Paradise Lost 2: Revelations

I saw this movie just over a week ago and after watching it I didn't sleep. I HAD to find out more so I visited the website for more, obviously biased, information. I can't believe that three young men can be locked up for murder (2 for life and one on death row) for this crime. Anyway, about the film. I found the crime photos pretty disgusting but I thought they were presented well, no full screen close up shots but you could see all you wanted to none the less while also being able to avert your eyes a little. I haven't viewed the first film by HBO so I can't compare the two but this one seems to present more, new evidence. I think the bite marks are the most promising pieces of evidence. If it wasn't one of the men in jail who bit the boy(s), who did? Was there a fourth person or was there a different killer(s) altogether? I have no doubt in my mind that the powers that be have to get x-rays of Mark Byers teeth before he had them surgically removed in 1997 and compare them with the bite marks.

Sorry, I keep wandering into the case and off the topic of the film. Watch this film! Prepare to be upset. Prepare to be outraged. Watch it with an open mind and I think you'll fail to find words to describe how a legal abomination such as this can happen in this day and age. I don't expect a 3rd film but I am following the case very closely for sure.

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.

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.

You can absolutely skip part 2 of paradise lost and just watch part 1 and 3.

They made a faux paus here where they focused their attention on a crazy guy that they tought was guilty and gave him way too much screen time. After watching part 3 this film feels inconsequential and a waste of time.

All of this is pretty funny considering the hypocracy of acusing someone of something with no evidence just because they are different, like the police and prosecuters did with Damien.

I gave parte 1 and 3 both 9/10, they were great and the Metallica music fits perfectly with the themes of these documentaries and it's connection to the kids.

Generally riveting follow up of the case where three quite possibly innocent young men sit in prison for murdering three children.

Certainly, at least given what the two documentaries show, there is way beyond 'reasonable doubt' that they're responsible. But what was a moderate flaw in the first film becomes worse here; In the same way the prosecution disturbingly made the evidence fit their theory, throwing out, ignoring, or belittling what didn't fit, the film-makers seem to play some of the same game in reverse.

Crucial questions about alibis are never answered, and this sequel spends too much energy trying to pin guilt on Mark Byers, step-father of one of the murdered boys.

Is there some spooky circumstantial evidence that he may have been involved? Absolutely. But proof? The man even voluntarily takes a lie detector test, and passes with flying colors, which the film- makers then dismiss since the man is on various prescription mood altering drugs. But do we ever hear an expert say those drugs might affect the test? No.

More disturbing, the film seems to imply he's guilty because he looks and acts weird, and says confusing and contradictory things, the very sort of 'guilt by odd behavior' association both films attack in relation to the three boys found guilty. The fact that Byers (supposedly) has a brain tumor, and what effect that might have on his outward behavior is never explored at all. And watching this character at such length starts to get dull after a while, as his rants go on and on.

None-the-less, this is still a very interesting film, the most moving sections being those spent with the three now young men in jail for a crime they likely didn't commit. All have grown up a great deal in the 4 years since the last film, and are sad and articulate reminders of how horrifying it can be that people never given the benefit of a fair trial are allowed to sit and rot in prison. And the amazing lack of despair or bitterness they show is a testament to human resilience.