PodBill Just what I expected

Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

a_baron On July 22, 2007, William Petit was a successful doctor, living the dream with his wife and two daughters in the Connecticut town of Cheshire, population circa 29,000. By the following night he was lying in a hospital bed battered and beaten. Far, far worse, he was a widower, the lives of his wife and both daughters snuffed out by two lowlifes whose crime was as shocking as any we have come to see in this at times cruel world. Even his home had been burned out, and the psychological trauma he and his immediate family suffered does not bear thinking about.This HBO documentary begins with the aftermath of the crime and ends with the trial of Joshua Komisarjevsky; both men were sentenced to death. It contains some unpleasant footage but no autopsy photos or reconstructions. Remarkably it manages to cover the case from all angles speaking to the father of Jennifer Hawke-Petit, the daughter and both brothers of killer Steven Hayes, and the youthful girlfriend of his partner-in-crime along with the defense attorneys of both men and the prosecution. The latter's love interest spoke candidly; she said Komisarjevsky liked to tie her up. In this day and age there is nothing shocking about this revelation, but tying up an 11 year old girl, raping her and setting her on fire is no sane person's idea of kinky sex.The family of Hayes have mixed feelings, his young daughter Alicia feels sorry for him while his brothers believe he should be executed. Although Hayes is the older man, there is little doubt that Komisarjevsky has earned himself a hotter spot in Hell; he was said always to have had a preference for young girls; one contributor to this film said he told Komisarjevsky he was a paedophile; if he were not then, he is now. At the penalty phase of his trial, the claim was made that he was sexually abused as a child; this claim appears to be true, but it mitigates how? More interestingly, Komisarjevsky is said to have a photographic memory and to be a talented artist, the drawings displayed here are certainly evidence of such talent; it's just a pity he had to squander it.It seems unlikely now that either man will be executed. Not mentioned here is the fact that Hayes has boasted of committing many other murders, but this may simply be bravado.There is a lot more in this documentary, and some people may find it too much for their sensibilities, but it is a remarkable work that deserves a wide audience.

interactbiz The movie presents chilling portraits of evil. Two career criminals commit capital crimes against innocent victims who are described with respect and sympathy. After setting fire to the crime scene, the murderers flee but waiting police capture them almost immediately. Viewers learn the murderers' backgrounds but are left to weigh factors that might have contributed to wilful depravity.The documentary suggests that police could have done more to avoid the deadly outcome. For almost 30 minutes, police observed the victims' home but took no actions. They chose not to enter the house, despite knowing the woman and her two children were captive. A victims' relative thought police intended to keep an intact perimeter to ensure capture of the criminals. Rescuing victims seemed secondary.Whether police actions were excusable or not is uncertain but it is certain that officials refused to be accountable for their decisions. Transcripts of conversations involving police were almost entirely redacted and, according to the filmmakers, officials would not respond to family letters nor make comments that were anything more than tasteless self-congratulations.Ultimately, the program turns to capital punishment. Suffering family members take positions in the film in favour while other voices counter the arguments. This not a definitive examination of the death penalty but filmmakers note that a possibility of death sentences, while failing to deter the killers, was a complicating factor at trial. But for it, the case would have been resolved in weeks instead of years.The film is a balanced examination of the crime, the criminals, the victims and the justice institutions. I was intrigued also by the subtle review of religion. It offered comfort to victims but was shown as a contributor to the personal disintegration of a youthful killer whose adoptive parents had refused him recommended therapy, opting instead for bible camp, hoping prayer would be corrective.A solid and moving effort.

qed77 I thought that the documentary was very clever in exposing the incompetence of the police without actually stating it. The cover-up of that incompetence was also exposed as endless blacked out pages could be seen.Let's see now ...While the police waited outside: 1. The daughters were sexually assaulted 2. The daughters were burned alive 3. The wife was strangled 4. The wife's corpse was "raped" 5. The house was torched It should be noted that if the badly injured husband had been unable to get himself out of the house, he likely would have burned alive too.After the event, we are told that the well-trained police did a wonderful job. Without their efforts, things could have been worse. How exactly? I noted that large portions of the police report were blacked out. I guess that they were covering their @$$e$.It seems that people were so distracted by the brutality of the crime that they had no mental energy left to question the conduct of the police at the scene.One or more of them should be fired.

The Jils Living one town away from Cheshire, I was actually looking forward to watching this film. Discovering a new perspective on a horrible crime that rocked our area. Instead I got a badly shot (really, how many tops of buildings and rain puddles do we need to see?), lethargically paced, incomplete snooze-fest.There are no actual new interviews with Dr. Petit, the lone survivor of this horrible home invasion. No cops speak. (This despite the dropped hint that they waited much to long to enter the house. That the filmmakers could not get one city or state cop on camera to discuss this is just lazy filmmaking.) Prosecutor? Nope. One of the jurors? Not a chance. Okay, then what about the Komisarjevsky and Hayes, on death row? What would they have to say? Would they be remorseful? No idea, they're not interviewed.Instead we mostly follow the parents and sister of Jennifer Hawke-Petit around. And while they are very nice people, and I feel such sympathy for their tragedy, they are not captivating subjects.About the only worthwhile interview in the entire film was that of Hayes defense attorney Thomas Ullmann. He was captivating, sincere and informative. The complete opposite was Komisarjevsky's attorney Walter Bansley III. He sort of made you want to take a shower after listening to him speak. He was wonderfully clueless of Dr. Petit's pain. Perhaps if the filmmakers had interviewed just these two men and let them each tell one side of the story from two very different perspectives, THAT would have been a film worth watching. But the film we were given was not. (A little shocked that HBO would air such a mess. But then the ratings were guaranteed.) As for structure, there is none. The film meanders all over the place, from the night of, to puddles, to court, to lingering shots of the tops of buildings in New Haven. Most filmmakers know there's a three act structure in story-telling for a reason. And if you break it you better have a damn good reason. Shoddy filmmaking is not one of them. This is filmmaking 101 at its worst.The information compiled in The Cheshire Murders would perhaps make a fine 30 minute short. But as a 2-hour film is was unforgivably boring. A Dateline special on NBC would have been better made.