VALUTAZIONE IMDb
7,0/10
10.057
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Scontando l'ergastolo per aver ucciso i loro genitori, Lyle ed Erik Menendez parlano in questo documentario spiegando lo scioccante crimine e assicurando i processi.Scontando l'ergastolo per aver ucciso i loro genitori, Lyle ed Erik Menendez parlano in questo documentario spiegando lo scioccante crimine e assicurando i processi.Scontando l'ergastolo per aver ucciso i loro genitori, Lyle ed Erik Menendez parlano in questo documentario spiegando lo scioccante crimine e assicurando i processi.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
Jose Menendez
- Self - Murder Victim
- (filmato d'archivio)
Kitty Menendez
- Self - Murder Victim
- (filmato d'archivio)
Joan Vandermolen
- Self - Sister of Kitty
- (as Joan Vander Molen)
William Vicary
- Self - Defense Expert
- (as Dr. William Vicary)
Diane Vandermolen
- Self - Cousin of Lyle and Erik
- (as Diane Vander Molen)
Ann Burgess
- Self - Defense Expert
- (as Dr. Ann Burgess)
Recensioni in evidenza
I came to this Netflix documentary about the Menendez brothers case, probably like a lot of other people, after viewing the same channel's recently broadcast controversial 9-part drama, released under the "Monsters" title. I personally couldn't remember anything about the case before I watched the series, however, what I think is pretty inarguable is that it was slanted in favour of the prosecution case, which eventually prevailed at a retrial, finding the brothers guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.
This two-hour film however was very different. Using extensive recent audio-interviews with them, I believe there's equally little doubt that the film-makers believe that the two were indeed provoked by the alleged incestuous sexually abusive behaviour of their father, to shockingly shoot both him and his wife, their mother, while they watched TV in their palatial family home.
With access to many of the original participants in the case, including jurors from both trials, also witnesses and representatives for both the defence and the prosecution, including the original female prosecutor, this was highly provocative in the claims it seemed to make. The point is made that in the intervening thirty years, with society's acceptance of parental sexual abuse in particular by fathers on their own children, including their sons, coupled with the emergence of the "#MeToo" movement, that the siblings were incorrectly charged and subsequently sentenced to jail. The claim here is that they should have received the lesser sentence of manslaughter, which would have resulted in much shorter custodial sentences them both, meaning of course they would have long since been freed by now.
The point is also made that the pair likely caught the backlash of the DA Office's perception that the near-contemporary acquittal of OJ Simpson and before that also of the four policemen who beat up Rodney King, meant that they were determined to this time obtain a high-profile conviction with the notorious brothers fitting the bill. One other interesting fact is that on the original hung-jury, the 50/50 split amongst them was on a gender basis, with the six males voting guilty and the six females accepting the self-defence claim.
I thought from the TV series that I knew how I'd have voted if I'd been on either jury but this alternative counter-argument, did make me revisit my thoughts on the case.
That said, I do believe that being kept in jail for over 30 years is certainly long enough, even for the terrible crime they committed and tried to cover up and that I wouldn't argue if their soon-upcoming appeal is upheld and they are freed, as I believe is now probable.
Time has told and time will tell...
This two-hour film however was very different. Using extensive recent audio-interviews with them, I believe there's equally little doubt that the film-makers believe that the two were indeed provoked by the alleged incestuous sexually abusive behaviour of their father, to shockingly shoot both him and his wife, their mother, while they watched TV in their palatial family home.
With access to many of the original participants in the case, including jurors from both trials, also witnesses and representatives for both the defence and the prosecution, including the original female prosecutor, this was highly provocative in the claims it seemed to make. The point is made that in the intervening thirty years, with society's acceptance of parental sexual abuse in particular by fathers on their own children, including their sons, coupled with the emergence of the "#MeToo" movement, that the siblings were incorrectly charged and subsequently sentenced to jail. The claim here is that they should have received the lesser sentence of manslaughter, which would have resulted in much shorter custodial sentences them both, meaning of course they would have long since been freed by now.
The point is also made that the pair likely caught the backlash of the DA Office's perception that the near-contemporary acquittal of OJ Simpson and before that also of the four policemen who beat up Rodney King, meant that they were determined to this time obtain a high-profile conviction with the notorious brothers fitting the bill. One other interesting fact is that on the original hung-jury, the 50/50 split amongst them was on a gender basis, with the six males voting guilty and the six females accepting the self-defence claim.
I thought from the TV series that I knew how I'd have voted if I'd been on either jury but this alternative counter-argument, did make me revisit my thoughts on the case.
That said, I do believe that being kept in jail for over 30 years is certainly long enough, even for the terrible crime they committed and tried to cover up and that I wouldn't argue if their soon-upcoming appeal is upheld and they are freed, as I believe is now probable.
Time has told and time will tell...
Finally, a complete revelation of the facts. When children (or anyone) are subjected to systematic psychological and sexual abuse, they are emotionally and mentally dysregulated.
People asking, "why don't they leave, why don't they tell the police?"...do not understand how psychological control works. Their family was a cult of 4. These brothers were completely irrational, illogical...mentally unwell.
Of course they were! Anyone who had lived their torturous childhood would be the same.
This documentary includes corroborating stories to support the disgusting abusive nature of their father, and the lack of care from their mother.
Sometimes with this type of abuse there is only one way out. If you have not experienced it personally, you wouldn't understand.
People asking, "why don't they leave, why don't they tell the police?"...do not understand how psychological control works. Their family was a cult of 4. These brothers were completely irrational, illogical...mentally unwell.
Of course they were! Anyone who had lived their torturous childhood would be the same.
This documentary includes corroborating stories to support the disgusting abusive nature of their father, and the lack of care from their mother.
Sometimes with this type of abuse there is only one way out. If you have not experienced it personally, you wouldn't understand.
Like many people I'm sure, I came to this off the back off the recent Netflix drama 'Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story' and I wanted to know more on the factual side behind the case. While the latter was well made and entertaining (if that's the right word, when the details are considered), I wish I'd just gone straight to this as there's none of the keep you guessing ambiguity of the drama which given what's at stake and having now seen both, seems quite unfair to the brothers. There's nothing fancy here, it's a meat and potatoes crime documentary of the like we've all seen many times before. But it gets the facts across and conveys the injustice of the 2nd court case well.
Solid documentary. It could have been a little less one sided. I understand from another documentary that there's some incriminating evidence than if it were purely self-defense (such as a recorded telephone conversation between Lyle and a friend).
We can't know for sure what happened behind closed doors in the Menendez family, I'm inclined to believe them.
In any case, what the documentary certainly achieves is that you will find the brothers more sympathetic than the first prosecutor (Pamela Bozanich), even if they were cold blooded killers.
Her behavior and attitude will infuriate you. She comes across as a typical narcissist. But perhaps because of her defensive behavior and certain things she says, you get the impression that somewhere she knows that she might have been wrong.
Her latest comments are ridiculous ("The only reason we're doing this special is because of the TikTok movement to free the Menendi" and "If that's how we're gonna try cases now, why don't we just, like, have a poll? You present the faces, everyone gets to vote on TikTok, and then we decide who gets to go home"). What is wrong with her to make such statements??
Finally, she threatens Tik Tok people who have a different opinion than herself by saying that she is heavily armed. Sounds like an aggressive toddler.
I just had to get this off my chest. Thank you.
We can't know for sure what happened behind closed doors in the Menendez family, I'm inclined to believe them.
In any case, what the documentary certainly achieves is that you will find the brothers more sympathetic than the first prosecutor (Pamela Bozanich), even if they were cold blooded killers.
Her behavior and attitude will infuriate you. She comes across as a typical narcissist. But perhaps because of her defensive behavior and certain things she says, you get the impression that somewhere she knows that she might have been wrong.
Her latest comments are ridiculous ("The only reason we're doing this special is because of the TikTok movement to free the Menendi" and "If that's how we're gonna try cases now, why don't we just, like, have a poll? You present the faces, everyone gets to vote on TikTok, and then we decide who gets to go home"). What is wrong with her to make such statements??
Finally, she threatens Tik Tok people who have a different opinion than herself by saying that she is heavily armed. Sounds like an aggressive toddler.
I just had to get this off my chest. Thank you.
Judge Stanley Weisberg is corrupt and should be in prison. After having watched the actual trial he was biased from the very start of the first trial. He showed great preference to the prosecution, he would object to nearly every one of the defence's questions and block them and let the prosecution ask ridiculous questions and make atrocious statements. Not to mention he removed all of the abuse testimonies and evidence from the second trial. And there was a lot of evidence of abuse. As for the documentary itself, it was good however after having watched the actual trial it missed out so much of the abuse that these brothers especially Erik endured at both the hands of their parents. There was so much evidence, in the form of photos, medical reports and not to mention the various testimonies from doctors, coaches and family members. I felt that the documentary missed this out. It speaks volumes that not one person other than his paid secretary was a character witness for the father. They were abused in many ways by both parents and I hope that they are free soon. They have served enought time, they deserve a chance at a life.
Lo sapevi?
- Citazioni
Self - Journalist, Los Angeles Times: It was a murder trial AND a reality show.
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Sito ufficiale
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- I fratelli Menendez
- Luoghi delle riprese
- The Henry Levy House, 155 S. G Street, Oxnard, California, Stati Uniti(Joan Vandermolen interviews)
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 59min(119 min)
- Colore
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti