The Coverup

This is the first time I've been the first person to write a review, which is surprising, considering this film has been out for 5 years ... But then again, perhaps not, because there really isn't much to enthuse about.

Perhaps it comes from having a screenplay basically written by the main protagonist, but there's absolutely no attempt to explain the reasons for the decisions that went against our "hero" - and I believe there were several - they're simply dismissed as arbitrary and possibly corrupt. And the courtroom scenes have to rank as some of the dullest and most unedifying I've ever seen in a film which is essentially about a court case.

To be honest, the most interesting sequence is the first 5 minutes (the videotape of the interrogation), but after that things start to go downhill quickly. There's no tension, and no attempt to explain anyone's motives; and the movie meanders its way slowly to the courtroom where, after more tedium, the jury return a verdict that frankly feels like it comes out of nowhere. On the basis of this outing, I'm not sure I'd trust Gabriel Mann to argue the case for the Pope being Catholic.

About the only actors who show any spark are John Savage and Lee Garlington, as the parents of Kevin Thacker. Sadly, they're not on screen long enough to give this movie any impetus, and the whole thing fizzles out like a damp squib.

Lesson for the future chaps: ponderous dialogue and trite platitudes about justice and the misuse of power do NOT a courtroom drama make.

Bad acting, bad soundtrack, bad directing and bad writing. I love true stories so I should have just stopped watching and either read about this case or found a documentary to watch.

I am giving this particular film a relatively high score because it is really obvious that the only problem with this movie is low budget. Or lack of funding to produce. If it had been a bigger budget this would have gotten a 10. Why? For the pure emotion it brought forward, which is what I look for in a movie regardless of the genre. The direction and filming easily represented that yellowish early 1980's shade of telling a story that deserves to be told. The actors did what they could, the scenery is very 1980's and while the story could have been more evolved, it was not a Hollywood production with all the bells and whistles. I will always pull for the underdog movie and I liked it. Also, a tragic case.

I like true crime films. I work in the legal field, myself. I was surprised this film did almost nothing to show how the case was presented, although the Force/Mass testimony would have been very compelling to the jury; I'm sure what they saw and heard was much more thorough.

Being from 2008, this film was part of the struggle to pull the covers on this type of brutality and cover-up. We now have Minnesota v. Chauvin, which is a real turning point in our communities for all citizens who've been victimized by rouge cops like Derek who was reported several times by fellow cops and abused civilians before finally committing this unforgivable act. This verdict is a direct result of unreported footwork by the orange guy who implemented police reform as soon as the death of GF was announced.

The difference with the Thacker case is that, as the attorney claims, the FBI eventually pardoned the convicted cops. Well, I'm not a trial attorney but I can tell you that only the POTUS can Pardon a murderer; and a pardon in no way reverses the legal conclusion of the courts or expunges a judgment. The FBI is the one who investigates petitions for pardon. Once it has concluded the investigation, they submit it to the office of the President without prejudice.

The attorney, who wrote this film and has various blogs around the internet, claims his intent was to show FBI corruption but this film never touches on that except a footnote at the end. Researching his blogs identifies his main complaint as being that there was no grand jury and no trial supporting the pardon, and that they created false evidence, which the writer does not elaborate on.

None of this is required in a pardon.

The truth is, civilians don't have the clearance to know why the FBI do what they do. People call the FBI criminals all the time because they take laws that apply to civilians and apply them to this huge leg of Homeland Security. For all we know, the conviction prevented them from continuing to employ one or more of the cops as some kind of informants or agents. I seriously doubt it was just to get the best donuts when they visit Iowa, but in 1989 it very well could have simply been to show support to the police. It was a different time.

I feel the attorney is doing a disservice to his late client and the ground-breaking verdict he secured by making this now about some imagined FBI corruption. He should research how a pardon is processed and stop blaming the investigative branch that handled the paperwork.

I am so glad that I did not listen to the nay-sayers. This was a fact based film about police abuse of power. Personally I am a supporter of the boys in blue. However we all know about facts being tainted by higher ups who want to win to advance careers. I don't trust prosecutors who encourage planted evidence and evidence hidden to advance their personal careers , regardless of what is right Look at Steven Avery. Set up in every way maybe to avoid a hugh payout and maybe vengeance after such a long time. This film however true, seeks to show that power, can indeed be corrupted. It may or may not be factual but it shows that we must all be vigilant.