Paradise Lost 2: Revelations

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.

After the storm kicked up by the first film, film-makers Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky returned to West Memphis four years later. Whereas the first film seemed to simply document the case in as much detail as possible and allowed you to make your own mind up, with Revelations, they seem to have their own agenda. New 'evidence' has been discovered, and perhaps the real killer still walks the streets, and it's clear who Berlinger and Sinofsky believes it to be. That crazy bastard John Mark Byers, who took so much pleasure in giving Biblical rants to camera, hardly covers himself in glory, and he's back here to build fake graves for Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley at the crime scene, only to set them on fire amidst his demented monologues.

It's sad that Berlinger and Sinofsky decided to take such a manipulative approach to the sequel, as although Byers is clearly an unhinged and simple-minded hick, there is no evidence against him killing the three boys (Michael Moore, Stevie Branch, and his stepson Christopher Byers) aside from the fact that he comes across as scary and strange. The first film was an intense study of mob mentality and the dangers of pre- judgement by appearance, and how the West Memphis Three managed to get themselves convicted simply for being black-wearing outcasts. So Revelations comes across is hypocritical.

When new evidence is presented, suggesting teeth marks on the head of one of the victims, tests prove that none of the WM3's teeth match. When Byers is confronted, he reveals that he had his teeth removed but keeps changing his story as to when this took place. He is repeatedly confronted by a support group that help fund and promote the case against the WM3, but they come across as equally strange as Byers, following Echols like groupies as if he was some kind of prophet, and they berate Byers into handing in his dental records voluntarily to prove himself innocent. Byers refuses, stating that there is no case against him, and this is shown in the film as if an admittance of guilt. The film-makers never take any time to explain the reasoning behind Byers' behaviour, clearly convinced of his guilt.

In the end, it's a case of there being too little here to warrant a two hour-plus movie. The new evidence is flimsy to say the least, and as revealed in West of Memphis (2012), is probably completely wrong. Yet when the film gets back down to cold facts, it becomes as riveting as the first film, unveiling a justice system that seems unwilling to open the doors to the possibility that they simply got it wrong. It's just a shame that too much time is spent on a personal witch-hunt, and even when Byers passes a voluntary lie-detector test, the film suggests that Byers was on so much prescription medication that the results of this cannot really stand up, yet fails to ask to conductor of the test of his views regarding this. It's certainly a confused film, and one that works best when it stays on topic and documents the facts rather than revelling in propagandistic speculation.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

But not for the right reasons.

The snickering, smug arrogance of the filmmakers, who seem to have more screen time than anyone actually involved in the case, made me see this documentary as just a vanity project. I couldnt even buy the patronizing solicitude they showed towards one defendant (undoubtedly because he is the most photogenic of the three convicted of the crime).

There is a definite travesty of justice here, but getting to the truth seems to have become secondary to the childish delight with which the filmmakers show how much smarter they are than anyone else.

Their hearts may indeed be in the right place, and they truly want to see justice served, but this kind of flagrant self-aggrandizment does not do justice to anyone.

The film offers no real evidence as to the identity of the "real" killer, beyond the filmmakers' own speculation and innuendo - which is precisely what convicted the three boys they are trying to "save" in the first place.

Paradise Lost 2: Revelations picks up just a few years after the original documentary, Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills. During that documentary, we were informed massively about the murders and mutilation of three second graders on May 5, 1993 in West Memphis, Arkansas. The three convicted seemed to be judged by a shady, flawed confession by one of the men and their personal appearances and interests.

This is not only a sequel to a fantastic documentary, but it's a documentary that sheds light on something very, very frightening; a biased judicial system that reacts on present emotions, unclear evidence (when there hardly is any), and the personalities of the accused. It seemed that the three men were judged more on their likes and interests more than the actual murder. The three men are Damien Echols, now 24, Jessie Misskelley Jr., now 23, and Jason Baldwin, now 21.

The focus seems less on them and more on the smaller characters incorporated in the large story and the backlash and uproar the original HBO film caused. In the beginning of the documentary, we are acquainted with a local support group made up of people from all over the United States who saw the original Paradise Lost documentary, were outraged, and started their own support club. Three brave adults even came up with the idea to start a website in support of the nicknamed "West Memphis Three" (a surprising thing since internet was still pretty new and vague at the time).

The three people behind the website are shown at numerous points in the film accepting collect calls from prison from Damien Echols and holding a live, somewhat informal chat through their website. Damien is on speakerphone, people in the chat room ask him questions, and another writes down Damien's spontaneous responses as quickly as possible.

John Mark Byers, the stepfather to Christopher Byers, one of the three boys mutilated in the woods, is brought to the foreground here. He has got to be one of the most unsettling, eerie, and vicious documentary characters I've ever seen. He speaks in the southern twang you can't ignore, and his six foot eight presence equipped with his strong, muscular build is astonishing. Although he appears to be an upset father about the death of his son, he copes with his anger in a mean-spirited, hateful way. In one scene he goes as far as setting up fake graves for Baldwin, Echols, and Misskelley Jr. and proceeds to douse the graves with lighter fluid before striking a match and incinerating it all.

Byers is suspected in being involved in the murders of the three kids, and is victim to much gossip. On one of the boys, I believe Stevie Branch, but I could be wrong, there appears to be a bite mark. The prosecution insists it's a belt buckle imprint, but it impeccably resembles a purposeful bite mark. Oddly enough a few years after the original film's completion, Byers' wife, Melissa, died of "undetermined" circumstances.

Again, despite noted limitations present in the film, directors Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky seem to have an unprecedented amount of access to everything case related. Sadly, because of the notoriety of the original Paradise Lost, the film has a few more limitations than the first one did. There are some instances where the film goes to a black title card saying Berlinger and Sinofsky were not allowed to film in the designated area at the designated time. Still, the video we do see is provocative, astounding, and shows us more than one may believe.

Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills was a strong, turning point in documentary filmmaking because of its unbiased nature and its attitude to "show it all." Paradise Lost 2: Revelations is an impressive and well made documentary as well and it has the power to sway our opinions of the case itself and/or drastically change them. All I can say at this point is that hopefully we find a paradise, and it's not as hokey and as gray at the one that has been endured for far too long by these boys.

Starring: Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley Jr., and Jason Baldwin. Directed by: Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky.

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.