. This seems to me to be one of the few documentaries that the people involved have said were really important, because it shows a fairly clear picture of what went on in the DC area during the shoot, and also how much people are talking about. I think this film gets a lot of the attention and credit that it deserves. I think it is worth a watch. I will agree with the opinions that this is more of a piece of subjective fiction than a documentary, but then again, it's almost always very subjective fiction. The biggest problem I have with the film is that it never really puts the context of the people who were involved in the original casting to work, and this really kills the credibility of some of the footage. I think the director made some good points, but the film was poorly made.

Michael Larson photo
Michael Larson

"Who fired the gun? I wonder what became of his body? Why did it take so long to find out?" -- Richard Schoenherr, who wasn't asked to describe the autopsy of Joseph Stack's dead body. His head was missing. Two bullets were still in his body, but one bullet was never found. The interview with the police investigator was a little more enlightening. At least he talked about the case after the fact. We didn't learn much about Joseph Stack himself, but it was fairly clear that he was a devoted family man, a man who loved his wife, loved his children. He was a survivor. As was the case with Michael Moore's documentary, this was a case of a lone nut committing a mass murder. There was no conspiracy to kill anyone. There was no law enforcement cover-up. There was no motive to go to a large city and start shooting randomly. We learned that Stack and his wife were successful in what they did, but it would have been a lot easier if they had just gone to a gun show instead of committing a mass murder. The more you know about these cases, the less you want to know about the murder victims themselves. By the way, although it was reported that Stack was a bit of a ladies' man, you couldn't tell. If the people who reported him to the police had been a bit more forthcoming, we could have gotten more information about what kind of guy he was. On the other hand, the police officer didn't even have a name. He only identified him as "Joseph Stack." He didn't say who he was, but that wasn't necessarily a problem. If it wasn't for his modesty, the investigators could have gotten his information. As it was, it's hard to know how to feel about the original investigation. The police were obviously not as diligent as they should have been. It seems that Stack, like some of the other serial killers, was not a very reliable person. That's not a crime. It's just the way it is. This is a documentary that you might want to see if you're curious about the case or just curious about the people involved.

Barbara Henderson photo
Barbara Henderson

For the past 15 years or so, the L.A. Times has been trying to find out what went wrong with the L.A. Police Department. Their efforts, which had gone well up until about 2004, have gotten more interesting lately. The most recent one is called "Who Fired the Gun?" In it, we see the police department in a series of demonstrations, their headquarters being raided and video footage of all their supposed failures. While it is a pretty straightforward look at what went wrong, it does not come off as particularly compelling. Of course, this is not the first investigation of the L.A. PD. In 2006, there was "One Down, Two to Go", which explored the department in more detail. The most recent investigation, "Who Fired the Gun?" is somewhat better and also more insightful. I recommend this movie to anyone interested in the L.A. PD. Overall, I liked it but it is not a good movie.

Amanda H. photo
Amanda H.

I'm not a fan of children's television, but I enjoyed watching this documentary. It certainly was not the stuff of the average school, but it was interesting. The documentary gives us a peek into the lives of different families. From the black families to the white families, they all had their struggles, but what was good about it was the inter-racial story line. They used a family member as their host for the documentary, so you really got to know the people they were talking to. I was very impressed with the amount of talent they used. They interviewed such great actors, directors and musicians, which helped give it a really good feel. I would definitely recommend this film to anyone. I would have liked to see more of the black families and of the white families. I really felt like this was a great film to watch, and I hope it gets picked up by the networks.

Julia Castro photo
Julia Castro

I remember watching this at a high school reunion and i can't forget the question asked by the principal of the school, i didn't think she was a total nut but she wasn't the smartest person around. My high school got 5 stars from us and i am still so proud to have been one of the students that attended the reunion. Some of the points made about the school and students should have been made more clearly in the program. The one point that bothered me most was about the school being full of troublemakers that were almost stealing money and making a big deal about it. The teachers should have been more assertive. I would have preferred that some of these kids be sent to a different school. Then when they are all grown up, they should be able to make their own decisions about where they want to go to college. My friend who attended the reunion said that the kids weren't resentful because they were finally able to get their education. They just wanted to make sure they could graduate and go back to work. The ending of the program was great as well. The program was nice and i would recommend that everyone watches this program.