Home > Drama >

Devil's Knot

Watch Now

Devil's Knot (2013)

May. 09,2013
|
6.1
|
NR
| Drama Thriller Crime
Watch Now

The savage murders of three young children sparks a controversial trial of three teenagers accused of killing the kids as part of a satanic ritual.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Hottoceame
2013/05/09

The Age of Commercialism

More
FeistyUpper
2013/05/10

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

More
Jonah Abbott
2013/05/11

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

More
Janis
2013/05/12

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

More
Leofwine_draca
2013/05/13

DEVIL'S KNOT is the film version of a true story about three boys who were brutally murdered in Arkansas in 1993. A public outcry and witch hunt followed, at which point three outcast teenagers were herded up and sent to court accused of the crime. In the subsequent years, many people have come to believe that the teenagers were innocent, and DEVIL'S KNOT explores some of the complexity of the case.Sadly it's a bit of a disappointing film. It's well shot throughout but that's all you get. The film seems overly distracted by the presence of Hollywood starlet Reese Witherspoon playing the mother of one of the victims. For a relatively minor character in the story she gets way too much screen time and spoils what could have otherwise been an enthralling viewing experience. I was much more interested in the characters of the accused but they seem skirted over in some ways.Another detraction is Colin Firth as the mild-mannered crime investigator. Firth is too occupied with trying to do an American accent than with properly acting and his subdued turn makes no impact. When the film finished I was just left wanting to know more about the case than in this somewhat sketchy version - perhaps to watch one of the documentaries which I'm sure exist about it. DEVIL'S KNOT is no MISSISSIPPI BURNING, that's for sure.

More
Cyaneyed
2013/05/14

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.

More
Donald Buehler
2013/05/15

Well, I seem to be at odds with the critics (not surprising) and the viewers of this movie. I knew virtually nothing about the case of the "West Memphis 3" before seeing the movie - and maybe that was an advantage for me.I found the story compelling - the acting very convincing - and the sense of unease in relation to the story upsetting. This true story occurred in 1993 in West Memphis, Arkansas and (evidently) garnered national attention at that time (I must have been asleep). It tells the story of the grisly murder of three young boys and the subsequent "witch hunt" to find their killers. This story demonstrates what can happen when people in a community are scared, the heat is on the police, and everyone just wants to get through it. You guessed it - not a good set up for justice. And, early on it is clear that justice will not be done in this case.Interesting that the South seems to have a reputation for shocking travesties of justice (remember George Zimmerman?) yet these things happen throughout our nation (OJ in LA and recently the non indictment in the NY police strangulation case). Where ever you land on these current cases, this movie does an excellent job of laying out the case against the police (unforgivable) and the town (understandable) in this case.Both Colin Firth and Reese Witherspoon give good performances and I loved the cameo by Mireille Enos (one of my favorites - from The Killing.)Well you can believe the critics or me. I really liked it and learned from this film. I think you will too.BTW: check out the top 10 IMDb movies of the year:http://www.imdb.com/best-of/imdb-countdown?ref_=hm_hp_i_1It is clear that I cannot cancel my Netfilx membership for a while. I have only seen 3 of the top 10!!! All the best DonB

More
Leonarda_N
2013/05/16

Based on a true murder case, this movie tells the story of the murder of three young 8-year-old boys in West Memphis.It was originally believed that the boys were victims of three teenagers, so-called ''The West Memphis Three'', who were allegedly members of a satanic cult, but then investigation took an unexpected turn... I don't want to spoil the further events (in case you're not familiar with the story). The actors' performances are good (especially Colin Firth's), but there are some unnecessary scenes. In addition, the plot develops slowly and the ending could have been much better.All in all, it's an interesting movie, but not made well enough to be seen more than once.

More