Product Description

A small-town murder in New England became one of the highest-profile cases of the twentieth century. As the first fully televised court case, the Pamela Smart trial rattled the consciousness of America. But did the media circus surrounding the case prevent a fair trial? Pulsating with sex, drugs, betrayal, and murder, the trial inspired 20 years of television shows, books, plays, and movies, including To Die For, starring Nicole Kidman and directed by Gus Van Sant.

Review

Thoroughly engrossing far more fascinating than fiction. --The AV Club

Masterful! --Entertainment Weekly

A fascinating and haunting meditation on America s flawed justice system. --Vice

Product details

Product Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 0.7 x 7.5 x 5.4 inches; 2.72 Ounces
Director ‏ : ‎ Jeremiah Zagar
Media Format ‏ : ‎ Multiple Formats, Widescreen, NTSC, Color
Run time ‏ : ‎ 1 hour and 38 minutes
Release date ‏ : ‎ November 10, 2015
Actors ‏ : ‎ Pamela Smart
Studio ‏ : ‎ Kimstim
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0154XVKNS
Number of discs ‏ : ‎ 1

Best Sellers Rank: #290,557 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)
- #16,565 in Documentary (Movies & TV)
- #19,187 in Special Interests (Movies & TV)
- #44,501 in Drama DVDs

Customer Reviews:
4.0 39 ratings

Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.

Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Videos

Help others learn more about this product by uploading a video!

Upload your video

Important information

To report an issue with this product, click here.

Customer reviews

4 out of 5

39 global ratings

How customer reviews and ratings work

Sort reviews by

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

yapps

funny in a serious way

Reviewed in the United States on February 12, 2022

Verified Purchase

Poor Gregg Smart. Even though we will never know the whole story its just funny how every one says the beautiful Pam Smart and how the Billy was hot for teacher. Its like the beautiful Jan Brady. Like a comedy but the poor man got killed over some whackadoodle plot. May he RIP.

Helpful

S. Vecchio

Pamela Smart has now been in prison for over 25 years

Reviewed in the United States on November 19, 2015

Verified Purchase

Pamela Smart has now been in prison for over 25 years, and still contends she is innocent.

This is a recounting, and analysis of "perception", since this was such a highly publicized case, and the first to be televised.

It deals with the question, did the overwhelming media coverage "create" a negative image that was impossible for Ms. Smart to escape, leading to her conviction, and still impacting her ability to effectively pursue any recourse?

It brings to mind, another case, highly publicized in Australia, of a young Australian woman going on vacation, arrested in airport customs in Bali, when her body surfboard bag proved to also contain 9 pounds of marijuana. She was convicted in 2005, and is still serving her 20 year sentence.

Because she was such a pretty young girl, with no criminal record, it became a media storm in Australia, that lead to a young businessman taking on her cause at his own expense, but to no avail.

This was kind of the opposite side of the coin with regard to the Smart case, where the public was deluged with negative images of her.

Did a 15 year old boy, shoot and kill Smart's husband, of his own planning, and engage two friends as accomplices? Was the fresh faced Australian girl really stupid, or desperate enough to try to smuggle marijuana into a country with such harsh drug laws?

In both theses cases, the audience has to decide if the women are guilty, or just VERY good liars.

3 people found this helpful

Helpful

Moose

Pretty Pathetic

Reviewed in the United States on May 20, 2020

Verified Purchase

Very pathetic attempt at making it seem as if she could be innocent - she's not. It's as pathetic as the cop at 12:11 saying "Let me try that again with a little more emotion". It's always nice when cops play for the cameras, too. The one good example of our justice system was the juror complaining that if she had known what the sentence was going to be, she would have stuck to her guns and hung the jury, as she had been arguing that she was not guilty. You hear things like this all the time - why do these people allow the others to bully them into changing their verdict if they feel the person is not guilty? The votes should be anonymous. It is supposed to be 12 peers that agree beyond a reasonable doubt - not 9 peers and 3 who were bullied into changing their verdict.
They did get it right in this case, however, she was guilty as sin. They even tried to make it like she didn't send that bikini pic to Billy - Yes, the reason for taking it might not have been him, but, she sent it to him!!!! There is a lot of crafty wording while they try to make it look like she might be innocent, but, she's not.
As guilty as Billy felt, and as much as he cried over doing it, you think he could also lie about the woman he loved and take her life away, without feeling the same guilt?

2 people found this helpful

Helpful

Michael D

You may think you know...but you don't

Reviewed in the United States on July 8, 2020

Verified Purchase

This story has appeared to be in ink for many years. This director raises many questions. The truth of what really happened is not clear, but what is clear is more work and attention needs to be focused. Well done doc, hope it leads to more facts. Great watch.

Helpful

I Like Books

The First Trial to Become a Total Media Circus

Reviewed in the United States on August 4, 2016

Verified Purchase

I remember watching much of the trials back in the day. What this documentary does quite well, in my opinion, is spotlight how the media affected the possible outcome of the trials. It WAS a circus and as a young girl, I too was convinced of Pamela Smart's guilt. While I still lean more towards guilty, I must admit I am not quite as sure as I used to be. That said, I do not feel it was fair that she was tried by the public even before the trial began.

A good Food-for-Thought documentary.

10 people found this helpful

Helpful

chris

Does not shed new light on an old case.

Reviewed in the United States on December 1, 2015

Verified Purchase

Sadly, this film does not serve the interests of people who are unjustly convicted of crimes they did not commit. I was hoping to find some contrary evidence in the Pamela Smart trial, but there really aren't any. This woman is a sociopath who manipulated young men to murder her husband. The most compelling thing in the film, in terms of casting shadows on her guilt, are the recordings of one of the jurors who ultimately found her guilty. If anything, I think that this movie is worthwhile in terms of exploring the justice system and its use of plea bargaining in acquiring testimony. I really believe that there are countless numbers of people unjustly imprisoned, and I was hoping that this movie would enlighten viewers to this reality.

7 people found this helpful

Helpful

truecrimebookdotnet

Pam Smart is guilty and deserves prison. The end.

Reviewed in the United States on February 15, 2021

Verified Purchase

Another true crime author suggested this for me. Well written with good intentions, but Smart is where she deserves to be. She's guilty.
Ask the victim's loved ones how they feel

2 people found this helpful

Helpful

hope

One-sided

Reviewed in the United States on January 15, 2021

Verified Purchase

I had to stop watching this a third of the way through as it was incredibly unfair. The viewpoint of the film is that Pamela Smart was convicted because of the media and the fact that the trial was televised. That may surely be an argument for someone, but it doesn't work as an argument for Smart. But what really made me angry was the portrayal of the boys and Cecelia. First, they are children, 15 years old, for the love of god. The boys should never have been tried as adults, I don't care how hardened they were. And, they were hardened due to extreme poverty. Of course Billy sees a possibility out of his life with Pam, and of course Cecelia wants media attention. They had nothing else to hope for. Does that mean they were angels--not at all! The boys committed a murder, but they were underage and they were, i believe, egged on by Pamela Smart. Okay, the film only wants to show her side, but without some new evidence to prove her innocence, I don't see the point in making this film. I can see the point in making a good documentary about the case, but it would have to involve interviews with the boys, who are now men, and a more objective look at things. Finally, the tape recordings from juror 13 seem to be thrown in because they seem like "evidence." They aren't.

2 people found this helpful

Helpful

Image Unavailable

Captivated: The Trials of Pamela Smart

Product Description

Product Description

Review

Product details

Videos

Important information

Customer reviews

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.