The Central Park Five (2012)

Am I Missing Something?

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

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

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

This film is about how five youths were incarcerated, pressured to admit to a very serious crime which they did not commit, and then attempt to fight their way back to life. It's a plain, matter-of-factly documentary that shows how the American criminal justice system not only is slanted to work against minorities, but how white people almost always - legally speaking - come out on top.This is a simple film that deals with the facts, and it's good at showing things for what they were and are, and how the lives of five kids can be destroyed and how the media displayed the kids as a freak show, as animals on parade, just because they felt like scapegoating them, not because the facts were interesting; talk about small letters when the exonerations came.

I remember the skeptical tone of one news report I read in 2002, when the Central Park Five ("CP5") were exonerated due to Matias Reyes's confession to the 1989 assault and rape of Trisha Meili. The majority of people (including myself) who gave the story a cursory glance seemed doubtful about a serial rapist who was already serving a life sentence--i.e., with nothing left to lose by making a false confession--meeting one of the CP5 by chance in prison and taking the blame in order to clear the names of several young men who must have been properly convicted some years earlier. "What did Reyes get in return?" many of us wondered, ignoring the facts that all of the CP5 had already completed their sentences for the rape and near-murder of Meili--though one of them was incarcerated for a later drug trafficking offense and just happened to meet Reyes in prison--and that Reyes's DNA matched the profile found at the crime scene.THE CENTRAL PARK FIVE is very important in showing the other side of the story. It definitely has its slant, as any documentary will, but it makes a strong argument for the basic fact that five teenaged boys were convicted solely because of coerced and contradictory confessions to the crime after hours of being interrogated and played off against one another with a complete disregard for the lack of direct evidence against them. It clearly shows how this can and does happen far more often than many of us want to think. It's also very revealing of how dangerous public emotion and outrage, regardless of its focus, can be.Unfortunately, the NYPD, the prosecutors in the case, and everyone else responsible for the convictions declined to speak to Directors Ken and Sarah Burns, which is very telling but also limits the scope of the film. THE CENTRAL PARK FIVE is dominated by interviews with the CP5 and their relatives, obviously a crucial ingredient, but it becomes repetitive. There are, however, important comments from then-Mayor Ed Koch, who was all for conviction and serious punishment of the CP5 in 1989 but has now apparently changed his mind. The brief input by NYC historian Craig Steven Wilder and several others also adds a great deal.One of the strongest aspects of THE CENTRAL PARK FIVE is the brief sociological perspective of New York City's racially polarized, have/have-not environment during the 1970s and 80s. Not only is it elucidating in its own right, it also provides background and something in the way of explanation for the wrongful conviction of the CP5.Some of the more negative reviews have criticized THE CENTRAL PARK FIVE simply for being "boring," and at the risk of sounding crass, I see what they mean. While this is an important miscarriage of justice that should not be ignored, the repetitiveness and narrow scope of the film will inevitably limit its mass appeal. Anyone with a serious interest in this case and wrongful convictions in general, however, will probably find its two-hour length well-worth sitting through.More analysis of the details that led to the wrongful convictions would have been helpful, e.g., the term "wilding." One of the CP5 confessed to police that he and a number of others were "wilding" in Central Park on the night of the crime. The term "wilding" is roughly equivalent to "raising hell," the usual term-of-choice when I was a kid in the late '70s/early '80s. "Raising hell" could, of course, refer to anything from driving fast, drinking beer, and talking loudly and irreverently (as we meant it) to violent felonies. More discussion of how misinterpretations of the loose term "wilding" were a critical factor in the conviction would have added some depth to this documentary.

I watched this last night and I've now had a chance to step back and consider this documentary more carefully. Overall I feel that it really could've been produced far better in several ways but having said that it certainly keeps you watching from start to finish and would recommend it to anyone to watch.I viewed this knowing nothing about this case beforehand & I was left with the feeling that this was really a documentary that was unfortunately one sided and produced primarily to present to the viewers the great wrong-doing that was done to the 5 kids who were wrongly convicted. Much of the documentary is giving voice to the victims of this case and as another review already mentions no one from the other side such as officers or layers or in fact anyone at all that could of given an alternative perspective, was part of this documentary. So therefor we are left with a very one sided view and it really didn't allow us to understand the motivations and reasons to why this happened to these 5 people other than the more obvious reasons that the documentary presents.What I felt would of really brought this documentary alive was to give some perspective onto the pressures and life of the convicting police officers during this time and to delve more into the experience of the kids growing up in prison knowing you have been wrongly convicted. We didn't find out much about their experience in prison at all.But again having said this I would still recommend this documentary and for me it once again highlights and makes you consider how society and we as individuals then, now and all through history in fact, love to witness a horrible crime and find at all costs the individual or individuals on which the guilt rests; which is why even as a viewer we have such strong reactions to this. …………"As you see him, you will see yourself ... As you think of him you will think of yourself … for in him you will find yourself or lose yourself." ACIM (T-8.III.4:2-5)

As someone who lived in New York at the time, this was a big story at the time and it has resonated through the years as a miscarriage of justice. Told at a languid pace, Social Psychologist Saul Kassin is probably the best thing about the film, as he explains why certain things were done and said (and intimated). What is less understood is the incredulity of some of the former defendants that they were accused of the crime and that they were interrogated for so long. This is standard police procedure to "break down" a suspect until they confess. And, they did confess. While these confessions turned out to be lies/fantasy, the film is trying to blame the police for this (their confessions were videotaped). Wrong place at the wrong time, and that is sad. The film is not bad, but it seems to be almost like it was done in a myopic manner, way too one sided. Of course the police etc declined to comment, but that makes the film a lot less effective. Also, and it has to be said, re-visiting this case brings back bad memories for everyone. So, if you did not know about the case, it is somewhat interesting, but if you were in New York then, its like looking at a documentary of the Bernie Goetz subway shooting in 1984. Its still a tough thing to revisit.