On the one hand, the film is important and necessary. Because to such a terrible phenomenon as judicial errors and police lawlessness, it is very necessary to attract attention, and what is there is extremely necessary. Especially in real wild cases, when innocent people are convicted on particularly serious charges. The case of the “Gilford Four” is monstrous also because the police almost left the real terrorists at large – they did not care about the safety of society, only solving the case “for the tick”! That is, the police and the court not only put eleven people behind bars (four “terrorists” and seven “accomplices”), but also put the lives of others at risk. Potentially, these unscrupulous investigators would hang not only eleven broken lives, but also many deaths. It's terrible to know that people are capable of doing this for their careers.
On the other hand, if I didn’t know it was a real story, the protagonist wouldn’t have any positive feelings. Of course, it is a pity for a person who finds himself in such a situation - but, for example, his father or aunt elicit much more sympathy. At least they didn't steal or smoke cannabis in abandoned homes. A seditious thought comes to mind - but this is how you really can get into trouble because of such a relative or friend ... If he had lived as his father taught him, his fate would have been very different.
That’s why the movie is called “In the Name of the Father.” Because the real heroes here are Giuseppe and a woman lawyer who is fanatically committed to justice. And Jerry -- well, pity him. But again and again this story leads me to the idea: making some decisions in life, you need to think not only about yourself, but primarily about your loved ones. How the consequences of your actions can affect the health and reputation of relatives and friends. All lovers of using something psychoactive, whistling someone else’s purse or at least trying to wring their necks, climbing abandoned houses and new buildings, it is worth taking note that they can bring someone else to prison or to the grave.
The prison was very doubtful. The worst thing the Conlons had to endure from other inmates was boycotting and verbal abuse, and food flying in the dining room on the first day. No threats, no beatings of “terrorists” – nothing. The guards are also strikingly humane and do not use the baton without good reason. It does not occur to anyone to warn the “merciless killers” in a deserted corner and sweep away. And in general, terrible criminals (a strict regime prison, since those convicted of terrorism were sent there) look quite harmless. Is there such an ideal order in prisons in England? Maybe the filmmakers decided not to escalate the blacks, so as not to cause unnecessary memories in the real heroes of the story, if they see the film? And in general, decided that the audience will have enough and torture, very harshly shown in the first half of the film? I don’t know how, but all this prison splendor seems unrealistic.
In general, I am confused. The film seems to be correct and necessary, but boring to the point of impossibility and implausible. “In the name of the father” perpetuated one of the most terrible cases of judicial error in history. The film is a edification not only to officials who are ready to write off people as an expense, but also to young people who do not think about the consequences of their actions. But like any edification in its pure form, it is artificial and boring. In general, it is worth seeing it once, but rather “for general development” than for pleasure.
7 out of 10
Original