Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: Sometimes I rest my head and think about the reasons why movies about killer sharks and/or crocodiles are still getting made these days. They've been making these lame "Jaws"-copies since the 70s, it's not like they're getting any more well-liked. The idea is still exactly the same. So we have an animal that starts murdering people. First it takes down some secondary characters, then it starts attacking the main characters, usually played by a couple of nobodies except for someone who used to be a bit more famous, who usually plays a specialist. One of the main characters usually dies before the others kill the animal somehow, usually with an explosion. Then, we usually get a last shot where we see that the animal is still alive, or has laid eggs, etc. etc. "Krocodylus" basically uses the same overused ideas, and does absolutely nothing to create even a tad bit of variation. Unless you count the fact that the "specialist" is a captain in this one variation, in that case your standards are pretty low. It's funny that he's played by Duncan Regehr though, he like totally used to be Zorro.Hell I'll give it a bonus point for that.

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: The performances of Fishbourne (who appears strangely funny somehow) and (short featured)Ed Harris are remarkable, unlike Connery's who doesn't appear to find sense in his role and ends up in the motorial behaviour of a 80yr old man. In fact the screenplay doesn't make sense; imagine a 60 min. happy ending-plot plus a sudden turn appendix without any argumental structure in respect to the characters. It's more an accident than a screenplay and may be good for examination purposes at screen-wrights' schools. The more you remind the details the stronger this impression gets. The capital punishment is not an issue here, although it is a subject from the beginning; it sort of fades away without further comment. The subject-matter and environment could have been good.

Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer:
My father was the warden of the prison (he is retired now) showcased in this documentary and I've grown up around the prison life, so perhaps my views will be totally different from everyone else who watches this movie. I will say this, the filmmakers who brought us this 93-minute miracle are fantastic artists and even better people. They were brave enough to A) Show up and tell this story, B) Get inside these inmates minds and hearts, and C) Do all of this responsibly. Responsible to their art and, more importantly, responsible to the inmates and staff of Luther Luckett Correctional Complex. They should be commended without end for this work. To take 170 hours, yes HOURS, of footage and be able to cut and whittle it down to 93 riveting minutes is nothing short of extraordinary and they have my utmost respect.

I saw this film under circumstances that only a very, very few were able to see it. I was at the inmate screening. I was in the same room with these men as they watched their hearts being poured out on screen. I saw men crying on television crying in the chair in front of me and let me tell you, it was a very profound experience. These men have committed horrendous crimes in some cases, yet have found ways to try to redeem themselves, even if they view themselves as unredeemable. How many of us have the courage to do this? How many people could do what they have done in such a harsh environment? To see them react to the film was an experience I am eternally grateful for, and I will never forget that. I thank the men who allowed me this glimpse into their lives, I thank my father for making ALL of this possible, and I thank Philomath Films for taking the time to pour their blood, sweat, soul, and tears into this project.

This movie will change everything you think you know about prison life, and the inmates held within it. 'Oz' is not real, television is not real. 'Shakespeare Behind Bars' is.