A flawed but fantastic movie that most naysayers simply don't understand

I really enjoyed this movie. I have one glaring complaint with it, but all in all I liked this movie a lot, and while I understand that everyone is entitled to an opinion, I can't help but feel like most of the negative stigmas surrounding this film stem from misconceptions.

The most common thing I hear from people who didn't like this movie is "How could these people be so stupid? If I was in their position I would've said NO! I would've stood my ground! I would've known it wasn't a real cop! There's no way this would've ever happened to me! I would've handled the situation differently!" To these people, I would say one of two things (or maybe both):
1. I think you either don't understand psychology in general or aren't giving it enough credit. There are numerous (and even popular) studies that lend credence to what happens in the film.
-and/or-
2. I would reckon that you've never had to spend much time working in fast food, because if you had you would know that a situation like this really isn't too far-fetched under the right circumstances.

Look, no one is saying these people were geniuses, but I don't think it's fair to call them stupid, or to assume that you yourself are just sooo much smarter that you never would have allowed this to happen. As clearly stated at the end of the film, this "prank" happened approximately 70 times, and that's just what was reported (imagine how many incidents weren't reported; or how many times this maniac tried and failed). Considering the number of times the caller tried doing this, it was only a matter of time before he succeeded. It was just a numbers game.

Now, consider this: You're the manager of a busy fast food restaurant. You're overworked, underpaid, and stressed-out. You just had to deal with a pissed off delivery driver because someone on your crew messed up the food order, and your lazy staff of teenagers is giving you attitude. It's already been a bad day and you want to go home. You're scrambling to survive the lunch rush when one of your staff members hands you the phone and says "they want to speak to a manager". Already overwhelmed, you hastily answer the phone expecting to deal with some complaint or your boss breathing down your neck. The man on the phone says he's a cop. He provides his credentials and sounds very official. He says he's got a woman in front of him claiming the girl at the register stole money from her purse. He tells you to detain the girl in the back room temporarily until they can deal with the situation. He tells you it's an official police matter and you can't be held accountable since you're merely aiding an investigation. He also tells you that refusing to obey will be considered obstruction of justice and make you a participant in the crime.

Sure, not everyone would go along with it, but is it so hard to believe that an overworked, underpaid, stressed-out, average-joe manager with no concept of police procedure (but isn't necessarily stupid) would agree to briefly detain/belittle an employee she already didn't like under the instruction of a "cop" that she had no time or citable reason to distrust? Now extrapolate the situation to all the characters. Is it really so hard to believe that a teenage girl with no world experience would comply with her boss/a person she believed to be a cop? Is it really so hard to believe that a man would take advantage of a vulnerable teenage girl when told by a "cop" that he'll be absolved of all responsibility? My point is: this is not an impossible scenario, and I don't think the people claiming this film is unrealistic consider all the elements at play. This incident occurred because all the pieces of the puzzle fell into alignment perfectly, not because the victims were brain dead.

All that being said, my gripe with the film is that I feel some of the elements were misconstrued. In the film, Van seemed traumatized by what he was doing to the girl, whereas in the real case I think he simply had a "cop" on the phone telling him he could get away with anything, so Van took advantage of the situation. Also, I think the girl in the film was too defiant. According to the actual events, the victim was very goody two-shoes Christian type. She stated clearly in her interviews that she obeyed orders because she was always raised to respect authority, whereas the girl in the film was more of a bratty uncooperative type, which made her compliance seem a bit strange.


Ultimately, I think this is an imperfect but great film that gets a bad rap from people who believe they can outsmart basic human psychology.