Byers was the Forrest Gump of this series so much I fully expected him to unintentionally stumble upon solving the case in the third entry. "Have you found Jesus yet, Byers?" John Mark Byers: "I didn't know I was supposed to be looking for him, sir."

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.

In "Revalations", Berlinger and Sinofsky discover the full 'observer effect' of their filmmaking. On the one hand, the first film had inspired a public movement to free the West Memphis 3; on the other hand, they're no longer welcome to film the retrial among other things. The defense casts further suspicion on John Mark Byers, and personally I grew to hate investigator Gary Gitchell and judge David Burnett even more. It's an upsetting but really great show.

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?

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

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.

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.

The John Mark Byers show

Not as well done nor as gripping as the original.

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 film seems to be arguing the “two wrongs” philosophy of giving a microphone to people on the other side who also want to condemn based on “feelings”, but never properly addresses the irony – Byers makes for a troubling (if amusing) sideshow, but it’s difficult not to walk away with the grubby aftertaste of exploitation from his appearance. All unfortunately serves to undermine what still appears to be a miscarriage of justice regarding the boys in prison, but we worked that out in Part 1!

This one gets really freaky, with Byers having totally lost his marbles in a number of years. The convicted, on the other hand, seem to develop positively. Regardless of whether they killed anyone or not, I can immediately pick out who I'd rather have as a roommate, and that carries over to compatriotism also.

This has the same problems as the original, but a striking lack of new content, so it is endlessly repetitive with too much from local dramatic figures who essentially say nothing of value. Sleep through it if you must "watch" it.

Nowhere near as good as the first one it loses it's focus and high ground by both focusing and attacking John Mark Byers for the same reasons the West Memphis 3 were convicted. Still has some quality moments in the documentary but is by far the weakest and less objective of the trilogy.

As it is mostly a footage of crazy dude zonked out on meds doing playacting, it doesn't offer any new insights into the case.

Only a little less enjoyable then the first one. I liked the meta elements. Can't wait to see the rest

In hindsight, shifting the blame to someone else with as much prejudice and as little evidence, is not at all helpful. With the fixation on what turns out to be most likely turtle bite-marks, it would seem that everyone involved is as incompetent as each other.

Acho que gostei mais desse, especialmente por contrapor a irracionalidade (Byers) contra a razão (Echols) e como eles são vistos em lados diferentes da lei, sendo que ambos são o que chamaria de "peculiares".

More sensational and meandering than the original, and you have to wonder why they give Byers so much attention when he clearly relishes it. edit: After seeing 3, it almost seems irresponsible what they did to Byers in hindsight. It makes the intent of the filmmaker's clear: entertainment, not truth.

About 20 minutes of flashback filler from the original doc. Add in 30 minutes of self-congratulatory puff, plus 45 or so minutes of desperate accusations of the enigmatic (and hilarious) John Mark Byers, and what you've got is a relatively pointless documentary sequel that directly contradicts everything that was righteous and good about the original. Nice helicopter shots though guys.

The word "revelations" has never been used more fittingly for so many reasons. This movie not only peels back all the unanswered layers of the first film, watches omnisciently as these deeply wounded and dubiously complex people act and react with baffling possibilities toward their intentions, and creates an unfathomable portrait of loss and pain, but also unravels as a candidly alarming profile of a man who may or may not have gotten away with murder.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Too narrow of a scope on this one.

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.

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.

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.

More exploitative than the first, but still worth watching.

disturbing