Laikals The greatest movie ever made..!

Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

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

Skyler Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

chioccamatt While this documentary purports to be interested Solee and media bias and how it impacts trials, the real Takeaway is that Pamela smart managed to do yet another person, the director. What does make this documentary fascinating is how it shows footage rarely seen since the original trial itself. Unfortunately at glosses over several incredibly damaging pieces of evidence against Pam and instead tries to paint the boys in as bad a light as possible. The most damning moment of this occurs when the prosecution is presenting the transcript I hope the wire taps to the jury. Instead of really allowing the viewer to get a sense of what the transcript shows, the narration talks over the presentation. But you will be wise to pause the screen with the blown up transcript in front of the jury. Read the transcript and you'll have no doubt why the jury convicted this woman. Pamela and her one or two supporters, despite all of their whining, have never will never and can never explain away Pam's words on that wire tap. It's the proverbial smoking gun and that's why she will never be released from prison When Pama says, among many other things, that "if we tell the truth were all going to end up in the effing slammer," or "Who are they going to believe me a college educated professional or a bunch of no good loser high school students, she sealed her fate". Not to mention the fact that, when I asked point blank on the wiretap why she didn't get a divorce, and specifically that she knew about the plot to kill her husband before it happened, Pamela answered "yes I did know." How the director can overlook such blatantly obvious guilty admissions is beyond me. It completely undermines any credibility he has and leaves this documentary will be short.

Geeky Randy Jeremiah Zagar's HBO documentary tells the story of the high-profile New Hampshire trial and conviction of Pamela Smart, the accused murderer of Gregg Smart (her husband) in 1990. The film is packed with interviews—which includes: Smart herself, family, friends, accused conspirators, authors, reporters, and others—and does a pretty good job of letting the viewer choose who to believe. Right from the get-go, the film's main interest is how the notorious media coverage may have interfered with Smart's right to a fair trial, and Zagar not only never lets up but actually keeps pushing the issue harder and harder as the film progresses, making itself as sensationalistic as the subjects it's criticizing. Still, very intriguing and quite education for those who were not around or do not remember the hype of it all in the early-'90s.*** (out of four)

kluck_c So, I was really looking forward to the release of this documentary because I wanted to look for another perception of the story. I honestly wanted to be convinced that the producers something that would make one reconsider the verdict against her, and unfortunately, I did not. The story was interesting in that it added some critique about some of the movies that were made about this case and also some insight into the investigation. There was nothing there, though, that made a person seriously consider a miscarriage of justice. It may seem unfair that the people that actually committed the murder are being offered a parole date but as the case stands, Greg Smart was not the only victim of this case. The students that Pamela engaged in her scheme were also victims of her. In particularly, Billy Flynn, who was responding and acting within the context of a situation that he never should have been put into in the first place.

Joe Stemme This is an oddly structured documentary.The first quarter seems to assume that everybody knows the case and remembers the basic details. It's as if the filmmakers (who apparently spent years on getting this made) forgot who their audience was. Or, they thought it was still the year 2000! Some of the viewers weren't even born when this happened and many many others were too young. Further, this happened almost a quarter century ago, and yet, even the basic facts are barely analyzed in that first section of the movie.Yes, the filmmakers are trying to concoct their own counter-theory that the trial, testimony and public perception were all 'tainted' by the media, but, you need the context in order to test that theory. Fortunately, the rest of the movie does fill in many of the details, but you can't help but criticize the structure of the piece. Of course, an even BIGGER problem is that Pamela Smart (and by implication, the filmmakers who seem stacked in favor of her) seemed to rest their 'hopes' on Raymond Fowler testifying after his release that he would exonerate her. When he doesn't the filmmakers pull out their handy counter-theory and seem to indicate that Fowler can't remember what really happened, instead he is regurgitating what is shown in the TV movie.There are some stylistic flourishes like the clips on old TVs and the whole 'Theater' wraparound. But, these are just standard devices and don't really make the movie any more cinematic (and, if the whole theory is about the populace being influenced by what was shown on TV - why is the wraparound in a THEATER?? Shouldn't it be a gathering around a TV set?) Ironically, the best take on media manipulation in the Smart case remains the movie TO DIE FOR - an almost wholly fictionalized version!