Other reviewers have described the content of this film, so I won't repeat. Instead, I'll hold forth on a pet peeve about movies. Which is - the liberties taken with bird content in movies. To wit: The film is named "Caracara", but the bird used in the film is a Harris's Hawk. There are nine species of Caracara in the world. They're all found in Central and South America. One of the nine occurs far enough north to be found in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. Did they think that none of the 70 million birdwatchers in the US (according to the "National Survey on Recreation and the Environment" conducted periodically by the US Forest Service, most recently released in 2002) would notice?
One of the other comments on this film included: "Hence the title, referring to the species of Peregrine falcon she keeps as a pet". First, a Peregrine Falcon is a species itself; there are not species thereof. Second, although the Caracaras are members of the Falcon family, the bird used in this film is not a Falcon of any kind - Caracara, Peregrine or otherwise.
This is a low budget film, but this is not an expensive item to research. I suppose they liked the name "Caracara", which is rather more exotic than "Harris's Hawk". So, when it turned out that no Caracara could be found to appear in the film, they simply substituted something else, and kept the cool name. And they figured it didn't matter if they got it "right", because the audience wouldn't notice. Considering the comment quoted above, perhaps they are right. But, considering the kind of obsessive attention to detail found in many other aspects of filmmaking, it is baffling why so many films consistently goof up bird-related content. (The sound people are especially culpable in this regard.)
