Too narrow of a scope on this one.

The questions concerning this infuriatingly poorly tried case remain equally compelling. The long-windedness of this sequel combined with the tragedy of the many horrific events (re-)referenced makes it a rather tough watch, however.

Made me more frustrated than anything. Why won't they find that dude with the brain tumour guilty? He's such a total frackin' freak! That's basically all the followup shows you. My heart goes out to those kids in jail for a crime they absolutely (within a totally reasonable doubt) didn't do. If you're going to watch this one, watch the first one first, because you won't understand this film without seeing the first.

Following the controversy the original HBO documentary created there are less players involved in this follow-up (no cameras in court for the appeal, only one family prepared to speak) and therefore this is much more partisan, (understandably) supporting the convicted three's claim of lack of evidence leading to their incarceration. If John Mark Byers isn't the real guilty party then he does a damn fine job of making himself look it.

The John Mark Byers show

Paradise Lost 2 comes barreling in with an agenda and stock footage galore from the first film, and the movie suffers from both choices. However, there's enough human interest points and eccentric Byers rants to almost make up for it.

Mark Byers is 100% guilty...of being a melodramatic douche. I'm happy for his wife for getting out of that relationship.

More exploitative than the first, but still worth watching.

Not as well done nor as gripping as the original.

I'm sick of people complaining about a lack of "objectivity" in a documentary that is clearly trying to argue a position. There is no rule which forbids a documentary from taking a stance on an issue. Concerning objectivity: If one is objective, one looks strictly at the reality of the situation without prejudice. Notice how this doesn't exclude an objective judgment from forming a conclusion. If being objective is sucking your thumb and saying "I don't know", then what the hell is the point?

An excellent follow-up documentary to the first Paradise Lost and it's utterly terrible to watch knowing that, even now, the West Memphis 3 have been in jail since their teen years for a crime that more and more evidence suggests they didn't do. One point I believe it does raise is that the father of one of the children, John Mark Byers, is often thought of as a killer due to how "weird" he comes across, which is the same reason the West Memphis 3 were placed in jail. Great documentary overall.

This had very little content - just watching Byers be a look-at-me retard ad nauseam and "supporters" coming off as douchy semi-weirdos. Glad part 3 was better.

Wow, just wow. Mark Byers is one big freak. Watch the first part before you watch this. Crazy charachter development. And it's all in real life.

Loses some of the punch of the first film but is still captivating, particularly the focus on the step-dad of one of the victims.

The objectivity of the original is sorely missed. This may be due to the limited field of coverage given to the team this time around, though.

Not as well made as the original and not as interesting either. Has its shocking moments, most notably Byers' wife dying of mysterious causes but it really has nothing on the first. I really don't know what to believe anymore, the lie detector results really ruin what looked to be obvious (Byers killing the kids) to me having no clue, but I still don't think they did it. But hey at least they have been released from jail as of 2011.

With this sequel, it seemed like the directors knew they had something to say but they didn't really know what it was. Perhaps it's the lack of trial footage, or maybe the over-emphasis on Byers, but this felt more like a footnote to the original movie than an entirely new movie.

Paradise Lost 2 is both superior and inferior to its predecessor in many ways. As a documentary about the injustice of the justice system, Paradise Lost 2 offers almost nothing new or interesting regarding the three boys convicted of the Robin Hood Hills murders. As a portrait of two characters, Echols and Byers, the film gets some great moments from each that expand heavily upon the first film. Revelations largest issue is its accusatory stance of Byers with a complete lack of evidence.

Keeps up with the quality of the first one, even when the crew has been denied access to film the hearings. Focuses slightly too much on the walking freak show that's John Mark Byers and hence, loses some of its appeal. Granted, the crew didn't really have to work at making him appear weird, he did that himself, but it makes the documentary feel much less neutral than the original. Still, it remains thought-provoking and well-paced throughout. An interesting (and disturbing) watch.

disturbing

John Mark Byers' unrelenting creepiness is given full attention here, in a sequel that isn't quite up to the brilliance of its predecessor as it moves from objectivity to activism. Still, the documentaries are two halves of a supremely awesome whole.

Starved of the unprecedented access allowed to the first documentary and saddled with inevitable (and understandable) bias, this lacks the impact or insight of the original. Some moments of interest, but most of these can be gleaned from a quick read of the cases aftermath. Focusing too much on the walking sideshow that is Byers also gives this a more sensationalist feel, however unintentional.

It's less shocking than the original, and the narrative seems slightly more forced here, but it's still an extremely compelling documentary. That said, the showboating antics of John Mark Byers and the (perhaps incidental) smarm of the defence support group advocates means that no one really comes out of this looking good, and the whole thing has a slight taint of gratuitous exhibitionism that its precursor lacked.

Not quite as intriguing as the first entry in this documentary series, but sheds new light on the case. It's unclear if Mark Byers is just playing up the nutjob act for the cameras, but most of the runtime is spent focused on his erratic, suspicious behavior rather than the boys convicted of the crime. If you liked the first film, this follow-up is a must-see.