Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Jenna Walter The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Tymon Sutton The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

tomgillespie2002 After the storm kicked up by the first film, film-makers Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky returned to West Memphis four years later. Whereas the first film seemed to simply document the case in as much detail as possible and allowed you to make your own mind up, with Revelations, they seem to have their own agenda. New 'evidence' has been discovered, and perhaps the real killer still walks the streets, and it's clear who Berlinger and Sinofsky believes it to be. That crazy bastard John Mark Byers, who took so much pleasure in giving Biblical rants to camera, hardly covers himself in glory, and he's back here to build fake graves for Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley at the crime scene, only to set them on fire amidst his demented monologues.It's sad that Berlinger and Sinofsky decided to take such a manipulative approach to the sequel, as although Byers is clearly an unhinged and simple-minded hick, there is no evidence against him killing the three boys (Michael Moore, Stevie Branch, and his stepson Christopher Byers) aside from the fact that he comes across as scary and strange. The first film was an intense study of mob mentality and the dangers of pre- judgement by appearance, and how the West Memphis Three managed to get themselves convicted simply for being black-wearing outcasts. So Revelations comes across is hypocritical.When new evidence is presented, suggesting teeth marks on the head of one of the victims, tests prove that none of the WM3's teeth match. When Byers is confronted, he reveals that he had his teeth removed but keeps changing his story as to when this took place. He is repeatedly confronted by a support group that help fund and promote the case against the WM3, but they come across as equally strange as Byers, following Echols like groupies as if he was some kind of prophet, and they berate Byers into handing in his dental records voluntarily to prove himself innocent. Byers refuses, stating that there is no case against him, and this is shown in the film as if an admittance of guilt. The film-makers never take any time to explain the reasoning behind Byers' behaviour, clearly convinced of his guilt.In the end, it's a case of there being too little here to warrant a two hour-plus movie. The new evidence is flimsy to say the least, and as revealed in West of Memphis (2012), is probably completely wrong. Yet when the film gets back down to cold facts, it becomes as riveting as the first film, unveiling a justice system that seems unwilling to open the doors to the possibility that they simply got it wrong. It's just a shame that too much time is spent on a personal witch-hunt, and even when Byers passes a voluntary lie-detector test, the film suggests that Byers was on so much prescription medication that the results of this cannot really stand up, yet fails to ask to conductor of the test of his views regarding this. It's certainly a confused film, and one that works best when it stays on topic and documents the facts rather than revelling in propagandistic speculation.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

tieman64 Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky direct "Paradise Lost 1 and 2". Both films revolve around a gruesome case in which three young boys were sexually mutilated and murdered in West Memphis, Arkansas. The incident occurred in the mid 1990s. Three teenagers, subsequently known as the West Memphis Three, were arrested for the crime. They were cleared of charges in late 2011.Much of both films focus on the travails of the three accused boys: Jessie Misskelley, Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin. All three were loners; ostracised young men from lower income families. Jessie is portrayed as being mentally handicapped or slow. His confession and admittance of murder is explicitly portrayed as being the result of police coercion. Damien, meanwhile, is painted as a victim of police scapegoating and community witch-hunts. Locals – politically conservative and strongly Evangelical – believe him to be the member of a satanic cult. Our film-makers argue that Damien is simply a moody teenager who just happened to be fond of dark literature, heavy metal and a little edgy nonconformity, all of which, we are told, are unfairly stigmatized.The second film focuses on a West Memphis Three support group which believes the three accused teens to be innocent victims, falsely charged. It also focuses on John Mark Byers, the stepfather of one of the victims. Byers, the film argues, may actually have been the trio's killer.Entertaining (in a sleazy, somewhat sensational way), both documentaries are nevertheless relentlessly manipulative. This case cries out for a more dispassionate tone, instead we're coerced from the on-set. Damien's past detention at mental health hospitals/clinics are ignored, his past confessions and writings on wishing to commit slayings are ignored, flunked polygraphs are omitted, the past violence of all three kids are ignored, various details found at the crime scene are ignored, the second film knowingly overplays the significance of "bite marks", Byers' dead wife and false teeth and fails to investigate the personalities behind the West Memphis Three support group, which may itself be a cult-like institution, enamoured by the photogenic, goth-like charm of Damien, who, while he may be entirely innocent, also demonstrates traits of psychopathy and manipulativeness. The point is, the film is exactly what it pretends to warn against: it's selective, biased, has a one-dimensional agenda and deliberately withholds information. So what's the truth? Nobody knows. The fact is, everyone involved in this case (from the victims, to the suspects, to the police, to the courts, to the suspect's friends and relatives) has dark histories and/or behaved suspiciously during the event. With such muddied waters, it's almost impossible to determine exactly what really went on. The "Paradise" films bulldoze away all these far scarier nuances.Regardless, the film's central point is worthwhile: the State of Arkansas has never convincingly demonstrated the trio's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And yet according to 24 jurors, they did. Confused? The three suspects were eventually released with the odd court enforced proviso that they essentially admit that they might actually be guilty, even if freedom of speech laws grant them the arena to trumpet the opposite. Bizarre. It's a double helix in which both sides (the courts and the suspects) simultaneously mutually admit their guilt AND win their freedom from accusations. In other words, the trio are essentially saying "we killed them, but we're free so we're innocent" while the courts, equally paradoxically, are saying "we railroaded them, but they're free now, even though we have enough evidence to commit them." This isn't justice, this is almost a form of psychosis.The first film is the more engrossing of the two. The second is filled with filler material, passages designed to pad its meagre running time. The second nevertheless captures well the toll the passage of time takes on our three "victims", and contains an interesting subplot which focuses on a local lawyer who is convinced that the West Memphis Three were wrongly accused. Berlinger and Sinofsky released a third film, "Paradise Lost 3", in 2011. A study by Ronald Huff, director of the Criminal Justice Research Centre, and professor of sociology Arye Rattner, estimates that in the United States alone, over 10,000 people are wrongfully convicted of serious crimes each year.8.5/10 – Worth one viewing. Similar fare: "In The Name of the Father", "The Wrong Man", "The Hurricane", "Conviction", "A Cry In The Dark", the excellent "Murder on a Sunday Morning", "The Thin Blue Line" and "Capturing the Friedmans".

BludgeoN There are a couple of ignorant comments that I wanted to address from other posters here. Firstly, The individual who stated that the filmmakers spent the most time on screen was totally wrong, as the filmmakers NEVER appeared on camera. I think this person was referring to the group that was dedicated to freeing the "West Memphis Three." These were just more characters in the story, not the filmmakers. Also, another person pointed out that the polygraph test as if it were indisputable proof that the step-father had not done this crime. I don't agree. 1.He was taking alot of drugs, not to mention he was obviously mentally challenged. 2. right before he took the test, he was obviously lying about a great deal of things (he said he never had trouble with the law, he said he did not know how his wife died, and in the very next sentence referred to the "murder" of his wife, etc.)3. he had spent a great deal of time convincing everyone and himself that he had not done it, that he may just have believed it. Now, He may or may not have been responsible, I am not going to try and convince anyone, but at least pay attention when making your decisions. It just doesn't make sense to me that those boys did this when you look at the evidence. The first film did a better job of presenting the case than this one, but part two is a great continuation of the case. It would have been pointless to cover too much old ground. So if you are able to find part one anywhere, or it comes on HBO again, watch it if you have not.

Kevin Donohue Harrowing, provocatively-intense and emotionally-charged documentary about the ever so fascinating but disturbing Robin Hood Hills murders case. Sharply directed and engrossingly formated with multi-dimensional angles that delve into the human psyche and makes one think liberally and often inquisitively about the way our justice system operates and the possibility of evil at liberty and innocence imprisoned! Grade: A (Must see!!!)