A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

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.

Depressing and tragic, "The Central Park Five" examines the 1989 case of five black and Latino teenagers who were wrongfully convicted of assaulting and raping a white woman in Manhattan, New York. After spending over a decade in prison, the group were released when a serial rapist, feeling sympathy for the group, confessed to having actually committed the crime."Five" was directed by Ken Burns, a somewhat overrated documentary director who specialises in safe, thin, lethargic movies about important topics. Burns does well to bring up a variety of weighty issues - police coercion, journalistic incompetence, endemic racism, failings of the law enforcement and judicial systems - but he's never able to delve below surfaces. His is always a sanitised view of history, and "Five" in particular is petrified of admitting that the Thin Blue Line has always been a repressive force, designed to maintain class hierarchies.Unsurprisingly, New York's Bloomberg administration would do its best to stop the release of "The Central Park Five", even going so far as to demand footage and interviews be blocked and/or investigated. Burns refused to cave in, though, citing New York State shield laws protecting journalists from compromising their sources. Currently, the United States has the largest prison population in the world. C. Ronald Huff, director of the Criminal Justice Research Center, estimates almost ten thousand wrongful convictions per year.7.9/10 – Worth one viewing. See "Murder On A Sunday Morning", "Punishment Park", "Paradise Lost" and "Capturing The Friedmans".

A very well made documentary. It chronicles the entire event from the innocent youths being rounded up by the corrupt New York cops or prosecutor, to the mens' exoneration and beyond. It was well put together and the footage and newspaper articles were clearly represented. The victim interviews show them for what they are - innocent kids used as scapegoats and forced into confession for a crime they did not commit. The sense of injustice abounds, especially when the crooks in suits knew they had the wrong people, but went ahead with it anyway. It leaves one feeling angered and somewhat helpless, that you cannot defeat an enemy like the corrupt American justice system - especially when the system is proved wrong but refuses to show remorse or make amends, as so often happens (varies by state). The documentary leaves the city of New York as a city of shame, one where justice is corrupt, especially for blacks and Hispanics. I was left feeling that they could happily put a bullet in the head of the prosecutor and the cops as payment for their services rendered - but these men are more decent human beings than any of the prosecutor and the corrupt police, the media and anyone else who treated them as rapist monsters. Unfortunately, no compensation has been paid to any of the victims as the City of New York does its utmost to ensure justice will not be done. It needs to protect its wallet and the phony reputation of New York's "finest". I doubt I will ever want to visit New York, the city of shame.

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.