Michael_Elliott West of Memphis (2012) **** (out of 4)This here is basically the fourth documentary to take a look at the West Memphis Three case, which gained worldwide attention after the PARADISE LOST trilogy. Countless celebrities including Johnny Depp, Eddie Vedder, Henry Rollins and Peter Jackson came to the three men's cause and they are also featured here.So what this fourth film basically does is give you an overview of the case as well as new bits of information regarding who the killer might be. Let me start off by saying that this is a wonderfully entertaining film even though it is hard to watch at times since crime photos are shown in great detail. In fact, I will say that all four films on the subject were wonderful and certainly highly entertaining.With that said, as they bring up in this movie, the case will always be controversial with some believing the three men are guilty and others believing that they were set up by some crooked cops. Some believe that the media attention got three killers off with murder while others believe that the media forced the state of Arkansas to set the guys free. Even at the end, the controversy continues as the three men admit to be guilty but take a loophole law to say they're also innocent.I must admit that the PARADISE LOST series tried to place blame on one of the stepfather's but that person is shown as a great guy here. A new suspect is brought into play with evidence linking him to the crime but due to this loophole he will never be brought to trial. All four movies have demanded that the three men be released from prison and they have been. My question is now: what about the person who committed the crimes? What about the parents to the three murdered children? Is anything being done for them?

Bryan Kluger I've been following this case ever since HBO aired the first 'Paradise Lost' film in 1996. I was 15 then, and at the age, I was outraged and angry at how the justice system was working in Arkansas. I couldn't believe that these people could convict three innocent young men with no evidence to life in prison, with one receiving the death penalty. Needless to say, over the years, i have researched and tried to help any way that I could to this case by sending emails and letters and really anything I could do in my power to help free the West Memphis 3. And fortunately, there were two more sequels done by the original team who made 'Paradise Lost', which shed new light on the convictions. However, now, director Amy Berg delivers 'West of Memphis' with the help of Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh, which offers many new insights and interviews for the audience who have followed this case from the beginning, while letting newcomers in easily. It's one of the better documentaries ever made.I'm sure some of you might say, "why is this even being made?" Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky already made the three 'Paradise Lost' documentaries, which chronicled the three men's trials, prison sentence, and their ultimate release for prison 18 years later. You can rest easy to know that Berg pays homage and gives credit to the 'Paradise Lost' films almost immediately and does so throughout the 2 and a half hour documentary, and even goes further than the original filmmakers did.It starts out with the actual footage of the police officers finding the three murdered children, which this beginning acts more as a recount of why Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley, and Jason Baldwin are in prison. The year is 1994 in West Memphis, Arkansas, and we see a montage of dialogue and video of their first trial and their convictions, which ends with Echols smiling from the back of a police car as he's hauled away. For some people not familiar with the case, it would be easy to see why these boys were convicted.From here we fast forward 15 years later with millions of people around the world out to free these three innocent men who are still in prison. Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh (famous for 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy), heard about this case and immediately wanted to help. So in 2005, they called the right people and financially supported new DNA testing, new investigations into the trial, and even getting new hearings based on the evidence they were finding. Some of their researched turned up that while back in 1994 at their trial, it was said that satanic ritual killings were used on the three children, but that the evidence showed that their bodies were being eaten by animals as they laid in the water. They even did live tests to show that turtles were the particular animal that caused all of the scratches and bite marks on the children.The documentary also focuses on Echols' time in prison and how he met Lorri Davis, a woman who wrote to him in prison and eventually married and are still together to this day and living in New York. Lorri has worked on the case for a long time and was a big part of organizing the world wide awareness of the injustice of the West Memphis 3.There is also a very big chunk of the documentary devoted to Terry Hobbs, the stepfather of one of the victims, who we learn is the prime suspect in the murders and is still walking free today. Through Berg's documentary, she unravels some harsh and very shocking truths about Hobbs and how the West Memphis police never thought he could be a suspect. However, that's not the case as new testimony made from a tip line in 2012 suggests that Hobbs was the killer and that they had evidence.Well, we all know the story and how the state of Arkansas, in order to avoid the shame and humility and loss of millions of dollars, told the three men that they could go free if they pleaded guilty, which is called the Alford Plea. And we see some of the degenerate Arkansas politicians who were wanting to close this case with much quickness as to avoid any possible embarrassment and says that he still believes the three men are guilty because they pleaded guilty in order to get out of jail, which made the entire audience gasp and yell.Berg pulls at our heart strings for these three once young teenagers who are all now in their 40s and have spent 18 years in prison for crimes they did not commit. If you see one documentary this season, see 'West of Memphis'. It will stay with you forever.

samb8 My first thought after viewing this documentary was how could three innocent youths be charged/convicted/sentenced to this crime based on the post trial evidence I'm viewing? It's really tragic if these three are innocent. But what if the guy who directed this film, the clear leader of the three, actually duped the justice system. He befriended two boys who are clearly less intelligent, and appear to be very manipulative. When he's being interviewed in prison, he expresses his interest in magic and his desire to be considered the best at this craft. He finds a young women in whom he bears his soul and they connect. Over time he gets some influential people in his corner. Serious doubts based on lack of evidence, specifically DNA, plus some focus now on Hobbs, the stepfather who's at the very least abusing his step children. The bodies of the boys are found in the water perhaps damaging the chance for some/any DNA recovery from the actual perp(s)sans the hair from Hobbs. But since Stevie lived with Hobbs it is possible a transfer occurred not related to the crime. Hobbs would be an easy target to manipulate, he's unable to answer some of questions with a logical answer even if it were a lie. Damien Echols is an odd character in my opinion, capable of manipulating the other two boys easily. Capable of creating the illusion of innocence with the people that got involved on his behalf. Did a guilty man actually get himself off death row by creating the illusion of misjustice? Quite a magic trick, among the best if he did.

bob the moo Reading the comments about this documentary I learnt that there had been other films on this subject as part of the decades of trying to overturn the original convictions; this was news to me but, in all honesty, the case itself was news to me as I had never heard of these murders or the wider story. Perhaps I am under a rock but I am not sure how well known this all is outside of the US. Anyways, the film opens in such a way that is a little hard to follow. The murders themselves are clearly presented but a lot of characters and history is delivered and at times I was not wholly sure when certain video clips were from and I felt that it put me off balance a little in terms of context of what was being said. This was a minor problem and gradually I got out of it as the bigger story was made clear.This moved forward well and the film patiently reveals one after another example of bad practice, straight-up deception or implication of misconduct all of which presents a terrible miscarriage of justice. It adds to this by exploring other paths and presenting new evidence in the film – statements, DNA etc, all of which seem to point very clearly to a man who was prone to erratic violence towards one of the boys who was killed. This is hard to watch because it seems so clear while these three sit behind bars. The film doesn't offer justice though – only freedom, and in a way this is both a hard end to the film but also a very apt one because it highlights yet another nonsense. I really didn't see much difference between the original coerced confession and the pleas of "guilty" which are obtained by dangling freedom in front of the three men; to me it sat very badly and it angered me to see the elected official saying this plea had saved the State money by preventing the three from suing. So, even in their freedom they are robbed of what they should have been entitled to – and this guy says it like it is a positive outcome.I didn't know anything about this story when I started the film but it did the job very well of giving me a complex background, getting me up to speed and then delivering a lot of information on the way to the conclusion. The conclusion is that justice wasn't done and continues not to be done even while those in charge talk about how this gives closure to the families etc. Really hard to watch the film without getting angry, and this is to the film's credit.