Watch Murder on a Sunday Morning For Free

Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Murder on a Sunday Morning (2001)*** (out of 4) Documentary taking a look at a case in Jacksonville, Florida where a 15-year-old black teen was arrested for murdering a white tourist outside of her hotel. The documentary crew follow the defense as they try to prove that the police beat the confession out of the teen and the one eye witness, the victim's husband, saw the wrong person. I must admit that I'm downright shocked that this film took home the Best Documentary Oscar. This is a good movie but to be fair I've seen better made pieces done by local news outlets. I mean, this thing obviously had a very low-budget, the video quality isn't the greatest, the editing is questionable and I'd say that by the time the documentary is over I can't say I saw anything too special. What happened here is certainly a crime but I have to wonder why this case was selected to have a film done on it. As someone who watches a lot of crime TV, I must say that there are many, many other cases out there that probably featured a better "story" to be told. With that said, the trial itself is a pretty interesting one as nothing really makes too much sense. There are bits of pieces thrown out that never really add up and it's hard to tell if any of it was ever put together because there's a lot of the trial that isn't shown. The main thing this documentary has going for it is simply the viewer wanting to know what the verdict and eventual aftermath is. MURDER ON A Sunday MORNING is a good documentary but it's certainly far from an Oscar-caliber picture.

You think the police are always right.You believe that "eye-witnesses" are always right.You believe the prosecutors will not take a case to court if lazy police have failed to perform 98% of a basic investigation.You believe a U.S. city might have a "few bad apples" in law enforcement, but that the "good cops" will quickly nip those who systematically engage in evil-for-evil's sake in the bud.You believe that the possibility of an ex-football lineman being instated as a detective solely because his dad is the county sheriff, and being allowed to beat "confessions" out of randomly-selected teenagers with absolutely no fear of negative consequences to himself could happen in the America of the 1930s, but not today.You believe a judge will NOT send a case to the jury if anyone with a brain in their head can see the defendant is a totally random passer-by nabbed by the police because it was hot, and they did not feel like working that day.You believe that all the innocent people imprisoned six months here or 20 years there are "exceptions to the rule," and an injustice like this could NEVER involve your family member, someone in the middle class, or someone like YOU.You think that you are aware of every terrible, indisputable, 100% proved outrage of the last 10 years in America--yet you haven't seen this film.

I just saw the movie, through Netflix. I was intrigued by the way the movie was described, but in the end, it was better. I was moved in many different directions while watching this movie. I was filled with hurt, hate, angry, bitterness,pain and finally relief. To look at the young man accused, would break your heart, and convince you that they had the wrong person. The smugness of the police, makes you cring, because just as the Rodney King Beating brought to light, the brutality of the police, this movie brings forth the total lack of moral fiber in these police. And the fact that they beat this boy, and got away with it, only infuriates you more.But, I have to tell you, I fell in love with the attorney, Mc Guinness. One of my favorite lines, when he was telling us what an a**hole on of the cops was... The cop told him, to go on, keep sucking on that cancer stick. Mc Guinness told the cop... 'I always have a cigarette before sex...' I was letting him know I was going to screw him"I have a new respect for some of the law in this country.

On the morning of the 7th May 2000, Mary Ann Stephens and her husband were accosted by a young black man who held them up at gunpoint, taking her purse and shooting her at point blank range. A matter of hours afterwards police pack up 15 year old Brenton Butler after the husband identifies him on the street. Butler is interviewed and signs a confession which he says he was forced to sign. This film follows Public Defenders Ann Linnel and Patrick McGuiness as they defend Butler on all charges.I watched this film expecting some form of fireworks akin to a fictional courtroom thriller – these were not forthcoming, I was misled by the advertising. However the outcome is a stronger film because it is not an extraordinary case, or one that is unusual. This is alarming due to the nature of the investigation which is lacking at best – brutal at worst. The fact that McGuiness does more investigation than the police is worrying simply because I refuse to believe that every court appointed attorney is as professional as he is depicted here – or as thorough. I'm sure many in his situation must grow numb to the numbers of young black men who pass through the courts daily.Having mentioned his colour, I was pleased to note that the film never played the race card once. Even the fact that the husband could clearly care less which black kid he picked wasn't played up. This is helped by the fact that one of the officers involved in the courtroom is black, but it is refreshing to look at the courtroom scenario without having someone shout `racist' every 2 minutes. The focus of the film is very much on the process of the trial. As such, McGuiness is a likeable and honest guide, his interviews are scattered throughout him working the court and he makes interesting observations. His actual work in court is very sharp and he is very skilful attorney. I suspect the angelic light that the film casts him in may not be totally true but he is certainly not the other side of the spectrum as many of the others here are. It is alarming to see officers completely neglect their duties simply because they have already made their minds up.As a documentary this is a solid film that does very well to condense the trial down without doing it a disservice. The only area I felt it could have done better with was in presenting a balanced view of the trial – the prosecutor is only really in objectives and a brief closing statement. I can't help wondering if a film about `a black man being prosecuted by an unjust system' winning the Oscar was a little to do with the politics of Hollywood, but regardless I'm glad this won.Overall this is not a wild legal ride – in fact the details of the case are not that extraordinary (in terms of the crime). However this is the film's strength – it shows how easy it would be for one man to be locked up in jail for life, how twisted the system can be but also, happily, how the system works just fine when it is not abused or perverted.