I loved this movie, the acting, the story, the injustice. In fact I was so moved that I decided to learn more about the true case. Then something strange happened, upon reading the actual court testimony and uncovering the actual facts, these guys looked awful guilty to me.The movie would have you believe that trial after trial ended with conviction solely because of white prejudice. While it is true that there was a lynch mob, and far more prejudice in the south back then than now, the facts of the case totally justify why jury after jury found these men guilty. The only valid point made by the defense was that the jury was all white (which is why this case got national attention). The movie fails to mention that the national attention came at the funding of the Communist party who exploited the all white jury to make it seem like the defendants were getting an unfair trial. The movie also didn't mention that Ruby Bates was very well taken care of by the Communist party to recant her testimony.If you don't believe me, read the trial transcripts for yourself. You will see that these girls gave amazing details when describing how they were raped and who raped them. The most damning forensic evidence was that the girl's vaginas were loaded with sperm (far more than from one man). While the sperm was found to be non-motile (as in the movie) the movie insinuated that sperm can remain motile for up to 24 hours; when in reality vaginal sperm will remain motile for two to three hours (six hours in some very rare cases).It also didn't make sense that Victoria Price would stick to her story until her dying day when it was obvious that Ruby didn't change her story until paid off and instructed to do so by the Communist party. In fact shortly after the trial Ruby remained in a life of luxury, supported by the Communist party. The movie would also have you believe that Ruby Bates fought for the release of these boys for the rest of her life due to sheer guilt. However, the facts bear out that Ruby Bates did so as an active member of the International Labor Defense campaign and used the trials publicity to help promote Communist rhetoric.The movie was great, but a more accurate portrayal of the truth (rather than a politically correct con game) would have been more appreciated.

It's about time Hollywood was able to treat the South as more than a mephitic swamp of ignorant, sneering racists at the bottom and incestuous, decadent, supercilious Gothics at the top. The traditional problems may still exist here and there but the South is no longer a separate country as it was in the early 1930s, when two impoverished, young white women accused a handful of African-American men of rape, in order to avoid doing jail time themselves for vagrancy. Blaming black men for your own crimes is still common enough. It happens in places like Revere, Massachusetts, and Union, South Carolina. Blaming the socially devalued goes beyond the circumstances of 1930s Alabama. Nazi Germany made a national policy out of it, and prim Salem, Massachusetts, had a go at it in 1693.Okay, okay. I'm getting down off the sociological soapbox. Will someone give me a hand? (That game right knee again.) This is a pretty good historical movie. First of all, it's finely acted. Timothy Hutton is Sam Liebowitz, an idealistic New York lawyer, who challenges the jury system and defends one of the boys -- and loses, as usual. But the judge in the case, David Strathairn, plays it fair. That's why he's not reelected and retires to his farm after the trial. And the local DA, Bill Sage, is a genuinely nice guy who happens to believe in his own cause. Liebowitz's opponents are either polite (chuckling over Liebowitz's naiveté) or faceless white jury members who will simply not sully a white woman's reputation and dismiss her allegations against poor black folk. They're guilty almost by definition. If not, why are they in court? And anyway, if they didn't rape the two girls, they probably did something else worth being executed for. In the end, nobody gets the chair, but the young men languish in jail for years after being found guilty.Liebowitz, without his knowing, may have helped lose the case himself. In a café, seeing a black girl waiting for a lunch to be handed to her to take out because she's not admitted into the café. Liebowitz strides over to her, hands her the paper bag, slams down the payment on the counter, and shouts, "What kind of people ARE you?" That's no way to endear yourself to the community from which the jurors are drawn.Liebowitz needed to act more like a cultural anthropologist or a blackmailer, insinuating himself into the town, getting to know the host in a non-threatening, non-demanding way, along the lines of Gene Hackman's character in "Mississippi Burning." If you strike people, they have a tendency to strike back.Of course, it if hadn't been for the alien defense of Liebowitz and the lawyers from the International Labor Board (who bring Liebowitz up short when he gets too self-righteous), who knows what would have happened to the Scottsboro boys? Electrocution probably. Lynching possibly. The 1930s were a tough time for everyone economically, and an early study showed that lynchings in the South varied inversely with the price of cotton. In other words, the price of cotton goes down, the number of lynchings go up. Hmm. Stumbled over that soapbox again.Anyway, the movie left me sad at the outcome of the trial, but overall optimistic. Yes, things were bad then. But look how good they've become since.

The movie was very thought-provoking! I never knew African-Americans weren't allowed on jury duty during the 1930s. It truly amazes me just how stupid and ignorant the white people were back then! For these white me to convict a man of rape, recommend the electric chair as the punishment, and then exit the courtroom with smiles on their faces just angers me to no end!!! I hope God has sent these men to hell, where they belong! To whomever made this film, thank you. You've really opened my eyes to the problems this country has had with racism! (Not to say I didn't already have a good idea!) I will never share the same beliefs of my ancestors!!!!! Justice is for all, no matter what skin color they possess!

Heaven's Fall film was the debut for John W. Brooks. He played Judge Hawkins, the original sentencing Judge.Mr. Brooks is an upcoming actor with true raw talent. His part was short, but his presence was a commanded performance. We look forward to seeing him in other great films.Our thanks to director Terry Green for putting on such a wonderful production. We look forward to seeing the film in theaters.I would like to also note that Timothy Hutton is one of our favorite actors. I really enjoy his style of acting and think having him in the film will make it a true success.Great job and good luck to all the cast!