Brilliant and touching

best movie i've ever seen.

Absolutely the worst movie.

The first must-see film of the year.

DEVIL'S KNOT is the film version of a true story about three boys who were brutally murdered in Arkansas in 1993. A public outcry and witch hunt followed, at which point three outcast teenagers were herded up and sent to court accused of the crime. In the subsequent years, many people have come to believe that the teenagers were innocent, and DEVIL'S KNOT explores some of the complexity of the case.Sadly it's a bit of a disappointing film. It's well shot throughout but that's all you get. The film seems overly distracted by the presence of Hollywood starlet Reese Witherspoon playing the mother of one of the victims. For a relatively minor character in the story she gets way too much screen time and spoils what could have otherwise been an enthralling viewing experience. I was much more interested in the characters of the accused but they seem skirted over in some ways.Another detraction is Colin Firth as the mild-mannered crime investigator. Firth is too occupied with trying to do an American accent than with properly acting and his subdued turn makes no impact. When the film finished I was just left wanting to know more about the case than in this somewhat sketchy version - perhaps to watch one of the documentaries which I'm sure exist about it. DEVIL'S KNOT is no MISSISSIPPI BURNING, that's for sure.

Not a bad movie for an afternoon watching. I enjoyed it quite a lot, though I must say that first third of the movie was kinda slow and uninteresting. Also, I thought that Reese's acting was totally and completely uninspired and unconvincing during the first half of the movie! I was really surprised how bad she was as usually she does movies justice - though, on the second thought, maybe only in comedies.Other father's and mother's of dead boys were also quite unconvincing. And some scenes were almost a joke. The main guilty one...thought that his acting was good and consistent throughout the movie. As for the Colin. He is OK, though his first appearance in the movie buying Napoleon's desk is what? What does have to do with the story or him? Based on a true story is in most cases - for me - very interesting from the start. This was no exception. And the ending ( and facts) leaves you speechless. But on the other hand, was glad to know that they did not kill the main suspect. Though, it also leaves the question: who killed the boys? If I understood correctly, it seems that it were their fathers? Eight from me.

Prior to watching this film I had taken a class that spent about a month or so looking in-depth into the case of The West Memphis Three very heavily and even getting the opportunity to meet with Dan Stidham, Jessie Misskelly's defense attorney. So watching the film for the first time I was pretty critical to see how the characters would be portrayed and perhaps hint at specifically that Terry Hobbs had in fact been the real murderer. I was quite pleasantly surprised that the movie took a rather objective stand about the suspected murderer besides the three West Memphis teens, Damien, Jason, and Jessie. The movie presented the other theories that have surfaced; including as mentioned before, Terry Hobbs, John Mark Byers, and the mysterious "Mr. Bojangles". I appreciated those view points and really gave the viewer the chance to create their own theory. I thought the facts in the film were almost entirely accurate and had a few misconstrued details, but where won't one find that in a movie 'based' on real-life events. One of the things that I enjoyed thoroughly about the film was the credit and presence on Ron Lax in the trials of the three teens. In the film he took on the role of most likely the lead male character which I did not expect. When reading and researching the case by itself Lax does not really play a large part in the trials of the three teens. I felt as if this film gave Lax the credit he deserved as well as Stidham's dedication to the three teens when the two other attorneys dropped off after the sentence. Another character that I felt got a little lost in the film was Micheal Moore along with Chris Byers. All in all I felt like the film gave an accurate representation of facts and visual images to the story. However, the documentaries would hold more fact filled information if one desires more information about the West Memphis Three.

True account of three pre-teen boys in West Memphis, Arkansas in 1993 who were murdered while out riding their bikes and dumped in the river; the slow-acting local law, while managing to botch up evidence and allow a blood and mud-covered drifter go free, focuses their investigation on a trio of trouble-causing teenage boys into witchcraft and heavy metal music, while the public seems grateful just to have faces to pin their rage upon. Since the real-life case had a peculiarly unresolved and unsatisfying conclusion, the film follows suit. Director Atom Egoyan handles the proceedings matter-of-factly; he thankfully isn't exploitative but, while there are devastating images, his cool, detached take on these crimes lacks an emotional core (which Reese Witherspoon's grieving mother fails to provide). Colin Firth, as wealthy legal investigator Ron Lax, offers the movie a reality check--his 'obsession' with the case is subtle and he's a marvelous touchstone--but the small-minded bigots and publicity-seekers in the supporting cast are hard to take. Egoyan, working from a screenplay by Paul Harris Boardman and Scott Derrickson, from Mara Leveritt's book, seems intent on showing us the town's mass prejudice--even the judge in the courtroom acts like a yokel--and this causes the narrative to flag in the second-half. ** from ****