It's difficult for me to dis this perfectly well-meaning guy with committed, if vague, political and religious beliefs. The first five minutes of the movie were the strongest, and yet they also revealed the film's flaw. At the start we learn about the filmmaker's friend, who went to Chiapas to film a peaceful protest and was shot. Afterwards, the foreign journalists all left, and the lone filmmaker, our narrator, stands alone against the stormtroopers. That is when my wife said, "I don't like his voice."
But why not? His voice is perfectly fine. I think it goes to the larger issue, which is that every filmmaker has a voice, just like every writer has a voice. And this voice is a little too centered on the filmmaker. When the filmmaker faced off against the troops, he said "I was scared." That kind of on-the-nose writing is a real buzz-kill.
Because when a stranger tells you "I'm scared," the first thing most people think of is, "You're probably just a wimp." A movie shows, it's not supposed to tell. A horror movie is not a description of a scary event, a horror movie is supposed to scare you, or its not a movie. And anyway, what is the filmmaker, a white American, what business does he have being scared? The people of Chiapas, talk to them and you will hear about how scary it is. After all, you did take a plane to get there.
So that's the problem, in a sense. A self-narrated piece has a dangerous tendency to accidentally portray the narrator as the hero in their own story, and in a documentary where people's lives are at stake, that can seem a little selfish.