Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Cassandra Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

doug_park2001 Although A CRY in the DARK may be a little slow-moving for some tastes, this docu-drama realistically shows the complexities of how a wrongful prosecution for infanticide can occur due to media distortion, misinterpretation of basic evidence, bias against a religious group and the accused's demeanor/personality, etc.While far from Hallmark, it is surprisingly tame considering the subject matter. Streep and Neill both give commendable performances, and there is also some wonderful scenery. Set in '80, filmed in '88, it's a nostalgic experience for those of us old enough to remember those times, not that I notice any really glaring differences between then and now. American audiences may find the Australian brogues a little hard to follow without subtitles.

tieman64 Azaria Chamberlain, a nine week old Australian baby, disappears whilst on a camping trip with her family. Her parents report that the child was taken from her tent by a wild dingo. No body is found. The parents are arrested, suspected of murder.A highly publicised court-case follows. Azaria's mother, Lindy Chamberlain, is tried for murder. The media and public, finding the woman surprisingly cold, somehow get it into their collective heads that the parents are guilty because of this. As the media's focus on the trial is highly sensational, what follow is a public lynching of sorts, Lindy convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Azaria's father, Michael Chamberlain, is then convicted as an accessory and given a suspended sentence.I will not spoil the film's conclusion, suffice to say that actress Meryl Streep, who plays Lindy Chamberlain, lends the film surprising power. Streep plays a very cold character, deliberately off putting. We're thus suckered, like the public, into believing we too can successfully "spot a liar".7.9/10 – Gentle direction, nice music and an impressive performance by Meryl Streep and Sam Neill as the film's central couple, make this an effective docudrama. The film's themes - "one woman against the world", "steadfast faith", "religious trials", "the importance of innocence" and "the danger of rash judgements" – are standard "movie of the week" stuff, far less interesting than Streep's performance. Worth one viewing.

TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews Once you pick your jaw up from off the floor from the realization that they... somehow... managed to put this thing together so fast that it was released the same year the case ended, you'll find that it's not half bad. The plot is engaging and interesting, and the pacing is fast, with this covering many situations, and thus often jumping swiftly on to the next one after a line or two has been spoken. Where this really stands out is the acting. The performances are excellent. Neill and Streep are both impeccable. It's also cool to hear so much Australian spoken in a Hollywood film, and even those who don't come naturally to it at least attempt an accent. The cinematography and editing are nice enough, but they don't really go beyond the standard stuff. This movie's story is compelling and the fact that it is authentic just makes it all the more chilling. While I have not read the novel or heard of what happened outside of this picture, I understand that it is quite close to the truth. There is some moderate to strong language and disturbing content in this. It is, at times, a downright great courtroom drama. I recommend this to any fellow fan of such. 7/10

annemarieko Spoilers Following: I picked up the book "Evil Angels" when it first came out knowing nothing of the case. Just to give the press and the Austrialian people a break here, I was quite far into it before I began to question the Chamberlain's guilt. The author obviously intended the reader to understand why the public jumped to the conclusions they did. John Bryson told the story just as it was presented to the jurors (and picked up by the press) of the arterial spray, the actelone (??) plates, Dr. James Cameron's certainty that the collar was cut with scissors, that a baby could not be taken whole from her clothes with the buttons still done up, bloody hand print, etc. all quite convincingly. After all, these were experts in their fields who were testifying with no apparent reason to lie, and the fact that the evidence was completely wrong wasn't apparent to me at all. It was also highly technical evidence, difficult for a layman to understand. To this point, beyond some hearsay testimony in the trials, hardly anyone had ever heard of a dingo attacking a human; people didn't believe it was possible. The public was suspicious of the Seventh Day Adventists, whose origins made them appear to be a cult, and all sorts of wild beliefs about them contributed to the appearance of guilt. Were it not for dedicated, selfless lawyers who worked relentlessly to investigate and counter the trial testimony, finding Azaria's clothes later would not have been enough to get Lindy out of jail. The book shook me for that reason, and I've been reluctant to come to a conclusion about anyone's guilt ever since (excepting OJ of course). I was thrilled that a movie was going to be made about the case and don't think it could have been done better. I've always liked Sam, who I could identify with completely, and Meryl was perfect as always. Beautiful photography, haunting music. I think it's not only a very good, but a very important, movie. Too bad it didn't receive more publicity at the time it was released.