Curapedi
I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.
Tobias Burrows
It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.
Scarlet
The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.
Robert J. Maxwell
It's about time Hollywood was able to treat the South as more than a mephitic swamp of ignorant, sneering racists at the bottom and incestuous, decadent, supercilious Gothics at the top. The traditional problems may still exist here and there but the South is no longer a separate country as it was in the early 1930s, when two impoverished, young white women accused a handful of African-American men of rape, in order to avoid doing jail time themselves for vagrancy. Blaming black men for your own crimes is still common enough. It happens in places like Revere, Massachusetts, and Union, South Carolina. Blaming the socially devalued goes beyond the circumstances of 1930s Alabama. Nazi Germany made a national policy out of it, and prim Salem, Massachusetts, had a go at it in 1693.Okay, okay. I'm getting down off the sociological soapbox. Will someone give me a hand? (That game right knee again.) This is a pretty good historical movie. First of all, it's finely acted. Timothy Hutton is Sam Liebowitz, an idealistic New York lawyer, who challenges the jury system and defends one of the boys -- and loses, as usual. But the judge in the case, David Strathairn, plays it fair. That's why he's not reelected and retires to his farm after the trial. And the local DA, Bill Sage, is a genuinely nice guy who happens to believe in his own cause. Liebowitz's opponents are either polite (chuckling over Liebowitz's naiveté) or faceless white jury members who will simply not sully a white woman's reputation and dismiss her allegations against poor black folk. They're guilty almost by definition. If not, why are they in court? And anyway, if they didn't rape the two girls, they probably did something else worth being executed for. In the end, nobody gets the chair, but the young men languish in jail for years after being found guilty.Liebowitz, without his knowing, may have helped lose the case himself. In a café, seeing a black girl waiting for a lunch to be handed to her to take out because she's not admitted into the café. Liebowitz strides over to her, hands her the paper bag, slams down the payment on the counter, and shouts, "What kind of people ARE you?" That's no way to endear yourself to the community from which the jurors are drawn.Liebowitz needed to act more like a cultural anthropologist or a blackmailer, insinuating himself into the town, getting to know the host in a non-threatening, non-demanding way, along the lines of Gene Hackman's character in "Mississippi Burning." If you strike people, they have a tendency to strike back.Of course, it if hadn't been for the alien defense of Liebowitz and the lawyers from the International Labor Board (who bring Liebowitz up short when he gets too self-righteous), who knows what would have happened to the Scottsboro boys? Electrocution probably. Lynching possibly. The 1930s were a tough time for everyone economically, and an early study showed that lynchings in the South varied inversely with the price of cotton. In other words, the price of cotton goes down, the number of lynchings go up. Hmm. Stumbled over that soapbox again.Anyway, the movie left me sad at the outcome of the trial, but overall optimistic. Yes, things were bad then. But look how good they've become since.
bradenevans514
The movie was very thought-provoking! I never knew African-Americans weren't allowed on jury duty during the 1930s. It truly amazes me just how stupid and ignorant the white people were back then! For these white me to convict a man of rape, recommend the electric chair as the punishment, and then exit the courtroom with smiles on their faces just angers me to no end!!! I hope God has sent these men to hell, where they belong! To whomever made this film, thank you. You've really opened my eyes to the problems this country has had with racism! (Not to say I didn't already have a good idea!) I will never share the same beliefs of my ancestors!!!!! Justice is for all, no matter what skin color they possess!
gradyharp
Movies such as HEAVENS FALL are poignant reminders of the cruel history of this country that still makes us bow our heads in shame. The story by writer/director Terry Green is a sensitive recreation of the re-trial of an African American man (one of nine) condemned to death in Scottsboro, Alabama in 1931 for the supposed gang rape of two white women, a trial with an all-white seated jury who took only 20 minutes to deliberate and convict the young men. It is a study of racism in the South in the 1930s and while the viewer would hope that the ending is triumphant, the story quietly fades with a particle decency represented by a New York trial lawyer and a sympathetic judge who opened the door to the beginnings of seated African American jurists. It is powerful in content: it is magnificent movie making.Samuel Leibowitz (Timothy Hutton) travels to Alabama form his offices in New York in 1933, to represent the nine condemned men after a Supreme Court ruling opened the door for a retrial. Leibowitz meets the prosecuting attorney Thomas Knight, Jr. (Bill Sage), more devoted to his potential career advancement than to his role as prosecutor, and the judge assigned to the case - James Horton (David Strathairn). Leibowitz interviews the nine condemned men and Haywood Patterson (B.J. Britt) is the first to be re-tried. Careful investigation uncovers the shaky case that convicted the men and Leibowitz, with the aid of the attorneys who pleaded the case before the Supreme Court, attempt to gain a racially mixed jury without success. Sent to cover the trial is a young reporter from Chicago (Anthony Mackie) who witnesses the racial hatred in the South first hand. His presence adds credibility to the proceedings. During the trial Leibowitz calls as witnesses the two women who made the false accusations - Victoria Price (LeeLee Sobieski) and Ruby Bates (Azura Skye) - and despite evidence clearing the nine men the trial ends in defeat. But that is only the beginning of a story that persists to this day. This is a true story about how racial hate tore the South apart in the 1930s, but it is also the story of how a few honest people tried to alter history.The cast is uniformly excellent, with Strathairn, Hutton, Skye, and Sage giving potent performances. The climate of the times is well captured by the cinematography of Paul Sanchez, the costumes by Lisa Davis, the fine editing by Suzy Elmiger, and the simple but effective musical score by Tony Llorens. This is a film everyone should see, not only because of the need to re-examine this part of our history, but also because it is such a fine example of American cinema. Grady Harp
a_red_jeep_91
As a featured extra on the film, jury foreman, I very much enjoyed working on the film. Everyone was very very good to work with. I have done theater but this was my first film in front of the camera. EVERYONE was really great!!! Not only on camera but behind the scenes they were all wonderful people. The actors and crew were all very nice, helpful and understanding of the mistakes we made as non professionals. I have worked with other directors and Terry is one of the best.We here in Monroeville would love to give them a very special thanks for all the things they did to help save the courthouse and the other work they did before and after hurricane Ivan.
