adonis98-743-186503 Based on the actual events of the West Memphis Three, where three young boys were savagely murdered in West Memphis, Arkansas in 1993. Spurred on by the demand from a grieving town, the local police act quickly to bring three "devil-worshipping" teenagers to trial. With their lives hanging in the balance, investigator Ron Lax is trying to find the truth between the town's need for justice and the guilt of the accused. I think that Devil's Knot (2013) is a very complex film for a very complex story that although it does kinda do justice to it's story it misses the point to other areas, Colin Firth and Reese Witherspoon are really good in their roles especially Reese as the grieving mother but everyone else besides them is just alright especially her husband Terry played by Alessandro Nivola feels kinda miscasted and except maybe one or two scenes where he shows some emotion for the rest of the film he is actually a robot, the Hobbs also had a little girl a 2nd child in general but we only see her and hear about her in the entire film only 3 times and that is kinda disappointing it actually makes the parents look like the "bad people" of the story since they hardly ever seen with her that just makes you wonder of who feeds her, dresses her and with who she stays with when her Parents aren't home. But although flawed the movie has some redeeming moments such as the leads, the interesting story, the court room scenes that were pretty good into building the story and the puzzles and a chilling ending that just makes you wish that you knew more about the true events of the film more. Overall this is a film that does it's job quite well but if you expect another "Prisoners" kind of thriller? Expect to be disappointed. (8/10)

Cyaneyed 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.

Reno Rangan I understand why this film did not vastly, positively recognized, even though it was taken straight from a really cruel incident. Some viewers mind only the commercial value, forget that one because they're living a useless and careless life about society. And the other reason is there is nothing wrong in performance, direction or in any technical aspect, but the story itself do not fit to be a movie. It should have been documentary instead.Coincidentally, this movie was similar to the 2011 Koren movie 'Children...' which was also based on the true event. About children who go missing. Both the events took place in the early 90s. This silver screen movie looks a lot like television broadcastable item that it should be. There is a documentary trilogy inspired from this story. The motive was to bring the truth out and it was well received according to ratings and reviews. And don't forget the books.''My son is 8-year-old. He sleeps with a night light on, he did not run away from home.''A movie must have (1) a story to begin with, (2) characters that develop along the story and (3) finally a conclusion whether twist in it or not, happy or sad, either way it works. So what's wrong with it? Well, it lacks in development in either of above first two points and extents throughout without nothing while we are expecting a glimpse of something to happen. The fact is, no one knows what really happened, actually those who know are tight lipped because of involvement. I just can't conclude my judgement because of this movie, but give a fair point for anyone who are not familiar with this case.Not focused on a particular character, the most of the perspective in the storytelling was Colin Firth's role which was just an appearance to show I'm there but not in action. You have a couple of choices to rate this movie, one, based on the story which is real and cruel, and another is the movie that disappoints as a movie. Like I am always quite happy with the product like this, because I got to know what I supposed to learn about this 'West Memphis Three' case. Hope the new movie do convey well to the cinematic output.

paul david Like most films of this kind, it is a film based on a true story which happened in Arkansas in 1993. I am English and until watching this film, I had never heard of this story. However, some, if not many, might regard this right up there for notoriety with crimes put to movies such as Ted Bundy and others in the pipeline such as Madeleine McCann and Amanda Knox-Meredith Kercher.This was a complicated story-line to absorb without knowing the story first and I took the chance to research it a little afterwards. Certainly the film focuses a great deal on Colin Firth as Ron Lax and Reese Witherspoon as Pamela Hobbs in the leading roles but it shows little light (perhaps as in the Knox-Kercher case which is still fresh in our minds) that the Arkansas wanted 'closure' and quickly and they set out fabricating a case against the three guys which only serves to show the sheer ineptitude of American justice or of any civilised country for that matter.No real acting is required by Colin Firth, he just plays the part while Reese Witherspoon does step up as the emotional Mum grieving her lost Son. The background to the parenting of the three lost boys is not explained in this film.I find it incredible that the film did not throw more light on the apparent satanic cult which was prevalent in that area at that particular time and which, had that been investigated and questions asked of those who were involved, just as in the McCann case in Portugal from 2007, there is the possibility that the crimes committed could be solved in a professional manner rather than left for people to comment and judge by social media in the present climate following release of the new evidence and the ultimate release of the three convicts in 2011.I cannot say I enjoyed this film. It is definitely not a film to enjoy but I wonder whether the film could have carried a more subtle focus for a more connecting audience. 20 years on, I sense the film was made for financial reasons but who are the beneficiaries?