Listonixio Fresh and Exciting

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Kinley This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Rexanne It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

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.

rlhron The Paradise Lost Trilogy is a great documentary series about three boys who are convicted of murder. All three films seem to be underrated but it's the second film that is the most underrated of them all. Paradise 2 is kind of like watching a train wreck happening and you can't look away. The filmmakers do a great job of showing how a persons bizarre actions and words along with rumors, insinuations and circumstantial evidence can make a person look completely guilty of something when in reality they are innocent. Really makes a person stop and think about how the three boys were convicted by a flawed criminal system.

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

Ysman Paradise Lost 2 is a brilliant suspenseful documentary with an unbelievable conclusion. The audience is invited to play in the guess work of who is actually telling the truth. The film makers let the evidence unfold in front of the viewer allowing them to draw what seems to be the inevitable conclusion and then throw a complete curve ball when the results of the polygraph test come back. An engrossing and astounding look at the American justice system.