Sorry, this movie sucks

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

hyped garbage

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

When a film you make saves a man's life, that puts it into an altogether different category. This is a picture about what everybody thinks and says happened neglecting to keep in mind a proper assessment of all the facts. People have compared this film to RASHOMON and an half hour television teleplay called THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER definitely comes to mind, as each one of these pieces deals with the subjectivity of personal perception.But these previous attempts that I mentioned seem heavy handed compared to the simplicity and subtlety of Errol Morris' THE THIN BLUE LINE. The whole project is wrapped in a kind of serendipity and might never of happened as Morris was working on another somewhat related project about a psychiatrist who assisting the prosecutor was credited with getting an alarming number of convicts onto Death Row. He even had the opportunity to interview Randall Adams before adjudicating that he was an incurable murderer and that the death penalty would be best for him. James Grigson was his name and originally Morris meant to do a piece on him; but then he got wind of what was happening to Randall Adams and the rest as they would say is the history of THE THIN BLUE LINE. The reenactments of the murder scene from different angles is artfully done involving documents and common everyday objects. It has independent filmmaker all over it. At its core, there is still a mystery about what actually happened. What Errol Morris does is bring reasonable doubt to center stage. But between Randall Adams, the late night hitchhiker and David Harris the teenage runaway who gives him a ride a night earlier, there swings the pendulum pointing to guilt or innocence for one or the other.The chilling consideration that one cannot ignore is what would have happened to Randall Adams if Errol Morris had not come along. As David Harris idly comments near the end of the story, if it wasn't for bad luck, Adams wouldn't have no luck at all. There is a strange synchronicity to many of the events that are related throughout this story. The sense that 'if this hadn't happened, this would not have happened'. The interviews with various witnesses, some who were there briefly at the scene of the crime and some who knew Adams and Harris before and after, add color and texture to this strange confluence of events. This all transpires to the haunting musical score of Phillip Glass. The ultimate redeeming quality of this film is, of course, that Randall Adams is fully exonerated and goes free. What he does with his newfound freedom is a story for another day. David Harris' activities finally catch up with him and each go their separate ways after their encounters with THE THIN BLUE LINE.

The Thin Blue Line had both a fictional and non-fictional feel to it. Most documentaries, today, seem to follow on this same path. Well, at least the good ones do. What gave the film such a non-fictional feel to it were the on camera interviews and the actually shots of the characters written statements; the confession, the newspaper clippings, and court information. It was that hard evidence that grabbed the viewer and threw him in to the documentary. Also, I enjoyed how the characters were placed in front of the camera to help show they were conducting an interview. Even though no questions were asked to them, the audience could still get the feeling that they were being prosecuted right then and there. There were also elements to the story that gave it more of a "Hollywood" feel. This would be the reenactment of the shooting and other parts of the night. It was the overall style of how it was filmed that gave it this tone. They transitioning of different car brands, two different vehicles seemed to dissolve in to each other and the zooming in on the license plate and rear lights. Also, the over-dramatic slow motion close up of the milk shake seemed very "Hollywood". I have not viewed many documentaries outside of the ones from class, the ones I have seen are mostly sports related. I am not very familiar with the troubled conviction of old school documents. To me, The Thin Blue Line seemed to fit with the other documents that I have seen. However, I did find The Thin Blue Line to be very manipulative and deceiving. The whole time they are constantly trying to trick you about who the actual killer is. They did a great job confusing the audience in many ways; the actual story, who to cheer for, and are these cops corrupt.

A film that successfully argued that a man (Randall Dale Adams) was wrongly convicted for murder by a corrupt justice system in Dallas County, Texas.Morris was originally going to film a documentary about prosecution psychiatrist, Dr. James Grigson, known as Doctor Death, who testified in more than 100 trials that resulted in death sentences. In almost every instance, Dr. Grigson would, after examining a defendant, testify that he had found the individual in question to be an incurable sociopath, who it was "one hundred per cent certain" would kill again.This lead Morris to find an example, Adams, where this "incurable sociopath" status was in doubt. But we also still have that critique of Grigson -- we see what he said about Adams, a man with no history of criminal acts or violence, after only fifteen minutes with him.This change in focus lead to a better film, most likely (though Erroll Morris has an incredible track record for good documentaries). We now get to see a wider picture of eyewitness testimony, the prejudice of the area (which includes a thriving KKK) and more.Adams' case was reviewed and he was released from prison approximately a year after the film's release. Now that is the sign of a powerful film, and what makes documentaries so great.

Not to be confused with the British sitcom starring Rowan Atkinson and created by Ben Elton, this is a documentary feature film that featured in the book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, I knew the title would be something to do with police or the law, and I was more intrigued with what I read about it. From director Errol Morris, this film documents and reconstructs the night of November 29th 1976, when during a traffic stop in Dallas police officer Robert W. Wood was murdered, the Dallas Police Department could only make an arrest after a sixteen year old Vidor, Texas resident gave information that he had told friends he was responsible for the crime. Young David Ray Harris did lead the police to the car driven from the scene of the crime and the 22 Short calibre revolver identified as the murder weapon, and the murderer was identified as twenty eight year old Ohio resident and hitchhiker Randall Dale Adams, who was living in a Dallas motel with his brother at the time. With the series of interviews from all involved in the investigation and re-enactments of the night in question, including witnesses, detectives and from Adams and Harris, and two attorneys make the case that more evidence points towards juvenile Harris then Adams who claims to be innocent and could face death under Texas law. The title of the film comes from a prosecutor comment that the police are "the thin blue line" separating society from "anarchy", also something to do with a poem by Rudyard Kipling and the colour of police uniform and their formation. Before watching this film I read that this film, made twelve years since the crime was committed, received a much more meaningful accolade than winning an Oscar or any other awards, following the release of the film the investigation was reignited and the case taken back to court, and the sentence for Adams was reversed. It is great to hear that a film could be so informative and force a retrial and the law to rethink their decision and verdict on a crime, Adams was indeed proved an innocent man and wrongly accused while Harris was executed with lethal injection in 2004 (for another unrelated crime). This is an engaging enough real life story about a murder and the routines of law enforcement and the legal system, the editing of going from interviews to re-enactments is well put together, and with some provocative stuff you do get a sense of unease sometimes, a terrific documentary. Very good!