Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Forumrxes Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

Catangro After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

SnoopyStyle Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley, Jr., and Jason Baldwin were convicted in 1994 for the murder of three boys in West Memphis, Arkansas. It's 1999 and Damien has his final appeal in front of Judge David Burnett. The popularity of the original documentary has inspired support group, Free the West Memphis Three. Cameras are no longer allowed in the court. Of the victims' family, only John Mark Byers is cooperating with the filmmakers and he has a lot to say. He also has had a lot of legal problems. His wife died in 1996. He takes a lie detector test in front of the camera. The defense team seems to be concentrating on bite marks on the boys.Byers is a big part of this follow-up. He's a very odd character and the movie is trying to make him suspicious. It's a lot of innuendos. Without being able to film the court proceedings, this is left without its main narrative. It becomes obviously one-sided. The support group adds very little to overwhelming need of this sequel. It needs to solve the murders or get the West Memphis Three out. This achieves neither. This could have been a shorter film to update the situation.

MisterWhiplash It's strange to come to write about Paradise Lost 2: Revelations having watch some (though not all) of the third and final entry from 2011, part 3 Purgatory (which was made the same year the West Memphis 3 - Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley Jr., and Jason Baldwin - were finally released from prison due to an unusual 'plea' deal). I say this because by the time one watches that film, shot some 12/13 years after the second entry which was shot four years after the original Paradise Lost (93/94 in Arkansas), a key character (and I use the word Character I should say with a capital C) with John Mark Byers has changed. Hindsight is always 20/20 as the saying goes, but it is still captivating and kind of horrifying to see how Byers, and not necessarily the three (at the time) convicted killers, becomes the main character here.I have to wonder if the filmmakers went into the project knowing exactly what they would do; part of the impetus was to go back to the area in Arkansas as Echols in 1998/99 was facing a very urgent appeal process in court (with the original judge in the case, I'd say unfortunately), and also by this time the effect of the first Paradise Lost doc was such that the film itself was available as evidence for the defense. Ironically though because of the notoriety, the filmmakers Berlinger and Sinofsky weren't allowed in the courtroom, and the parents of the victims (seen in part 1) declined to be interviewed... except for Byers' stepfather, and his mother by this point had died. What did she die from? Well, that's kind of a funny story...Although the filmmakers here have access to the West Memphis 3 (Echols seems to get the most time since it's his appeals process as the focus), as well as one of the defense lawyers and a special investigator who can spot things that should have been clear to the cops at the time of the killings, and there is the group that formed to help free men and how they set up the website and (as a running thing in the movie) having an online chat for people on the site with Echols, the lack of being in the courtroom and certain subjects makes things a little more limited. It's through no fault of their own, but the filmmakers probably had to scramble to find some way to make the film more compelling. Needless to say, Mr. Mark Byers ended up, through his own sense of either mania or ego, said 'I'm here!' The running thing with Byers is that certain people around him - neighbors, especially those who, for example, claim (rightfully so) that he and his formerly-living wife stole things from their homes, or just people in town - don't trust him. More to the point, Byers is looked at as an outside-probably-yeah suspect as the actual murderer of the kids (the step-father of one, and the kid had a history of abuse that wasn't really put forward until this doc). No real attempts are made by the authorities to go after him, which seems about right given how steadfast the chief (retired) officer is with the results of the case), but all the same Byers, who does things like YELL into the camera in full close-up for his enemies and doubters to go to hell and so on and keeps getting into confrontations with the Free West Memphis people (who aren't looking for any confrontation and want to ask simple questions), isn't having it. So how about a polygraph test? This latter part makes for the most compelling and darkly twisted (for me) part of the documentary. Arguably there's a moment, in an informal conversation with the tester before the actual polygraph, where Byers admits to murdering his wife (Freudian slip one might say, but it's a 'whoa whoa WHOA' moment), and he says to the tester that he's on a mixture of pills to fight his 'brain tumor' (does he have it for real, who knows). But this makes for a chilling centerpiece to what is otherwise a kind of warped piece of theater for Byers. He is someone who PLAYS to the camera, whether he knows it or not; he mostly does know it, you can tell, in a way where it's kind of either bad acting, or a level of just 'he does believe this, but what's in his head?' He becomes one of the most striking personas I've seen in a modern documentary, and whether you think he's a killer or not, as he WAS a criminal (at the end of the film the text says he's arrested and put to jail for some time for drug dealing to a narc) and it makes for an ambiguous treatment.The focus on the case itself is sharp and interesting too,, the new evidence all the more troubling, albeit at times there's a reliance a bit much on footage from the past movie. But it's sad just how much of a miscarriage of justice went on, through perception of young people, Wiccans and the "Occult" (which the expert on camera refutes and it's easy to see from the pictures too), and throughout people like Echols make for the opposite side of someone like Byers: a lucid, calm, but seemingly decent person who has been put into a position where it really is LIFE or DEATH. The viewing experience may be slightly colored by what comes in part 3, or just what happened in the real world to the West Memphis 3, but it doesn't diminish the impact of this documentary with this real force of nature in the ultimate hulking-talkative-WTF redneck John Mark Byers. If nothing else, see it for him.

tomgillespie2002 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

Anton David (flixscan) I consider myself a pure skeptic...almost to a fault. After seeing the first film I doubted that I had seen the whole story. Surely there was some physical evidence that was produced at trial that simply wasn't included in the film because it would make a better story. However through my VERY limited research it appears that the state really did not produce any physical evidence that directly linked the WM3 to the murders. I am not saying they are innocent, only that from what I understand there is no evidence that they are guilty. There is a difference.My problem is that this film forgets that there is also no physical evidence that directly links Mark Byers to the case. Yes, his knife had some blood on it that matched BOTH his AND the victim but it was in his possession for some time and it is plausible that he would have cut himself ...on a knife. What I find truly FOUL about this film is the way that they give Byers and "honorarium" to do this film (when he is probably in dire need of money) and basically spend the bulk of the film mocking him in a way that makes me not like him. Yes, he is a creep. And behaves really creepy. That doesn't mean he is a killer. Yes, he has a criminal record, and a long one. That doesn't mean he is guilty in THIS case (it's why prior criminal history is rarely allowed in a court case). And yes, he fits the bill, but that doesn't mean he is the guy. Just a creep. After the first film, I was open to the idea that he is possibly the murderer. Oddly, after this film tried so hard to convince me that he may just might be that guy, I am even less convinced. He DID pass a lie detector, and while those can be beaten, the experienced tester certified it. Amazing that the other reviewers here are willing to overlook the test but accept that Miskelley's confession is invalid. Confessions aren't valid, lie detectors aren't valid. Where is the factual evidence? What can I believe? Anyway, the film makers railroad Byers the same way the court system railroaded the WM3. Insulting that this is what the media has become.Secondly, the film completely accepts the "forensic science" that is given by a guy that teaches it on the web. Lol. But they totally ignore the conflicting reports that is given by multiple professional forensic experts that are actually working in the field. As a skeptic, I do not believe it rules out the WM3 (again, I don't know if they are innocent, but I don't believe they should have been convicted). I am not even convinced it was bite mark.Thirdly, the film consists of no less than 20 full minutes of footage from the first film. I already saw the first film. Also, the film makers are sure to not edit anything out of this film that refers to the so called genius on the first film. Yes the first was thought provoking but everybody I know who sees it says they want to read more about it. Proof it is an incomplete story.to recap: 1) Byers is railroaded in this film the same way the WM3 are railroaded in the court system. The media and the courts have failed in this case. Equally.2) No physical evidence proves that Byers is guilty. In fact, I am now more convinced he is not the murderer...just a misguided CREEP.3)The film makers take one not so valid opinion and treat it as gospel but ignore numerous professional opinions on the bite marks. A complete and total failure of journalism.4) The film makers sure pat themselves on the back with this one. The skeptic in me is now starting to think that their presence in the trials somehow adversely affected the justice of the case. I can totally sympathize with the WM3 but the film makers completely blew it. An atrocious failure in film making and journalism. Sad as the REAL story is that no evidence has been found, and the REAL MURDERER HAS TOTALLY GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT. Something that is totally lost in the film.1 star only