Michael_Elliott Paradise Lost 2: Revelations (1999) *** 1/2 (out of 4) Sequel to PARADISE LOST: THE CHILD MURDERS AT ROBIN HOOD HILLS takes a look at what has happened in the years since the film aired on HBO. We get interviews with the three convicted of the crime, some of their family members and a couple people working on the case but the majority of the people from the original film declined to be interviewed this time around. The exception is Mark Byers, the stepson of one of the victims who has been labeled by many to have been the real killer. The documentary really focuses on him, the mysterious death of his wife and everything that has happened since the trial. There's no question that the majority of the 130-minute running time is dedicated to Byers and the film really plays out as a mystery as more and more doubt is placed on him. As those familiar with the first film will remember, there was bits and pieces of clues that shined a spotlight on him but this film goes even further with many throwing out accusations that he killed the kids as well as his wife. As with the first film, Byers comes across as someone who isn't all there and his visual appearance makes you think he would be a killer but then the film catches you because the West Memphis Three were convicted because of their looks so by the viewer then putting down Byers because of his looks really isn't any better. Another strong point in this film is that a specialist is brought in to try and clear the three teens because he found what appears to be a bite mark on one of the victims and it's said that none of the three teens match up. PARADISE LOST 2 isn't quite as powerful as the first film simply because so many of those involved refused to be interviewed. This takes away some of the heart of the first film and the sadness. As a mystery film this here is great because you keep wondering who the killers are and then when you think you've gotten it figured out something changes and makes you realize that you're no closer than you thought. Of course, the film's finale has Byers sitting down for a lie detector test and I won't reveal the results here.

Anton David (flixscan) I consider myself a pure skeptic...almost to a fault. After seeing the first film I doubted that I had seen the whole story. Surely there was some physical evidence that was produced at trial that simply wasn't included in the film because it would make a better story. However through my VERY limited research it appears that the state really did not produce any physical evidence that directly linked the WM3 to the murders. I am not saying they are innocent, only that from what I understand there is no evidence that they are guilty. There is a difference.My problem is that this film forgets that there is also no physical evidence that directly links Mark Byers to the case. Yes, his knife had some blood on it that matched BOTH his AND the victim but it was in his possession for some time and it is plausible that he would have cut himself ...on a knife. What I find truly FOUL about this film is the way that they give Byers and "honorarium" to do this film (when he is probably in dire need of money) and basically spend the bulk of the film mocking him in a way that makes me not like him. Yes, he is a creep. And behaves really creepy. That doesn't mean he is a killer. Yes, he has a criminal record, and a long one. That doesn't mean he is guilty in THIS case (it's why prior criminal history is rarely allowed in a court case). And yes, he fits the bill, but that doesn't mean he is the guy. Just a creep. After the first film, I was open to the idea that he is possibly the murderer. Oddly, after this film tried so hard to convince me that he may just might be that guy, I am even less convinced. He DID pass a lie detector, and while those can be beaten, the experienced tester certified it. Amazing that the other reviewers here are willing to overlook the test but accept that Miskelley's confession is invalid. Confessions aren't valid, lie detectors aren't valid. Where is the factual evidence? What can I believe? Anyway, the film makers railroad Byers the same way the court system railroaded the WM3. Insulting that this is what the media has become.Secondly, the film completely accepts the "forensic science" that is given by a guy that teaches it on the web. Lol. But they totally ignore the conflicting reports that is given by multiple professional forensic experts that are actually working in the field. As a skeptic, I do not believe it rules out the WM3 (again, I don't know if they are innocent, but I don't believe they should have been convicted). I am not even convinced it was bite mark.Thirdly, the film consists of no less than 20 full minutes of footage from the first film. I already saw the first film. Also, the film makers are sure to not edit anything out of this film that refers to the so called genius on the first film. Yes the first was thought provoking but everybody I know who sees it says they want to read more about it. Proof it is an incomplete story.to recap: 1) Byers is railroaded in this film the same way the WM3 are railroaded in the court system. The media and the courts have failed in this case. Equally.2) No physical evidence proves that Byers is guilty. In fact, I am now more convinced he is not the murderer...just a misguided CREEP.3)The film makers take one not so valid opinion and treat it as gospel but ignore numerous professional opinions on the bite marks. A complete and total failure of journalism.4) The film makers sure pat themselves on the back with this one. The skeptic in me is now starting to think that their presence in the trials somehow adversely affected the justice of the case. I can totally sympathize with the WM3 but the film makers completely blew it. An atrocious failure in film making and journalism. Sad as the REAL story is that no evidence has been found, and the REAL MURDERER HAS TOTALLY GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT. Something that is totally lost in the film.1 star only

acearms One has to have seen Paradise Lost to appreciate this follow up. This is not about a movie, but the lives of three obviously innocent youths. I was interested in seeing what the "new evidence" consisted of, but was some what disappointed. The movie never really delved into that in detail, or at least to my satisfaction. The judge who sat in the original trial, and over saw the appeal, was obviously from a single trunk family tree. I over see a forensic lab and even I could see the obvious bite marks; flat belt buckles don't wrap around into a recessed eye sockets. And the primary investigator must have gotten his training through mail order; he would be a joke if it wasn't for the seriousness of the situation. Mark Byers is a stereotypical Arkansas inbreed hillbilly who, in my opinion, was directly involved with his son's murder. The polygraph was a farce at best since a convincing liar, which he is, can beat one anytime. How many versions of losing his teeth did he give? And the revelations of him selling drugs and contributing to the delinquency of a minor say a lot about his character. He claims to be a bible toting Christian believer, but his language and cursing say different. I get angry every time I think of the injustice meted out to the WM3. But then as a prime example of what comes out of Arkansas is the former president, Clinton, who lied, had sex with an intern in the Oval Office, almost was impeached and God only knows what else. I urge all to contribute $$$$, as I did, to the WM3's defense fund.

CharltonBoy Paradise lost 2 is the follow up film to the first documentary about the Robin Hood Murders. This film shows us how the convicted boys have been coping since they have been in prison and how the murdered boys parents have dealt with the past few years. This film also focuses on more evidance that these boys are not guilty and how there is growing speculation on one of the murdered boys father that he is responsible for the 3 boys deaths. Yet again the film gets far to graphic , why do we have to see pictures of the castrated murdered boy? We do have an imagination HBO, and we can use it. The father who is under suspision comes across as a horrible man who looks as if he is a mixture of a drug addict,a bible basher and inter breading but having said that most of the people we see from Arkansas look and come across as being like that. I do feel this film is heavily biased towards the convicted boys but i also feel they should never have been convicted in the first place. 8 out of 10.