Mary Poppins Returns
Log in with Facebook
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
No consensus yet.
Tomatometer Not Available...
No consensus yet.
All Critics (11)
| Top Critics (1)
| Fresh (10)
| Rotten (1)
| DVD (2)
The unanswered questions at the end of "Paradise Lost" were the kind that could inspire not only a need for a follow-up documentary, but indeed an entire political movement.
While not quite as objective as the first film, Paradise Lost 2 does seem to do a better job of raising awareness of the case.
Somewhat less successful than the original, not just because it necessarily must lean heavily on clips from the first movie
Likely to extend and amplify your reactions to the first film, without really deepening the judicial case or its artistic point of view.
If this film is not as good as the first one ... it piles even more evidence up that says that three teenage boys were convicted of a crime they didn't commit.
A disturbing portrait of a man who may or may not have gotten away with murder.
A bit repetitious with so many clips from the first movie, but still it is reassuring how it shows that there are supportive people willing to help the defendants prove their innocence for free, as well as the irony of assuming that someone else is guilty because of his appearance.
Sequel to the first Paradise Lost film is yet another powerful eye opening documentary that sheds even more light on the West Memphis 3 case who were accused of murder. The film takes a look five years after the events of the first film, and how things are progressing for the three men accused of the heinous crimes. This film brings to light even more doubt on the guilt of the WM3. This is a brilliantly constructed documentary and a phenomenal follow-up to the first film. Paradise Lost 2 makes you ask more questions upon seeing it. The film manages to show even more proof of the boy's innocence in the crimes they were convicted in, and how the judiciary system is flawed. I really liked the film, and thought it was a poignant, disturbing film that now shows the WM3 were innocent, and how people have come to rally and support them in the plight for clearing their names. Directors Sinofsky and Berlinger direct a strong film, and this sequel along with the first is among the best documentaries ever filmed. If you are interested in crime documentaries, and have seen the first film, then watch this one. This sequel raises new questions and brings to light a possible new suspect. I thought it was pretty interesting and quite frankly likely that there was a suspect that was directly implicated in the tragedy. As a whole this is a well made film that exposes some great holes in the judiciary system. For people who enjoy documentaries, this film is a must. This film expands what the first film did and gives us even more detail on the case and presents us with even more facts for the viewer to make up his own mind.
Appreciate the execution. There's not much matter, yet it succeeds to keep the show going. While I was able to see it all coming and found it overtly predictable, I still wasn't bored by it (well, for enough of the part). Close enough to its prequel. On a side-note, if you're in the US of A, if something suspicious happens to you that may amount to a crime, don't let go of the situation & report it/write a book on it. It might as well be the next blockbuster/bestseller by disaster. Crime sells big time. Just killing ;-)
Pardon the typos, whether or not intentional. But if it's intentional, it can't....... Have it as you please.
The first film was so successful at causing doubt that a lot of restrictions were placed on this second film. Now only one parent of the murdered boys is willing to take part, no footage is allowed to be recorded in court, and the attorneys of two of the accused will not be interviewed. As such, this film has to struggle to find more things to detail, and also has less scope than the original. This film is mostly about saying that it could have been somebody else. They find reported teeth marks on one of bodies, which some experts argue aren't teeth marks and some say that they are. All this means is that how can we trust "experts" when they argue with each other. A lot of focus is placed on John Mark Byers. Here is a man that comes off as mentally unstable, has a violent and drug filled past, lies (or is at least very confused) about aspects of his life. How can you tell three different stories about how you lost your teeth? I mean really different stories. It's aggravating that somebody with such a poor grasp on reality cannot even consider the boys' innocence (I've read that now he does). His wife dies due to undetermined causes and still he is less of a subject than the three boys. Again, this film isn't about who did it, only that it may not have been these boys, and there is no real evidence to suggest that it was. I'm glad these guys are now out of jail, and hope Berlinger and others will continue their investigations to find the real killers, even if that just means finding proof that it was these boys.
There are no approved quotes yet for this movie.