So three guys get life for murder and now they are all victims that we are supposed to root for? How does ESPN get behind something like this... I know politics. There is nothing redeeming about this documentary. I will never care about anyone who took another human life and then runs a marathon behind prison walls. At what point do we as a society say enough is enough? This world is turning into a sick joke where all criminals are the victims and the real victims are treated as criminals. Don't waste your time with this garbage. I would rather spend my time cleaning up garbage on the beach and actually doing something good.
2 Reviews
This Ain't No Shawshank Redemption
michaelwilliamreidy12 April 2024
Warning: Spoilers
I always start my critiques by discussing what I enjoyed. First, Frank Buona, the originator of the San Quentin 1000 mile club probably deserves sainthood consideration. Frank's efforts are laudable and at the heart of Christianity. Jesus taught us to visit the imprisoned. Frank has done more than that by giving murderers purpose and hope. No easy feat for those who are incarcerated and most notably those imprisoned with such lengthy sentences who are the central figures in this documentary. There is no doubt exercise and goals like a marathon provide for discipline, focus and worth. Frank has done this for these inmates and God bless the prisoners for taking advantage of an opportunity while imprisoned in a bleak setting. One cannot help but think that had these prisoners had marathons/focus in their life prior to their crimes, maybe they wouldn't be where they are. The expression "idle hands are the devil's play things" comes to mind. Tommy essentially concedes as much.
I'm certain someone may make the excuse that these prisoners did not have the advantages of others or they had more obstacles than others and that is the reason they are in the position that they are in. That ignores the fact that Rahsaan/"New York" had siblings that did not commit murder (or crimes) like he did. "New York" made choices. And those choices have consequences.
The " consequences" is my particular problem with this documentary. There is a strong intimation that the penalties for these prisoners actions are too severe. Even Frank states at one point that he knows several prisoners "that should not be (in prison)." Ok, where should they be? Or how long is enough time in prison for murder?
What these documentaries tend to always neglect is the victim perspective. We never get to know what the victims have lived through. How is their life going since they lost their loved one who was murdered? They don't get to watch their murdered family member do a documentary. They never see their loved one try to run a marathon. They don't get to speak or see them ever again. They don't get conjugal visits. They NEVER see their loved one again. How much time in prison should the person who took that away get? And if not in prison, where should they be?
It's cinematically disingenuous to give such a biased view of such a complex topic. Each murderer gave sanitized versions of the reasons they are in prison. It would be much more honest to hear a victim's side or a detective relate the brutal facts of a murder. Or a probation officer discussing a presentence investigation and all the unseemly and ugly side of some criminal defendants. If that was done, the audience can better assess the entire picture.
This film had the chance to be something noteworthy about criminally guilty persons seeking redemption. However the director's lack of full transparency made it come off more as an indictment of the prison system which incarcerates people who are made to seem like they made "minor transgressions" for too long. These men MURDERED others. If the director's loved one had been murdered, how long would the director think is a just sentence?
I'm certain someone may make the excuse that these prisoners did not have the advantages of others or they had more obstacles than others and that is the reason they are in the position that they are in. That ignores the fact that Rahsaan/"New York" had siblings that did not commit murder (or crimes) like he did. "New York" made choices. And those choices have consequences.
The " consequences" is my particular problem with this documentary. There is a strong intimation that the penalties for these prisoners actions are too severe. Even Frank states at one point that he knows several prisoners "that should not be (in prison)." Ok, where should they be? Or how long is enough time in prison for murder?
What these documentaries tend to always neglect is the victim perspective. We never get to know what the victims have lived through. How is their life going since they lost their loved one who was murdered? They don't get to watch their murdered family member do a documentary. They never see their loved one try to run a marathon. They don't get to speak or see them ever again. They don't get conjugal visits. They NEVER see their loved one again. How much time in prison should the person who took that away get? And if not in prison, where should they be?
It's cinematically disingenuous to give such a biased view of such a complex topic. Each murderer gave sanitized versions of the reasons they are in prison. It would be much more honest to hear a victim's side or a detective relate the brutal facts of a murder. Or a probation officer discussing a presentence investigation and all the unseemly and ugly side of some criminal defendants. If that was done, the audience can better assess the entire picture.
This film had the chance to be something noteworthy about criminally guilty persons seeking redemption. However the director's lack of full transparency made it come off more as an indictment of the prison system which incarcerates people who are made to seem like they made "minor transgressions" for too long. These men MURDERED others. If the director's loved one had been murdered, how long would the director think is a just sentence?
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
