ntadema

Here's a brief overview of the case that is the subject of this documentary: Cameron Todd Willingham was convicted of murder by arson of his three daughters in 1991 and put to death in 2004. Since then, a number of death penalty advocates have claimed his innocence by criticizing the evidence presented in 1991.

Before watching the film, I had been following the case very closely and read everything I could about the case. As such, I knew at the conclusion of this film that the filmmakers had presented only one side of the story.

Notably, the entire film is based on, and only on, interviews with Todd Willingham's defense - the most notable interviews are with Willingham's defense attorney at trial, David Martin, and the expert, Gerald Hurst, who claims the state's arson is flawed (based on over 10 years of hindsight). What is absent is an interview with a prosecutor, judge, witness, jury member, state expert, or even a neutral expert to balance the audience's perspective. Instead, the film represents the state with some choice footage which appears to be intended to cast current state politicians (no one who was actually involved in the trial, mind you) in a bad light.

At one point the film cuts to "The State's Case" (or something like that). Who presents "The State's Case?" Not the prosecutor (or any prosecutor for that matter). Rather, the state's case is presented by the same guy advocating for the defense, Gerald Hurst, the expert who calls Willingham "innocent" based on retrospective findings that the arson evidence was inconclusive (Calling someone innocent based on inconclusive findings seems contradicting in itself but the filmmakers never seem to question Hurst's declarations).

This one-sided presentation leaves Martin, Willingham's defense attorney at trial, to defend the state's case because Martin has no doubt that Willingham is guilty. Since when does the defense attorney become the best guy to defend the state's case? Even so, Martin makes a couple of points that strike home - for instance, he points out that Willingham's fire took a very unnatural 90-degree turn into the three girls' bedroom. This point is never refuted. Also, the filmmakers present footage of Willingham's ex-wife (and mother of the dead children) making a public declaration in 2009 or 2010 that Willingham told her he did it. And finally, the most interesting footage of the movie involves Martin stating that there may be other reasons why he believes Willingham is guilty but those reasons are protected by attorney-client privilege...

Despite a few interesting parts like that, I found myself very disappointed in the objectivity of this film. The film never addresses the confession that Willingham supposedly made to a jail-house snitch, Willingham's violent and drug-riddled history, the fact that Willingham kept changing his story as to what happened, Willingham's incriminating behavior during and shortly after the fire, or aspects of the fire that indicated arson (other than Martin's point). Instead, the film seems focused on presenting Willingham's detractors as the bad guys.

The film's unilateral presentation is disappointing because this case could have made for a very educational and interesting case study.

This is undoubtedly, in my mind, the greatest sports film ever made. Sure, it has great dialogue, good acting, and hilarious moments. But what really makes this a great film is its love of the game of baseball. Anyone who is or was a big baseball fan should consider this film a must-see.

One of the unacknowledged features of the film is the tragedy of Crash Davis' character. By the end of the film, it becomes a tragic plot line. A person who appreciates everything about the sport, but doesn't have the talent to become great, has to mentor someone who doesn't appreciate the sport but is a born star. What avid sports fan can't appreciate this terrible reality?

If you love sports, particularly baseball, see the film. If you don't, don't see it and spare us your ignorant opinion.

Overall, "Panic Room" was a disappointment, but was nevertheless fairly entertaining. The film fails to develop its main characters adequately before overeagerly diving into the sticky situation in which the main characters find themselves for 90% of this movie. The "villains" were a bit too weak in my opinion and were more comic than intimidating....not a good quality to have in a movie that is clearly intending to be a thriller. Another aspect that made them weak was that I kept finding myself thinking "Why don't they just...and they would win!?" I'm sorry Mr.Fincher, but I have to have a villain who has more common sense than Joe Schmo in order for a thriller to be thrilling. Nevertheless, I think there was enough solid directing and acting (to be expected from Jodie Foster and Forrest Whitaker) to make this movie worth watching. I attribute all of the shortcomings of this film to the writers. Overall, I give it a 6/10.