Btexxamar I like Black Panther, but I didn't like this movie.

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Mabel Munoz Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

PWNYCNY The problem with this movie is not the subject matter, which is compelling, or the way in which the movie is presented, which is straight forward. Rather, it fails to offer a suggestions for improving what is obviously a flawed judicial system. Miscarriages of justice occur. They occur throughout history. Books have been written on this subject; it has been dramatized and discussed, e.g., The Count of Monte Christo, Judge Dredd, indeed Jesus Christ himself was crucified although found by the chief magistrate to have done nothing wrong. The judicial system is imperfect and the machinery of justice has some loose nuts and bolts which effect its operation. Most of these wrongly convicted gentlemen whose cases are discussed were found guilty based upon the evidence presented at their trials. It was the admission of additional evidence years later, after the their trials were concluded, that caused their convictions to be later reversed. That this country has an appeal system that allows the admission of new evidence after a trial is adjourned and sentence pronounced is a sign that may be the system is in fact working properly, that even years later, a court is willing to give a case a second review.

fwomp A telling documentary about the failings of criminal investigative law in the U.S., AFTER INNOCENCE is a poignant, if somewhat stilted, telling of the lives of men who've been wrongfully imprisoned for years and years (sometimes decades and decades) only to be released after advances in DNA evidence free them.The documentary follows only men through this process, most of them having been identified during their trial by a person who is wrong about them. Not really a surprise, as eyewitness identification is now being proved to be one of the least accurate ways in which to prosecute someone.The film begins and ends with its focus on Wilton Dedge in Brevard County, Florida. Sentenced to life in prison for sexual battery and burglary, Dedge has steadfastly commented on his innocence since his imprisonment some 22 years earlier. Never having given up, Dedge has the physical evidence collected from his crime sent to a forensic lab for DNA study. By the end of the film, we learn that none of it matches Dedge and he is sure to be released. But the prosecutors from the District Attorney's office are reluctant to let him go. Why? That's the biggest stickler in the entire film. Even when faced with overwhelming evidence of innocence, our supposed community service men and women are unwilling to admit their errors. That's very frustrating and shown quite well.The problem with the documentary, though, is that it never really shows the "other side." In other words, the D.A.'s perspective. Perhaps the D.A.'s didn't want to be filmed. But we're never told either way. Only once do we ever see a prosecutor discussing DNA cases, and that is very short indeed. Thus, this gives the After Innocence a very lopsided/one-sided viewpoint. If the D.A.'s didn't want to be filmed, I would've liked to have seen the film-makers attempting to get in to see them only to be rebuked and booted out. Again, we don't know if this happened or if the film-makers ever tried to get the other side.The other notable portion to the film is that prison affects these men very differently. Vincent Moto seems to have lost his willingness to better himself, while Herman Atkins now has a Ph.D in psychology. Dennis Maher and Nick Yarris seem to have mental health problems thanks to their long and wrongful imprisonment, each appearing either lackluster about life or having an inflated ego about their own importance rather than the importance of the situation itself.Regardless, After Innocence is informative in its own, one-sided way. Just make sure you check out both sides before deciding on its entire significance.

rberg This movie introduces you to a handful of men who have been freed from long prison terms after being exonerated. As shocking and heartbreaking as this movie is, it gives no hint of the scale of the problem. While it is a powerful experience to get to know these men, I found myself urgently wondering what percentage of the prisoners who get DNA tests turn out to be innocent. A little web surfing led me to this quote from William Sessions (former director of the FBI):"In early 1988, the FBI Laboratory Division created a DNA testing lab; by year's end, testing was completed in 100 active cases. I was fully expecting the results to confirm the careful investigative and evaluative work that had gone into the decisions to prosecute these suspects. Instead, I was stunned by the results. In about 30 percent of the cases, the DNA gathered in the investigation did not match the DNA of the suspect. Fifteen years later, this rate remains virtually the same. Approximately 25 percent of DNA tests do not produce a match."Now, it would certainly be reasonable to suppose that this rate of failure of our justice system's "careful investigative and evaluative work" is a similar 25% to 30% in the rest of the cases where it hasn't been scientifically checked by DNA testing. With two million Americans in the prison system, if 25% of them are innocent, then we have 500,000 innocent Americans in jail.After Innocence is a very good film but I think its impact could be much greater if it gave some context to these seven individuals by talking, even briefly, about how many other wrongfully incarcerated Americans may be moldering away in prison. The only hint of this in the film is a shot of a bank of filing cabinets at the Innocence Project that contains thousands of requests for help – all unopened.

BradBate Again and again the revelations in Jessica Sanders' documentary brought audible gasps from the Hawaii International Film Festival audience. Here, in stark images and gut wrenching narrative, were the stories of men imprisoned, sometimes for 20 years and more, because of erroneous victim identification, sloppy or corrupt police work and over-zealous prosecutors. Here, in footage as raw as reality, is proof positive that much of the American judicial system is more righteous than just, and almost incapable of even saying to a guy, "I'm sorry," before dumping him on the streets, penniless."After Innocence" shows us the maddening frustration of convicts who fight to re-open their cases on the basis of DNA evidence, and then what becomes of them if and when that evidence exonerates them. It is a deeply disturbing picture. It also shows you the dedicated work of not-for-profit organizations such as The Innocence Project that are overwhelmed in their attempts to help. It is clear that there are literally thousands of wrongfully imprisoned people in America, most of them with little hope of ever being vindicated.Sanders' film focuses on seven men, including a police officer, an army sergeant and a young father, all released, plus a man in Florida still behind bars over three years after irrefutable DNA evidence cleared him of rape. Some of them had been in solitary confinement on death row, frequently for decades, for crimes they did not commit. Eight years after being exonerated, the now-graying dad has been unable to get his conviction expunged from official records, making it almost impossible for him to find meaningful, full-time employment. Despite being absolved of any involvement in the crimes for which he was imprisoned, he is still treated as an ex-con."DNA is God's signature," says one man, imprisoned for well over 20 years. "And God doesn't lie." Unfortunately, our governmental systems don't always tell the truth.Jessica Sanders was nominated for an Academy Award for her 2002 short documentary, "Sing." It was released in theaters and aired nationally on Public Television. "After Innocence" will also have a theatrical release and is scheduled to air on Showtime early in 2006. Eventually it will be released on DVD. It has the power to ignite a firestorm of protest over our failed judicial system and to be a catalyst for important change. Ms. Sanders, who sees herself as a filmmaker, not a journalist, is currently working on the screenplay for a dramatic film. When "After Innocence" was screened at the Sundance Film Festival she indicated she wants to continue to use film "as a way to give people a voice that don't necessarily have that means." She doesn't have a new documentary project in the works right now, but one can hope that she will continue to demonstrate her enormous talent in this field.