A film is being made of a story, set in 19th century England, about Charles, a biologist who's engaged to be married, but who falls in love with outcast Sarah, whose melancholy makes her ... See full summary »
Sophie is the survivor of Nazi concentration camps, who has found a reason to live in Nathan, a sparkling if unsteady American Jew obsessed with the Holocaust. They befriend Stingo, the ... See full summary »
Respected liberal Senator Joe Tynan is asked to lead the opposition to a Supreme Court appointment. It means losing an old friend and fudging principles to make the necessary deals, as well... See full summary »
Based on the true story of Lindy Chamberlain. During a camping trip to Ayers Rock in outback Australia, she claimed that she witnessed a dingo stealing her baby daughter, Azaria, from the family tent. Azaria's body was never found. Police noted some apparent inconsistencies in her story, and she was charged with murder. The case attracted a lot of attention, turning an investigation into a media circus, with the public divided in their opinions. Written by
Murray Chapman <email@example.com>
Lindy Chamberlain refers to a case in which expert testimony wrongly sent three boys to prison. She's referring to the 1972 murder of twenty-six-year-old Maxwell Confait in southeast London. Confait was strangled, and the building, in which he lived, was burned down. Eighteen-year-old Colin Lattimore, fifteen-year-old Ronnie Leighton, and fourteen-year-old Ahmet Salih were arrested and charged with murder and arson. All three had alibis, but three prominent forensic pathologists testified to the time of death. One, Dr. Cameron, changed his mind on the stand, and said Confait could have died at a time when the boys were not covered by their alibis. The boys were convicted and sentenced to prison. Two years later, the convictions were overturned. It turned out that Confait had been dead for more than forty-eight hours before the fire, and the forensic pathologists were wrong about the fire speeding up the on-set of rigor mortis. In 1980, Douglas Franklin was found to be the true murderer. See more »
In the end credits, the movie's copyright year is 1988. In Roman numerals, it would be MCMLXXXVIII. Instead, the year is MCMLXXXIII, 1983. See more »
I'm told, "Don't talk like you normally talk. Watch how you hold your mouth. You look too sour and crabby. Don't get angry. Don't ask too many questions, or they think you're trying to be smart. And never, never, never laugh or you're an uncaring bitch." Well, I can't cry to order, and I won't be squashed into some dumb act for the public... or for you.
See more »
This is a true story of an Australian couple wha are charged with murder when their infant child disappears. Meryl Streep is excellent, as always, and manages to hold our interest even though she plays a character who isn't particularly likable.
The media frenzy that surrounded this case in Australia is reminiscent of the Sam Sheppard murder case in Ohio during the 50's. These real-life situations demonstrate that the media in fact can affect how a criminal case is handled. I well remember the Cleveland Plain Dealer running a huge headline stating "Why Isn't Sam Sheppard in Jail?". The prosecutor eventually succumbed to this relentless pressure, and Sheppard was tried and convicted. Only after years in jail was he exonerated.
I love movies which tell a true story, do it in an interesting way, and make an important point in the process. This is one of those movies. Other good movies which tell the story of innocent persons charged with crimes include "Hurricane", "The Thin Blue Line", and "Breaker Morant". In particular, the latter is another Australian film which is highly recommended.
10 of 16 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this