Odelecol
Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.
Jakoba
True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.
Yazmin
Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.
kaliningrad-87345
Ken Burns is a liberal. I have to say that from the onset. Now I can say that Ken Burns is amazing when he makes documentaries about the Civil War or Mark Twain. This documentary the Central Park Five not so good. I am aghast that Mr. Burns conveniently makes these five young punks out to be the victims. No they were anything but victims. They were the aggressors all over the park that night. One of them even said that he beat a man.The five punks were on a roll in the park, and they were committing a myriad of crimes. Back then this was called "wilding".A term for punks who go around hurting citizens just because they can. I have no time for punks who attack citizens that they do not know, just because it gives them something to do. I feel for the young woman. But of course she was a white woman so she does not matter in this documentary. If you are a liberal and you feel empathy for punks running amok, then this is for you. I am on the side of no empathy for punks.I feel empathy for the woman who almost died.
tomgillespie2002
Social injustice and the failure of the justice system has long been a favourite topic for documentary film-makers. It's been done to death, sometimes raising enough attention for the case that it leads directly or indirectly to releasing the incarcerated (The Thin Blue Line (1988), the Paradise Lost trilogy (1996-2011)), or exposes enough holes in the story to make you doubt the effectiveness of police interrogation and/or the legal system as a whole (Brother's Keeper (1992), Capturing the Friedmans (2003)). It's estimated that 10,000 innocent people go to jail every year, so naturally, this kind of thing keeps rearing it's ugly head, and it makes for riveting and gob-smacking viewing.The 'Central Park Five' are Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana and Korey Wise, youths aged between 13-15 in 1989, who found themselves in the wrong place, in the wrong city, at the wrong time. Trisha Meili, a young jogger running through Central Park, New York, was viciously beaten, raped, and left for dead by Matias Reyes, a notorious rapist who confessed to the crime years later. The five boys were in a group of 30 or so others, some causing havoc and attacking people, when the police descended on them. Through long and intense interrogations, the five made false confessions to witnessing the crime, incriminating one another with the promise of being allowed to go home.The first hour of The Central Park Five is its finest. Ken Burns, directing here with his daughter Sarah and her husband David McMahon, is a historian at heart, digging out terrific archive footage of a city consumed by crime and racial tension, in the midst of the AIDS outbreak and the savage crack wars. The young boys, all black or Latino, were nothing but scapegoats for the NYPD, who were looking for a quick and tidy conviction. The brutal witch-hunt they suffered following their arrest, and the lazy role of the press - labelling the boys actions before the assault as 'wildings' and failing to do any real investigating of their own - is representative of the social and racial divide. This was a time when the city averaged six homicides a day.There is also a wealth of footage showing the boys' 'confessions', which are fascinating to see unravel. There is a special moment when Korey Wise is shown a picture of the victim's bruised and battered head, and the sound that leaves his mouth leaves you in doubt of his incapability of committing such an act. The second half of the film left me frustrated. There are no big, satisfying moments of anyone getting their just deserts, and the Five, now released from prison and cleared of guilt, shows a startling lack of bitterness to the ordeal they experienced. There's certainly a lack of anger to the film, both by those involved and the directors, and it leaves things a little cold. But perhaps that's the point, that reality really is that harsh, and closure is hard to come by.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com
jcnsoflorida
I was leery of this despite a friend's recommendation. I didn't live in NY at the time and basically ignored the news reports. So, this film I found fascinating, should be required for all law students and certainly worthwhile for everyone else. It could have been 5 or 10 minutes shorter but frankly I feel that way about most films. I had a bit of confusion sorting out the Five and their adult selves. (One of them changed to or from a Muslim-sounding name, I think). Also it's a very interesting portrait of NYC circa 1990. I'd like to know more about why the civil case is still "unresolved". The tone of the film is indignant but, more importantly, it is truth-seeking. That's why it's so compelling: we viewers want to find out what happened.
Turfseer
'The Central Park Five' is noted documentarian Ken Burns' take on the infamous arrest, subsequent trial and eventual legal exoneration of five minority youths accused in the assault and rape of a Central Park jogger in 1989. It's Burns' position that in a haste to make arrests, the investigating detectives and representatives from the NYC DA's office, 'force fed' their own versions of events and 'coerced' the youths to make statements implicating themselves, both in written and (in some of the defendants' cases) videotaped confessions. Burns is also satisfied with the confession of serial killer Matias Reyes, who claimed he acted alone and whose DNA was linked directly to the Central Park jogger.For those looking for easy answers, 'The Central Park Five' upon first glance seems to tie things up quite nicely, making the case that the five youths were victims not only of a police and DA's office 'rush to judgment', but of being victims of the racism endemic in society as a whole. Burns trots out the five victims who all seem fairly articulate and reasonable as they recount their stories from their perspective as adults.One of the problems that Burns fails to explore in enough detail is that the Central Park Five (CPF) were not only convicted of rape (in most cases) but also assaulting other people in the park that night. Burns and the CPF want you to believe that they merely observed two serious assaults in the park and acted 'shocked' by the brutality of the mob. The CPF all insisted during the documentary, that they were not guilty and that's why they all refused to accept a plea bargain from the DA's office prior to trial. Nonetheless, on February 9, 1994, at his PAROLE HEARING, Raymond Santana (one of the CPF) denied the rape but READILY ADMITTED that he and seven or eight of his friends planned to go to the park to rob and assault people. He also admitted that they let one man go because he was with his girlfriend and also admitted (he himself) had beat a man.When Anton McCray went before the parole board, in November 1994, he also admitted all the crimes in the park except the rape. In 2002, Kevin Richardson and Santana were interviewed by detectives and they both admitted their participation in the assaults but the not the rapes. Just as an example, 23 people were identified as participating on the assault of a victim, Antonio Diaz in the park. Numerous accomplices implicated all five defendants; both Richardson and McCray admitted participation and Salaam and Wise, admitted being present and Santana observed some "commotion" in the distance.Another fact about the case that Burns conveniently ignores is that only two of the CPF, Richardson and Santana, were actually arrested in the park. How is it, that the other three were eventually linked to the two found in the park? Long before the alleged 'coercion' during the DA interviews, there was obvious PROBABLE CAUSE to arrest the other three. That's because when police initially encountered the mob of kids, only Santana (and separately charged Stephen Lopez), remained at the scene. They were observed to be 'wide-eyed' and in 'shock'. Richardson fled and was apprehended. On the way to the precinct, Richardson (and another youth, Clarence Thomas) both fingered McCray as the 'murderer'. Statements by Richardson and others implicated both Santana and Lopez as being part of the mob. Later, the other three were linked by Richardson and Santana, as well as other witnesses, to each other.In watching 'The Central Park Five', you'll get the distinct impression that the defendants were 'railroaded'; that there was no opportunity for them to dispute their allegations that the initial arrest was invalid, their statements were obtained by trickery or outright deception, the Family Court Act and Criminal Procedure Law provisions mandating parental notification and presence during questioning were not followed, false promises were made that they would be released, physical force was used and they were deprived of food and sleep. In reality, there was a six week pre-trial hearing involving testimony from twenty-nine prosecution witnesses, testimony from Wise, Richardson, Santana and Salaam, Lopez, parents, siblings, relatives and friends of the defendants. Judge Galligan found, except for one instance, there were no grounds to suppress any of the statements or evidence taken from the statements. You can read about all the motions the defense submitted in their attempt to suppress evidence and why almost all of their motions failed. It's chronicled in this special report at Findlaw.com commissioned by the Police Commissioner for the purpose of determining whether the new evidence indicated that police supervisors or officers acted improperly or incorrectly: news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/cpjgr/nypd12703jgrrpt.pdf.Despite all the claims during the documentary that the CPF were "coerced", only Kharey Wise claimed he was "fed" answers. As the prosecutor pointed out during the trial, "McCray testified that the police said he should put himself in it, and that was all the information that was given to Antron McCray about what he was supposed to put in his statement." If Burns is guilty of the sin of omission, he's on far shakier ground when he asserts as fact, that there was some kind of 'time line' that contradicted the police and DA version of events. The Findlaw report concluded otherwise: "In fact, no accurate time line can be constructed because the evidence regarding the timing of the various events and the individuals who participated in them is not sufficiently precise to allow any exact conclusion." 'The Central Park Five' is the 'Mickey Mouse' version of what happened. In reality, the entire story is extremely complex. Read the Findlaw report if you're interested in DETAILS. Otherwise, watch Burns' sanitized version. A civil lawsuit is still pending, with all defendants seeking compensation. If they can prove their case, they deserve all the compensation in the world. Let the chips fall where they may.
