Assassinato numa Manhã de Domingo

This stunning documentary captures a mesmerizing and deeply touching courtroom drama that will make you shout out in rage as well as cry. And you will cheer at a man who is a real-life hero; an angry, chain-smoking warrior whose commitment and dedication to this case provide a shining example for how EVERY defense attorney should work when there is so much at stake for the accused (alas, in real life, real justice mostly seems to be reserved for Hollywood movies). This film will stay with you long after you finished watching. 9 stars out of 10.

In case you're interested in more underrated masterpieces, here's some of my favorites:

imdb.com/list/ls070242495

On the morning of the 7th May 2000, Mary Ann Stephens and her husband were accosted by a young black man who held them up at gunpoint, taking her purse and shooting her at point blank range. A matter of hours afterwards police pack up 15 year old Brenton Butler after the husband identifies him on the street. Butler is interviewed and signs a confession which he says he was forced to sign. This film follows Public Defenders Ann Linnel and Patrick McGuiness as they defend Butler on all charges.

I watched this film expecting some form of fireworks akin to a fictional courtroom thriller – these were not forthcoming, I was misled by the advertising. However the outcome is a stronger film because it is not an extraordinary case, or one that is unusual. This is alarming due to the nature of the investigation which is lacking at best – brutal at worst. The fact that McGuiness does more investigation than the police is worrying simply because I refuse to believe that every court appointed attorney is as professional as he is depicted here – or as thorough. I'm sure many in his situation must grow numb to the numbers of young black men who pass through the courts daily.

Having mentioned his colour, I was pleased to note that the film never played the race card once. Even the fact that the husband could clearly care less which black kid he picked wasn't played up. This is helped by the fact that one of the officers involved in the courtroom is black, but it is refreshing to look at the courtroom scenario without having someone shout `racist' every 2 minutes. The focus of the film is very much on the process of the trial. As such, McGuiness is a likeable and honest guide, his interviews are scattered throughout him working the court and he makes interesting observations. His actual work in court is very sharp and he is very skilful attorney. I suspect the angelic light that the film casts him in may not be totally true but he is certainly not the other side of the spectrum as many of the others here are. It is alarming to see officers completely neglect their duties simply because they have already made their minds up.

As a documentary this is a solid film that does very well to condense the trial down without doing it a disservice. The only area I felt it could have done better with was in presenting a balanced view of the trial – the prosecutor is only really in objectives and a brief closing statement. I can't help wondering if a film about `a black man being prosecuted by an unjust system' winning the Oscar was a little to do with the politics of Hollywood, but regardless I'm glad this won.

Overall this is not a wild legal ride – in fact the details of the case are not that extraordinary (in terms of the crime). However this is the film's strength – it shows how easy it would be for one man to be locked up in jail for life, how twisted the system can be but also, happily, how the system works just fine when it is not abused or perverted.

This is a fascinating documentary about a 15 year old black lad who is accused of murdering a tourist in Florida and the subsiquent court case that follows. What this film shows is how corrupt the American police system is and how easy it can really be to convict an innocent man and how a senile old fool who thinks one black man looks very much like another and sod it if he rots in jail because i said he was the man who murdered my wife.The star is the defence lawyer who is brilliant at not only his job in court but he also did he what the police should have done all along. Fascinating stuff. 7 out of 10.

You know, before seeing this film I had little sympathy for those caught up in criminal cases. I mean if they were arrested and charged, "they must have been guilty" I reasoned?

I formed this opinion over some years. You see a good friend of mine once worked as a detective in some of the more seedy areas of Sydney. He frequently complained that his policing efforts were wasted due to 'bleeding heart' lawyers and magistrates. He would "bang the crooks up in the morning and they would be "back on the street by noon". It took its toll... they wore him down. He quit.

He has argued since, not unreasonably I thought, that creative evidence gathering, to keep the baddies "where they belong", was... well... "acceptable".

My arguments about the rights of innocent people weren't valid he claimed. "What are the chances that you will ever be arrested and charged with a serious crime"? he would argue. And, being a law abiding citizen, the weight of his argument convinced me he was right. The chances of me, or any of my family or friends, being charged with murder or a serious offense were zero to none I thought.

Hmmmmm. Well as mentioned earlier, seeing this wonderfully enlightening documentary changed all that.

I'm sending him a copy.

The subtext which usually emerges when simplicity is avoided in the telling of a morality tale is that good and evil are actually arbitrary. The fresh and shocking impact of this film is that the contrast between good and evil is sharp and clear. So rarely do we see that contrast today that we feel revived from moral slumber, even if momentarily. That's the essence of great storytelling.

Had this documentary told a tale which took place in 1965, I would have thought the film's straightfaced, understated delivery to be somewhat unengaging. However, the fact that the story takes place in 2000 and within our modern police system, it makes for a devastating revelation. The characters are archetypal, as emblemanic as the point being made. Racism, indolence and ineptitude rarely find a stage where they can be observed so pure. We also rarely get the opportunity to watch good people shake the system into behaving the way it should. This film should not be criticized for it's simplicity of point and of it's characters - if anything, we should be thankful that such characters exist and have endured this ordeal. It is a necessary and important distillation of where we still are as a nation - powerfully principled yet terribly flawed. The film is one-sided, as it should be (innocent until proven guilty), and it is deeply moving.

To classify this film as a "northern liberal's wet dream" (as one online reviewer has unfairly done) is to engage the cynicism which habitually complicates and frustrates communication of basic ideas; it smacks of neo-Hollywood. The undergraduate writer's urge to dilute good with poison and draw virtue from evil is not always evidence of genuine profundity. More often than not, it's simply cloudy and ill-defined values.