How did Sean Penn not get the Oscar for this? Worth seeing for his performance alone, whatever your thoughts on the death penalty. Bonus: an appearance by Jack Black, in a dramatic role!

He isn't sorry for being such an arsehole in real life (but they never are!), but i digress; Concerning the film itself & authenticity:- real people simple aren't that numb to shocking/horrendous behaviour of other's & nor would they be even remotely sympathetic to such a bastard (unless they are a closet bastard as opposed to their religious preacher guise)..., if they were any good they're decent human sensibilitie's would be so offended by Sean Penn playing his real life bastard self (so convincingly) that they would hate the phucker & would volunteer to lethally inject birdschitt into him until he die's on the day of his overdue execution! Another obvious observation litigated by 'Not Your's Truly'

Finally watched "Dead Man Walking". Performances outstanding but Penn tends to mumble and his words are lost several times even with re-winding the tape. The use of the cigarette and handcuffs as props are mood setting.The supporting cast is very very good... believable. Penn's family members are especially well done. Jack Black is there as a brother.Robbins focuses many close-ups on Sarandon's huge liquid eyes made more liquid by the events in the plot. The effects with the screens and bars in the visiting room are effective.All in all... it's worth a watch or a re-watch but not on a day when you are feeling at all "down".

This is an excellent film, expertly acted and directed. So, then, why just a 7? There were critical scenes when Susan Sarandon's character, Sister Helen Prejean, did not stand up for what she believed in, nay, devoted her life to. This I found literally incredible, as law officers and family members of those murdered questioned, derided, isolated and rebuked Sister Helen. What I found so strange was that she had no answer to their hatred and hostility, and responded in a secular, if kind, way.I am not even a Christian, but in this film, Prejean could have made a powerful statement for the unconditional compassion as offered and described by Jesus Christ. Instead, she sat, staring. While I do believe it is true that real spirituality is in acts and not in words, there were critical junctures in the film where this position needed to be verbalized. It wasn't.I don't know what the reason was, for the somewhat remarkable departure from the norm, by casting nuns that do not wear habits, but it seems evident that the writer wanted to allay convention. Nuns without habits I can imagine: I'm sure it's done. Nuns without a strong awareness of and ability to defend the words and precepts of Jesus Christ, I can not.It also seems evident that the writer and director wanted to create a marked divide between the sanctimonious, condemnative character of Chaplain Farley (played by Scott Wilson) and the honest caring of Sister Prejean, but the secularism was brought to such an extreme that it sometimes seemed that Prejean did not know what, exactly, she did believe.Another lesser sin of this film is that the subject of innocence or guilt is hardly ever mentioned. I was consistently wondering why no one was trying to take a harder look at the case.In summary, it was not necessary for the film to devolve into "preachiness", but the case for revenge and hatred was given much more air time than the case for compassion and humanity. For the film to achieve a "higher level" of believability, those two latter qualities needed to be couched in the rebellious and visionary words and actions of Jesus Christ. A great opportunity was missed.