Sorry, this movie sucks

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

A Masterpiece!

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Central Park Five is very interesting documentary that is about a 1989 rape case and trial that occurred in Central park where five teenage African-American and Latino boys were convicted for sexually assaulting a white woman. Having spent 6-13 years each behind bars. A serial rapist confessed to the crime. Nevertheless, these boys were falsely convicted of a crime they did not participate in, and were stripped of their lives due to the corruption of police interrogations, and racism. As I watched this film I was compelled with the amount of pathos that Ken and Sarah Burns used in the film. From all of the stories of how the kids felt when they were going through the trial and the interrogations to all the images of and footages of them in these interrogations. Watching the videos and seeing the expressions on their faces really made me feel for them. But on top of all of this, the film made me really upset with the way that the police system was at the time. Having no real evidence that the five guys were connected to this case, they were able to persuade the kids to say what the police wanted to hear. The police did the wrong thing and everybody knows it. While listening to the interviews you can tell that the stories did not line up and some of the kids were nervous enough that they were unsure of what they were saying and second-guessing themselves. On top of that the police assumed they were the guilty party when they found them. Now as the film says there were other people in and around the park at the time, but they got a party of five African American teenage guys, that were walking around. Now how does that not fit profiling? Or how about racism? That is racism mostly at its finest, they found a group of "sketchy" African Americans and arrested them, and eventually convicted them with no real proof that they all did it. This made me upset, no I'm not African American but I feel like most people that it was unjust for them to do this and racism is not right in anyway, and it would get under anybody's nerves. Luckily the right guy did come out but only 13 years after the fact. But they did give the guys money for the time spent in jail so isn't that fair for them? not at all they took away the main part of a persons life. They took away there late teens and most of the there young adult years where most people learn the most of who they are and how to live in the world. These are times that will never be able to get back and nobody will ever be able to repay them with that experience.

I remember the skeptical tone of one news report I read in 2002, when the Central Park Five ("CP5") were exonerated due to Matias Reyes's confession to the 1989 assault and rape of Trisha Meili. The majority of people (including myself) who gave the story a cursory glance seemed doubtful about a serial rapist who was already serving a life sentence--i.e., with nothing left to lose by making a false confession--meeting one of the CP5 by chance in prison and taking the blame in order to clear the names of several young men who must have been properly convicted some years earlier. "What did Reyes get in return?" many of us wondered, ignoring the facts that all of the CP5 had already completed their sentences for the rape and near-murder of Meili--though one of them was incarcerated for a later drug trafficking offense and just happened to meet Reyes in prison--and that Reyes's DNA matched the profile found at the crime scene.THE CENTRAL PARK FIVE is very important in showing the other side of the story. It definitely has its slant, as any documentary will, but it makes a strong argument for the basic fact that five teenaged boys were convicted solely because of coerced and contradictory confessions to the crime after hours of being interrogated and played off against one another with a complete disregard for the lack of direct evidence against them. It clearly shows how this can and does happen far more often than many of us want to think. It's also very revealing of how dangerous public emotion and outrage, regardless of its focus, can be.Unfortunately, the NYPD, the prosecutors in the case, and everyone else responsible for the convictions declined to speak to Directors Ken and Sarah Burns, which is very telling but also limits the scope of the film. THE CENTRAL PARK FIVE is dominated by interviews with the CP5 and their relatives, obviously a crucial ingredient, but it becomes repetitive. There are, however, important comments from then-Mayor Ed Koch, who was all for conviction and serious punishment of the CP5 in 1989 but has now apparently changed his mind. The brief input by NYC historian Craig Steven Wilder and several others also adds a great deal.One of the strongest aspects of THE CENTRAL PARK FIVE is the brief sociological perspective of New York City's racially polarized, have/have-not environment during the 1970s and 80s. Not only is it elucidating in its own right, it also provides background and something in the way of explanation for the wrongful conviction of the CP5.Some of the more negative reviews have criticized THE CENTRAL PARK FIVE simply for being "boring," and at the risk of sounding crass, I see what they mean. While this is an important miscarriage of justice that should not be ignored, the repetitiveness and narrow scope of the film will inevitably limit its mass appeal. Anyone with a serious interest in this case and wrongful convictions in general, however, will probably find its two-hour length well-worth sitting through.More analysis of the details that led to the wrongful convictions would have been helpful, e.g., the term "wilding." One of the CP5 confessed to police that he and a number of others were "wilding" in Central Park on the night of the crime. The term "wilding" is roughly equivalent to "raising hell," the usual term-of-choice when I was a kid in the late '70s/early '80s. "Raising hell" could, of course, refer to anything from driving fast, drinking beer, and talking loudly and irreverently (as we meant it) to violent felonies. More discussion of how misinterpretations of the loose term "wilding" were a critical factor in the conviction would have added some depth to this documentary.

I watched this last night and I've now had a chance to step back and consider this documentary more carefully. Overall I feel that it really could've been produced far better in several ways but having said that it certainly keeps you watching from start to finish and would recommend it to anyone to watch.I viewed this knowing nothing about this case beforehand & I was left with the feeling that this was really a documentary that was unfortunately one sided and produced primarily to present to the viewers the great wrong-doing that was done to the 5 kids who were wrongly convicted. Much of the documentary is giving voice to the victims of this case and as another review already mentions no one from the other side such as officers or layers or in fact anyone at all that could of given an alternative perspective, was part of this documentary. So therefor we are left with a very one sided view and it really didn't allow us to understand the motivations and reasons to why this happened to these 5 people other than the more obvious reasons that the documentary presents.What I felt would of really brought this documentary alive was to give some perspective onto the pressures and life of the convicting police officers during this time and to delve more into the experience of the kids growing up in prison knowing you have been wrongly convicted. We didn't find out much about their experience in prison at all.But again having said this I would still recommend this documentary and for me it once again highlights and makes you consider how society and we as individuals then, now and all through history in fact, love to witness a horrible crime and find at all costs the individual or individuals on which the guilt rests; which is why even as a viewer we have such strong reactions to this. …………"As you see him, you will see yourself ... As you think of him you will think of yourself … for in him you will find yourself or lose yourself." ACIM (T-8.III.4:2-5)

I was leery of this despite a friend's recommendation. I didn't live in NY at the time and basically ignored the news reports. So, this film I found fascinating, should be required for all law students and certainly worthwhile for everyone else. It could have been 5 or 10 minutes shorter but frankly I feel that way about most films. I had a bit of confusion sorting out the Five and their adult selves. (One of them changed to or from a Muslim-sounding name, I think). Also it's a very interesting portrait of NYC circa 1990. I'd like to know more about why the civil case is still "unresolved". The tone of the film is indignant but, more importantly, it is truth-seeking. That's why it's so compelling: we viewers want to find out what happened.