Here on IMDB and I find incredibly low ratings, (1-1,5 stars) in other places.
I went to see this yesterday and it seemed to be incredibly faithful to the actual case - especially seeing to how based-on-true-story movies usually do. This wasn't sugar-coated not unnecessary drama added much if at all.
Also, at least I personally think the director did a good job. The film is by no means flawless as a film, but I don't see why it would be worth only 1 star or so?
Cos it's not a very good film?
It being based on real events, it being accurate or not are irrelevant.
Is it well written, acted, directed. That is what counts.
And so, God came forth and proclaimed widescreen is the best.
Sony 16:9
I did bring up my personal opinion that that the director did good job, therefore acknowledging that accuracy to the real story isn't the only reason why a film might get low ratings. I could've also mentioned that I personally think the acting was good and the writing wasn't that bad either.
If you're gonna critisize a film by throwing it this low ratings, or saying it's not a good film, you might want to back up your opinion with reasoning if you want your rating/opinion to be useful or have any real effect. Well, of course this of course apllies to any rating/opinion. I'm saying this only because the last time I checked, this film had no user reviews what-so-ever here but loads of crappy ratings.
Saying it has bad acting, writing, directing or anything isn't enough to make a rating or an opinion understandable to those who disagree or haven't yet seen the movie.
If you gave a low rating, please elaborate; tell others what do you feel that should've been done differently? What are some exact problems you see with the acting, writing or directing or whatever your problems with the film are, so much so that you feel the film deserves a low rating, perhaps even as low as 1 star?
I personally didn't and don't bother to back up my positive opinion on this film because I'm not looking to offer reflexion to anyone's point of view (at this point), I'm simply asking why do so many think this film sucks?
One particular bête noire of mine about movies like this is when they use women to play girls. They start out with an actual 10-year-old playing Natascha, then 5 years later, 13-year-old Natascha is played by a 31-year-old woman! But that is so typical since, if they used actual age-appropriate actresses, a lot of the guys in the audience, while hating the kidnapper for his despicable crime would also have boners at the same time which sends out kind of a mixed message. But there's something so absurd about it. It's like if someone made a movie about a theft of the most delicious cake in the world, except they didn't want to use a truly delicious cake to play the cake because it would be too realistic, so they use an average cake instead so that the actions of the thieves appear even more despicable since the cake isn't even all that tasty. I mean why bother making it in the first place if you're not going to show the reality of it?
Leave the gun, take the cannoli...
why would they have boners watching a 13 year old girl? that doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't they rather have boners watching a 31 year old woman? The logic is not there.
shareWhy are Muslim suicide bombers promised 72 virgins and not 72 30-somethings or even 72 "beautiful women" in the afterlife as fair recompense for making the ultimate sacrifice of their very lives? Why is Lolita one of the most enduringly popular novels of all time? It's a hard-wired biological attraction but it's better to fantasize about eating the forbidden fruit than to partake of it (if one doesn't want to end up in prison, that is). Fantasies are still legal as far as I know.
Leave the gun, take the cannoli...
Your logic is warped. Going after what you said before, they are using a 30-something because men won't get a boner, which doesn't make sense to me. either they are attracted to a female lead or they are not, regardless of the age. and saying that, you'd have to assume that they would be more attracted to a grown woman.
or are you saying that they used a grown woman to portray natascha IN ORDER to get men's attention more easily?
Or maybe i just don't get what you are trying to say.
Why do you think a 10-year-old actress was chosen to play 10-year-old Natascha and, five years later, 15-year-old Natascha was played by a 31-year-old actress instead of a 15-year-old actress? Doesn't that seem strange to you? I don't really understand what you're saying either so I suppose we are at cross frequencies.
Leave the gun, take the cannoli...
13 year olds are for conesers, as they don't have that well developed bodies, hot bodies, yet :) A normal dude would fantasize about a virgin chick but rather about one being in her later teens, not about one THAT young :) Anyway, this actress loked ugly - like a walking skeleton, so only a necrophile would get turned on at the sight of her, lol. And the contrast between her undeveloped body and her old looking face is a definite turn off.
--------------------------
http://www.fanfiction.net/u/2119876/
virgin doesnt mean 13 year old, no one is promised 72 virgins in islam no matter what they do , thats a myth, you are so perverted in your perception of things and also your knowledge of facts is so flawed that you dont make any sense other than making yourself sound abnormal. anyone at any age could be virgin, a beautiful 18+ woman , be it 20s or 30s , can easily give men a boner, they use older actresses since the acting involves too much adult content, from the scenes to the script, they cannot work with a 13 year old girl on this matter.
shareGirls married at puberty throughout human history excepting the tiny sliver of time representing the last couple of hundred years. If you divide up human existence into twelve hours it would represent about a minute. The human male is hard-wired biologically to be attracted to young girls. It's actually perverted *not* to be attracted to young girls. Why do you think women wear makeup so as to mimic the appearance of young girls (rosy cheeks, red lips, clear skin, etc.)? Now you know why. We are constantly told how evil it is because society is enforcing an unnatural taboo in order to extend the length of childhood and I agree with that. But I don't have make myself blind to the beauty of young girls. That would be a form of mental illness. It's mother nature - don't get your panties in a bunch about it.
And I'll tell you something else - the reason they used a 31 year old woman who could not possibly be mistaken for a young girl as opposed to, say, a 20-year-old, was for the purpose of actively *discouraging* male sexual fantasies along the lines of the movie's narrative. There are censoring boards that measure sexual response to movies like this with the use of penile plethysmographs (this was depicted in the movie The Adjuster by Atom Egoyan). They wanted to tell the story as accurately as possible *without* stimulating and/or encouraging anyone who might have a bent toward committing such a crime.
Leave the gun, take the cannoli...
[deleted]
How has no one addressed someone openly being a paedophile in this thread?
share[deleted]
IMHO, the script is good, the acting of child Natascha is great and the two main characters acting is fine.
What bothers me the most is the terrible, awful editing, the jump-cuts, the weird changes (Natascha having short hair then long then short on the same day!), it makes me feel that, at the end, they didn't care if the movie was good, they wanted to sell the skinny actress and the real-life horror story.
I gave it a fair 7.
This story deserved to be told better.
Please excuse my terrible redaction, english is not my native language IMDb = Catch-22
It was boring, that's why.
shareI think 6-7 on iMDB is a fair rating, its not a great film which is unfortunate because this is a true life horror story that deserves a better film.
share