Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

Like many others I was introduced to this case through the 'Paradise Lost' documentaries (there's a very brief scene where they mention the documentary being filmed), and I have spent many hours reading over the transcripts, case files, '500' etc. It was after the first documentary that I said to myself 'this is such an incredible story, you couldn't have written it'.So I suppose I shouldn't be too disappointed with this film - I had preempted my own opinion years ago after all.I call this film disjointed because it doesn't seem to know what point it wants to make. Prior to watching, I had the impression from the trailer that this was Pam Hobbs' (now Hicks) story, and that Terry would be fingered by the end (he is the current 'favourite' suspect). However the film seemed keen to avoid this kind of direct conclusion, instead dipping its toe into every little side event which, while helping to maintain the mystery element, made everything feel confused.Hobbs is represented as violent and controlling, yet this seems to have little effect on the relationship between him and Pam. It's almost as if his negative behaviour is for the viewer, and it feels very telegraphed.The viewer is also left with no kind of grasp on what to think of the WM3, and this seems to be by design. Nowhere is this more evident than the scene where Damien is taking his polygraph. They carefully avoid referencing what happened in his polygraph results (they state he failed - but the test should have been inconclusive anyway since he was taking Imipramine). Is the viewer supposed to just not wonder whether he passed the polygraph? Are they being nudged to look it up? Or what? Why include the scene at all if you're not willing to show the conclusion? This question is all the more bewildering when we are exposed at length to Chris Morgan's 'failed polygraph' and his ensuing reaction (he was, in reality, dismissed as a suspect weeks before Jessie was taken in).Starting out the film had a haunting air, as a lot of the set pieces were lifted right from the real events (including Pam collapsing against a car wailing, one of the most memorable and harrowing of the real moments - I felt very uncomfortable watching this moment being synthesised).But the film then jumped forwards in time a lot, and while there are brief captions stating what the viewer is seeing, I can imagine people unfamiliar with the story being put off or confused by this execution. Atmosphere took a backseat once the bodies had been found.The child's voice narrating was wholly unnecessary.Many things are left out, and it's not even totally clear at what point the film is supposed to end - we just suddenly cut to a shot of the creek with a quick fire bit of text mentioning what happened in the next 18 years. Michael Moore's parents apparently don't exist, and John Mark Byers is unfairly represented here as a bumbling simpleton (complete with hick dungarees).The reason I gave the film a six instead of lower is that redeemingly it put emphasis on the children who died - it's sad but they are almost forgotten against the backdrop of 'whodunnit' in the public domain. This was at least avoided here.I also went from five to six because the film included the court scene exposing what a fraud Griffis was (regardless Burnett's ignorant sustain).I think the open ending is meant to generate thoughtfulness about the whole thing, but it falls short. Look at 'Changeling' for proof that you can make a mystery with an open ending successfully. That left you longing to know what happened, this just felt incomplete.

It's always interesting with films based on true stories to see how they go about things. How closely to the truth do they stick, do they give their own opinions on matters, what narrative do they use etc. 'Devil's Knot' goes for a bizarre mix between being an emotional drama at times, through to be nothing more than a factual reenactment you'd find in nearly every documentary at others. Without the former there really wouldn't have been much point in making it, let alone bringing in big stars such as Reese Witherspoon and Colin Firth. It's hardly a seamless crossover between the two however, mostly due to poor direction by Atom Egoyan.What carries it though is that it's an interesting case and that's enough to keep the viewer tuned in. Withersoon and Firth are far from top form - Witherspoon looks like she's phoning it in in most scenes and Firth looks disinterested and never changes his emotional level once in the film. For a film dealing with the death of 3 young boys things never reach the emotional peak they should have. The one effective scene was the hugging scene in the classroom with Witherspoon.It's far from perfect, but it is fascinating at times nonetheless. It doesn't force its opinion on you (at least not too much) which I really liked. None of the scenes drag and the dialogue, while occasionally clunky, is well written for the most part. The case itself it probably more memorable than the film, but I wouldn't have known about the case without the film so I won't complain too much.

I could realize why this movie is too low, it doesn't deserves a great answer from the normals.The story of the movie (which is really based on true attempts) is the only thing that saves it from being terrible at all, after that. the rest of the movie is disappointingly.But, terribly, this movie connects some things stupid from the story using them in the movie, making it feel disappointingly for a lot of people, just like (SPOILER) the decisions of the judgment to charge down the guilty for murder with... Heavy Metal music and black dressing, hey that's stupid at all, what's wrong with Heavy Metal music, with wearing black clothes and reading a little about occultism, just for that things, you're a serial murdered, that's not good.

Okay, so I'll admit that I'm writing this review as a parent of a small child. That way, you may understand that watching a film about a child who's kidnapped and murdered is always going to affect me more. Plus this actually happened. 'The Devil's Knot' is based on a real incident in American in 1993 when three boys were found murdered in a small town and three teenage boys were subsequently arrested.By all accounts the film is actually quite close to the truth, or at least, what is perceived as the truth. Obviously there is some ambiguity as to the accused's guilt, that way there is some proper interest in the story. Colin Firth plays the investigator who doubts the 'open and shut' of the case and starts looking a little deeper into what transpired, rather than just following the inevitable thirst for *any* blood from the local townsfolk. The first thing that struck me was that he did an American accent well. I'm not aware of any other film where he's put on a U.S. accent and he did it pretty well.Reece Witherspoon is one of the grieving mothers and plays a naturally sympathetic role well, drawing on her ability to pull off a decent southern American accent.As the 'killers' are quickly apprehended, much of the film is centred around the following trial and courtroom battle.Basically, the film is an extended courtroom drama, so, if you're into those, you should enjoy it. Personally, I could have done without seeing the moment when the youngsters are 'found' – it's quite upsetting, based on how real it looks. But then that's just me speaking as possible an overprotective parent.All in all, a good film – difficult subject matter and handled well in a balanced way. I'm not sure I'd want to watch it again, but I don't feel like I've wasted the two hours I invested in it.