MovieChat Forums > Megan Is Missing Discussion > Torture fetish

Torture fetish

posted 13 years ago by ColinLR
45 replies | jump to latest

I wanted to add my thoughts regarding this movie, inspired by my agreement to this post by JayRene (http://tinyurl.com/6t4cgzr). This movie is 60 minutes of build-up followed by 20 minutes of torture porn, disguised as an apparent warning to teens and parents to fear online predators. A poster on this blog (http://tinyurl.com/73xgjt6) claiming to be the director/writer, Michael Goi, wrote this:

"Although my intention wasn't to shock people into internet abstinence, I did want to point out that kids today know so much more about social networking technology than their parents do, and that's a real problem. And I'd prefer not to hear about another multiple sex offender being released from prison early for good behavior, then immediately killing some kid. If my movie wakes people up and makes them angry enough to change things, mission accomplished."

Unless I missed it, no mention in the movie is made of "Josh" being a multiple sex offender or formerly in prison. I believe Goi is referring to Richard Allen Davis, who was released from prison and soon after, he kidnapped, (likely) raped and (definitely) murdered Polly Klaas. (The internet was not at all involved with this case). "Megan" has been endorsed by Marc Klaas of the KlaasKids Foundation according to Goi's IMDB biography. He hopes the movie wakes people up and makes them angry enough to change things (regarding prison sentences for sex offenders, sex offender registries, etc., I would suppose).

If the "be careful about who you talk to on social networking" message wasn't already splattered over all media (e.g, "To Catch a Predator" (2004-2007)), I would state "by all means, people need to know about this! More power to movies like these!". But teenagers are informed from TV shows, reality shows, magazine articles, billboards, news stories, etc. A small direct-to-DVD movie is not necessary to help them and their parents, etc. use the appropriate cautions. So I believe that director Michael Goi does not have a leg to stand on with that argument. I agree with the DVDVerdict.com critic who called this movie an "exploitative piece of trash masquerading as a public service announcement." The moral message of the movie is secondary to the torture porn aspect. No one is going to watch an entire movie of torture porn. Both "Hostel" movies have considerable build-up before the explicit gory torture begins.

Before I write the following sentences, I want it to be clear that I do not think that Michael Goi is a danger to anyone. That being said, I would not want to spend a flight from Seattle to Sydney sitting next to him. He seems to be a person who is (unhealthily?) fascinated with the tragedy of what might happen to a very young girl seduced/abducted/tortured/killed.

During this movie's conception, did he read books about Polly Klaas, or Ashley Pond and Miranda Gaddis (close friends who were abducted, raped, murdered by Ward Weaver in Oregon a few months apart)? (Note that their first initials are the same as the characters in this movie). We know that the case of Carlie Brucia influenced the movie as Goi recreated her abduction that was captured on a surveillance camera (http://tinyurl.com/6w9pqjr). What about serial killer Charles Ng who filmed him and his partner torturing and murdering his victims? Or John Couey, who buried his nine-year old victim Jessica Lunsford alive after repeatedly raping her? I could have sworn that I saw somewhere that Goi claimed his movie was "based on true events," which makes it sound like a docudrama, and not mostly from his lurid imagination, taking bits and pieces from various tragedies. On the IMDB plot summary (written by Goi), he writes that it's "based on research into seven actual cases of child abduction." I would like to know if the parents of those missing children appreciate their tragedies being exploited.

The internet was not involved in any of these cases listed above. Again, I do not think Goi gains any sexual gratification from thinking about a girl horrifically tortured, raped, murdered. I don't think he could be a regular member of society if that was the case. But he may still "get off" from it, in a completely non-sexual way.

There's no other reason to explain the inclusion of photos of Megan strapped into medieval-style stocks with her mouth held open with metal prongs and also some sort of nose plug. (Was this inspired from one of the seven researched cases?) The implication is that her mouth is being held open for the purposes of forced oral sex. We know that "Josh" is kidnapping the girls out of some sexual motivation, in addition to torture, considering that he rapes Amy.

Alone, the torture photo would be disturbing enough, except that it's amplified from Megan's oral sex monologue during the first third of the movie. Transcribed, Megan says "I think at some point I opened my mouth to say something like 'get that smelly thing out of my face,' and he just shoved it in." "Did you choke?" Amy asks. "Yeah, because it was huge. My mouth was wide open, like this. I was starting to turn blue because I couldn't breathe. And he tells me to breathe through my nose."

She goes on, describing his thrusting into her mouth and pulling her hair. Are we not supposed to equate the BDSM-style torture photo with this story? Megan, not incidentally, is describing being abused by a 17-year-old counselor (he looked kinda like "the weird killer guy" from 'Seven') when she was 10 at summer camp. We later learn that her stepfather sexually abused her from the age of 9.

The purpose of these scenes is explain her promiscuity and also to explain her desire to be "loved" by a male figure. (You often heard about such cases on the syndicated radio show "Loveline" co-hosted by celebrity doctor Dr. Drew Pinsky.) If Goi was seeking to make the viewer uncomfortable, he succeeded. The world is full of young children who are sexually assaulted by authority figures. His movie does not work if it is an adult or even a college student being seduced and eventually murdered by an online predator. Adults are relatively intelligent and mature. smart. A teenager, on the other hand, is naive and anxious to be loved and her fate can be interpreted as tragic instead of exploitative. I find Goi's apparent fascination reminiscent of a history teacher I knew in high school. This teacher was clearly quite preoccupied with the horrors of the Holocaust. When I read the Stephen King novella "Apt Pupil", the Todd character reminded me exactly of this teacher.

Torture porn is popular right now. The "Saw" movies have made $800 million worldwide. The "Hostel" movies made $120 million. Michael Goi knew exactly what he was doing when he made this movie. While Michael Goi would have you believe that he made this movie to make people aware of the dangers of sociopaths and psychopaths present on the internet, this movie is an excuse to depict torture porn. There is no other excuse for a 20 minute scene showing a 13-year-old character being humiliated, raped, tortured, spontaneously developing empathy/love for her captor (i.e., Stockholm Syndrome), and then slowly murdered. Goi does not subscribe to the filmmaking philosophy of thriller director Alfred Hitchcock, a master of making the audience feel more ill at ease with less explicitness. In short, we are more scared of what we don't see ("Jaws" is a great example). Goi, rather, insists on showing us everything and in doing so, exposes the movie's true motive. If he could have made it more explicit without compromising the movie's salability, I'm sure he would have done so.

Thanks for reading.

(As an postscript, I'm somewhat surprised that he did not cast a blonde girl as Megan, as society associates blondes with being the bad girl ("Dawson's Creek", "Halloween" are examples) with the brunette being pure/good. But Goi goes to various, increasingly absurd lengths to paint Megan as a 'slut' and Amy as a good girl. Amy has a pile of stuffed animals on her bed. Megan's stuffed animals are regulated to her bookshelf. Megan jokes about the attractiveness of Amy's dad (shades of "American Beauty") and willingness to strip on Amy's webcam. Amy wants to make a documentary about her cat.)

[–] AlexxtheOdd 13 years ago

Gotta' agree with you. As soon as she started describing her sexual experience at camp I became seriously uncomfortable. I mean SERIOUS details going on, and they're both giggling and acting cute while spewing this disturbing story, my face was literally like "o_o". This whole movie was just a bad time. The scene that made me lose it was when the news reporter interviewed the parents of the missing girl and both parents look completely fine, no tears, no shaky voice, no bags under the eyes from sleepless nights.

[–] killakippa 13 years ago

Would you watch this movie with your parents? Just like regular porn, i'd be embarrased/uncomfortable to watch this with them also. Because it is porn.

Godfather- "Monday, Tuesday, Thursday..Wednesday"

[–] LnineB 13 years ago

I would be afraid of sitting next to YOU in an airplane if you told me that you believed a director or writer has fantasies of the disturbing content that is in their films. That statement really sounds like someone who can't possible understand the creative process of making ANYTHING and the only way to explain it is to say the person is sick. Would you say Spielberg has a morbid fantasy fetish for what he believes happened in World War 2 ? I mean come on,,, he's made three films about it and every last one of them has had extreme and graphic portrayals of violence. He MUST be a sicko,,,right????

Goi is representing something that our world often ignores. I remember when "13" came out; there were parents all of the country surprised that teenage girls would "ACT" like that. They were shocked because their heads were in the mud. Well most people's heads are in the mud about child abduction, child pornography,and human trafficking , some even support things like prostitution or mild pornography but choose to ignore the negative aspects of both. Whether you like the film or not it points out the dangers of illegal fetish culture for what it is and that no one is immune to experiencing it's evil.

I love !

[–] ColinLR 13 years ago

I did not describe Michael Goi as a "sicko," I described him as a director who wrote and directed a movie sold as being socially responsible in its message that was also, conveniently, full of torture porn in its finale. I could make the argument, by the way, that Spielberg is just as preoccupied with the horrors and heroism of World War II, but his films have the benefit of being based on or (loosely) inspired by true historical events. "Megan is Missing", on the other hand, was apparently scrapped together from bits and pieces of various cases. If Goi wanted his movie to have significantly more impact, he wouldn't have compromised his entire (already sub-par) movie with its finale. The killer character conveniently gives the police the video camera for no apparent reason, other than for the convenience of the movie. The argument could be made that he stashed the camera to taunt the police or because he wanted to be caught (a la Zodiac). The movie is depicted as a documentary, like "Blair Witch Project" or "[REC]". Now, no one except the most gullible would believe that this is actually a documentary nor do I think that Goi wants us to believe that this is all actually true, but it does not make any sense that the documentarian 'character' would have this footage. It only makes sense if you accept that Goi wanted the finale of his movie to be 20 minutes of torture porn.

Are you really saying that in a country where the public could not get enough of the reality show "To Catch a Predator", the book/movie "The Lovely Bones", and the stories of Elizabeth Smart and Jaycee Lee Dugard, heads are stuck in the mud? There was no reason for 20 minutes of torture in "Megan is Missing", other than to indulge the apparent "artistic" preference of the director and the tastes of today's audiences. As for "13", I am sure that movies depicting underage drinking, teenagers using drugs, and underage sex existed before 2003. I am sure that parents were wary of their children engaging in such behavior pre-2003. I am sure that given today's culture, parents are aware that the internet can be a dangerous place. I would not have any spite toward this movie at all if it didn't seem to relish in its own horror. We could have been given some visual hints as to what might have happened, or there could have been a courtroom scene where a prosecutor or a witness describes the basement horrors. Instead, Goi goes for the gut, with Hostel/Saw-like visuals. And this movie won't just appeal to the torture porn fan community. The irony is that people who enjoy fetish websites where women are shown being briefly suffocated or being treated literally like dogs will also enjoy this movie. They will, in fact, love this movie. So, Goi made a movie that appeals to the torture-porn/BDSM fetish crowd while simultaneously condemning it? It's a clever strategy on his part.

[–] johnwills3 13 years ago

why did you watch this movie?? lmao

[–] ColinLR 13 years ago

Why does anyone watch any movie? I was curious. I'm not sure whether or not you're suggesting that I should have known what it contained before I watched it. I did read reviews of it here on the IMDB that did not contain spoilers or other such details (i.e, the monologue, the torture pictures, etc.), before watching it. I did watch the trailer ... I'm not sure if "Why did you watch this movie?" translates to "You should have known what you were in for." I generally try to avoid knowing anything but the most basic elements of the movie before watching it.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] abbycatt 13 years ago

Ugh. Blah blah blah. You wouldn't know torture porn if it raped you from behind. Hostel? Saw? Ummm, no. Those are HORROR movies! Try 'Flowers of Flesh and Blood', or 'Tumbling Doll of Flesh' and then come explain the nature of torture porn to us. M'kay?

[–] nobodies666 13 years ago

Or Wizard Of Gore!

Womanizer, boy your a womanizer! Oh womanizer baby! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBAcXsBmzxc

[–] mmmonsterfan 13 years ago

the only thing worse than a music elitist is a film elitist. calm yourself down.

[–] abbycatt 13 years ago

LOL! I'm a film elitist because I can properly place film in correct genres? Okaaaay.
Keep watching your hardcore "torture porn" movies like Saw. Hahahahaha!

[–] mmmonsterfan 13 years ago

lol when did i say i even liked Saw? laughing at the fact you've taken Hino seriously.

[–] abbycatt 11 years ago

Can you even read? I never said you liked Saw. Try again, sweet cheeks.

Edited because you are just too hilarious:
Flowers of Flesh and Blood is a classic.....in the ACTUAL genre of torture porn! My apologies on making my mention on that title not remedial enough for you. Laughing at the fact you take yourself so seriously to type up a novelette about the dangers of torture porn in a forum on IMDB under the movie Megan Is Missing! Hahahahaha. Cute.

[–] mmmonsterfan 11 years ago

You sound mad. It'll be okay, shh. <3

[–] abbycatt 11 years ago

This is the kind of nonsense reply people make when they can't think of a real response. Maybe next time you'll think of something good!

[–] jboyer-3 13 years ago

spontaneously developing empathy/love for her captor (i.e., Stockholm Syndrome)

I was under the impression that it was faked--she was only doing it to try to convince him to change his mind about killing her.

[–] nobodies666 13 years ago

Yes so she could escape!

What I need now. What I need is live to hide. When you smothered my devotion with your lies.-Lacuna

[–] Isnam777 13 years ago

Calm down OP. If this is "porn" in any way, then why didn't they get everything happening to Megan and Amy in the frame? All of the torture is portrayed offscreen. I think the director filmed it in such a way that we (the audience) can't be anything but horrified, far from aroused. If the first thing you thought of watching this movie was "porn" then perhaps you should take a good, long look at yourself and ask, "Why was the first thing that popped into my mind porn?"

Whether or not the director had a real point to make or not (I think he did) I think he approached the subject seriously. Yes there is exploitation here, but I can't think a more effective way to get the point across.

Peace is not the absence of affliction, but the presence of God. ~Author Unknown

[–] ColinLR 12 years ago

I did not equate this with porn. I said that this movie is sold as a warning to families/teens on the dangers of chatting with strangers online, while the director stooped to fetishistic exploitation along the same lines as "Saw." Goi (whose only other directorial experience is with softcore erotica) absolutely did not approach the subject seriously. He wanted to make a movie that ended with a young teen girl buried alive and he also wanted to include a shot where a teen is trussed up in bondage (By the by, that *is*, in fact, torture portrayed on-screen, also her rape, also her buried alive). And he succeeded in that. Read the statement by the director on the Megan Is Missing website, where he received an endorsement from Marc Klaas, father of famous kidnapping victim Polly Klaas. He honestly believes that this movie has redeeming qualities and it is not just a horror/torture movie.

[–] nobodies666 12 years ago

Its under extras on dvd.

I dont know which me that I love. I got no reflection! Im weak 7 days a week.-Mr. Marilyn Manson <3

[–] Isnam777 12 years ago

"Read the statement by the director on the Megan Is Missing website, where he received an endorsement from Marc Klaas, father of famous kidnapping victim Polly Klaas. He honestly believes that this movie has redeeming qualities and it is not just a horror/torture movie."- ColinLR

Well if Marc Klaas thinks it has some redeeming qualities I'd say that pretty much negates your opinion of the film's approach to the content. I mean, I don't know for sure about you but I've never had a child of mine abducted and murdered. If he thinks the content was approached seriously (agreeing with my opinion) then he should be the expert on the matter, having his daughter kidnapped and all. That just shows me that others thought it was a serious approach too. In the end it seems more of an opinion issue overall.

Also, I might be inclined to agree with you on the two fetish pictures shown. That was torture. The other scenes you referred to though (the rape scene and live burial scene) were in fact not shown on screen. Correct me if I'm wrong but I would think porn would concentrate on the act itself, allowing the audience to see everything. Instead we get a heart-breaking close-up of Amy's face as she is debased. Not much titillation there, even for the sickest of minds. The burial scene is also not shown. All we see is the killer digging a hole and we can hear Amy as she pleads from inside the barrel. Again, nothing shown on camera.

Peace is not the absence of affliction, but the presence of God. ~Author Unknown

[–] ColinLR 12 years ago

It continues to be my contention that the director intended this movie for the same people who watch the "Saw" movies (et al) not because they're scary/disturbing but because they enjoy watching people tortured or otherwise suffering. Your argument is that it's not torture if it's not graphic. I respectfully disagree. Isn't it possible that a rape fetishist could get off from watching the actress playing Amy being raped? Isn't it also possible that a person who enjoys erotic asphyxiation would enjoy an image of an adult actress (playing a teenager) being buried alive? I've never said that this movie isn't effective at conveying what the director would have us believe is its "message," my point is that he deliberately made it to appeal to the "Saw" crowd and that's a terrible way to make a movie about kidnapped/tortured/raped teenagers.

[–] nobodies666 12 years ago

I think its for people to be warned about internet predators.

I dont know which me that I love. I got no reflection! Im weak 7 days a week.-Mr. Marilyn Manson <3

[–] GloriousSunrise 12 years ago

Your opinion is ridiculous, ignorant, and disgusting. I have no idea how you can equate the content of Megan is Missing to the violence in Saw.

I've seen all the Saw movies and loved them, and they're made in a way that makes them entertaining and adrenaline-pumping. The filmmakers obviously didn't intend to put much gravity into the film. Same with the Hostel movies.

Megan is Missing is portrayed in such a way that it leaves the viewer shocked, disturbed, and speechless. The last 22 minutes are absolutely horrifying and obviously not gratuitous or intended to arouse people into torture porn. I don't know how you can't see the difference between the way this movie portrays things and the way Saw does.

And your point about how a rape fetishist could get off from watching the rape scene etc. - how is that the director's fault if some sick person gets aroused from such things? By that argument Schindler's List is torture porn because anti-Semitic people could get off on it, The Godfather is torture porn because someone who enjoys erotic asphyxiation would enjoy seeing Carlo getting strangled by Clemenza at the end, Taxi Driver is porn because someone could get off on the fact that Jodie Foster is playing an underage hooker, etc.

I guess I shouldn't be too surprised since this post comes from a guy who does an in depth analysis of the Muppet Movie. Stick with doing that instead of trying to analyze serious, visceral movies like Megan is Missing.

[–] nobodies666 12 years ago

In SAW people die, adults. In MIM little girls get raped then murdered worse!

Rise. Rebel. Resist. Rise. Rebel. Make a fist. Resist!-Otep (FREE Randy Blythe! *beep* jail)!

[–] Isnam777 12 years ago

I have to agree with GloriousSunrise. The author of that post is seeing things from my point of view, and made a good point about where to draw the line for a director. Schindler's List: a serious and respectful approach to an unthinkable human tragedy. Ilsa: She-Wolf of the SS: not so much. I approached that movie knowing full well it wasn't a serious approach to Nazi war crimes, and the filmmakers had the right to go that route. But I got nothing but serious vibes from watching Megan Is Missing. Most people I come across feel the same way. But, I admit, it's just a feeling I get and you might not have felt the same way.

Peace is not the absence of affliction, but the presence of God. ~Author Unknown

[–] ColinLR 12 years ago

I feel that the director took a serious topic (internet endangerment, child abduction/torture/rape) and dressed it up with gratitous imagery, the most flagrant example being the the photos of Amber in sexual bondage. I can only theorize why he wrote the movie why he did. I have no way of knowing if this was because he knew or hoped that it would appeal to the kind of person who enjoys watching that sort of thing. Does this movie also appeal on an emotional level for some people? Clearly, it does, considering its passionate defense by Glorious and other people. Can it be argued that the director made a disgusting, exploitative, tasteless movie about a serious topic? Yes, because I've written several posts about it.

If a person watches "Megan Is Missing" and then comments to a friend or family member, "I watched this movie last night and it has this long ending that's really hard to watch, when this girl is about to be buried alive!" or "There's this crazy part where you see the girl Amber, being tortured sexually!", it's no different than that person leaving a Saw movie talking about how freaky it was when that one guy had his head split open by the reverse bear trap. I have no doubt that the two movies appeal to the same parts of a person's brain.

As for your jab regarding my reply to a thread about the Muppet Movie, I won't defend my taste or insult yours. I think it's your contention that a person who enjoys Jim Henson's work isn't worthy of judging a movie like "Megan Is Missing." Not true. I won't assume to know anything about your taste/intelligence based on what movies/TV shows you've commented on in your profile. I would ask you to extend me the same courtesy. But as long as we're judging a person based on what movies they've commented on in IMDB's message boards, I also posted regarding the (various deeply emotional movies) "Last Exit to Brooklyn", "The War Zone", "The Dark Hours", and the documentary "The Bridge."

[–] nobodies666 12 years ago

What else has MIM director done

Rise. Rebel. Resist. Rise. Rebel. Make a fist. Resist!-Otep (FREE Randy Blythe! *beep* jail)!

[–] ColinLR 12 years ago

He is primarily a director of photography for TV series (Glee, Web Therapy, Mr. Sunshine, My Name Is Earl), various TV movies, and various softcore porn films. His only other writer/director film credit is for a softcore pornography title, "Voyeur" from 1999. "Voyeur" is 92 minutes, compared to "Megan Is Missing"'s 85 minutes.

Without browsing other disparaging threads because I'm sure someone has already pointed this out, it can be suggested that the reason the movie's last act is 22 minutes long isn't because the director wants us to feel claustrophobic and desperate and terrified along with Megan, but because if it was shorter, the movie would have been less than 80 minutes long.

[–] Isnam777 12 years ago

As I said you're entitled to your opinion, but a few things you said struck me as odd. First you were saying the director took something like child abduction/torture/murder and dressed it up in a gratuitous manner. Well, I'm not sure how he would have examined such a human tragedy as this without showing the violence he did. In my opinion, he was quite restrained when it came to some of the violence. We didn't see Megan murdered, Amy was raped offscreen and we didn't even see the death of Amy, all of it was implied. If the director was gratuitous, he could have shown ALOT more. What you called gratuitous I called necessary for the film to give us such a visceral impact.

Secondly, if you don't want someone commenting on your tastes in movies, and generalizing your tastes in a manner that makes it seem like you couldn't properly analyze this movie while still enjoying "The Muppet Movie", then don't make generalizations about movies with horror violence. You assume someone will like this movie because they enjoyed something like "Saw". I'm not a fan of "Saw", but even if I were that doesn't mean I can't take a movie like MIM and see the seriousness of it.

Lastly, you said the way someone might describe this movie would be like, "Oh, you've got to see this movie, it's got blood and guts and rape and everything." I recommended this movie to my sister and mother and I don't remember describing it to them like that at all. There's another assumption, made from your generalizations, that can absolutely be dead wrong.

I'm just pointing these things out to you so you can see someone can use your own arguments against you. I don't expect you to ever respect a movie like MIM but at least try and not judge someone who thought the director did a good job.

Peace is not the absence of affliction, but the presence of God. ~Author Unknown

[–] ColinLR 12 years ago

What, in your opinion, was the director's motivation in showing Amy in sexual bondage? I'm not asking this because I expect a specific answer from you, I'm geniunely curious as to an explanation.

As for the violence enhancing the tragedy, whatever happened to the adage that less is more? There is a great film from the Netherlands, "The Vanishing" (1988) (not to be confused with its terrible remake) that I would recommend as a movie about abduction that is terrifying without being gory or otherwise gratuitous.

If I come across as judging any viewers of this movie or any other movie for their taste, it is unintentional. We live in an cynical, jaded era where people enjoy entertainment for often the wrong reasons and when I wrote my original post, I was angry that a director made the choices that he did for what he (apparently) believes to be a serious movie. I hope I am not coming across as some sort of moral purist who hates the horror genre when, in fact, I love horror movies, provided they are done well and not in a manner that I have disparaged in my posts.

Off-topic, I noticed that you've posted on the MST3K board. I got to meet Kevin Murphy and Bill Corbett a couple months ago. It's nice to see that we may disagree strongly on "Megan Is Missing" but we can agree on the brilliance of MST3K. (Although, I have a theory that no two people can ever agree on their favorite MST episode).

Thanks.

[–] Isnam777 12 years ago

While I still disagree with you about "Megan Is Missing" you won me over as an MST3K fan. I typically don't care to check about what others on this site also watch (or at least I've never thought to). It might help in some cases, like yours to help find some middle ground.

As to why I think the director chose to show sexual bondage with Amy, I think it was just the director's prerogative to use this method, the shock method. I felt it worked. Why choose this method? Maybe he couldn't think of a better way to portray that element in the story.

I like the "less is more" method, especially in horror movies, but since this isn't strictly a horror movie (a true horror movie sure) and since the director admittedly used elements from several different real-life abduction/murder cases he probably felt it was best to stick with the realistic ugliness that results from these crimes, and not try to hide the violence. I still believe he held back in some areas (like the offscreen rape) and for that I'm thankful, but look at it this way: Would "Saving Private Ryan" have been as powerful (or realistic) a movie had it not used the on-screen war violence? I'm not saying this is as good as "Saving Private Ryan" but hopefully you get my point. Since I believe this director was serious in his approach to the subject, he wanted to paint as real a picture as possible.

I'm jealous you got to meet Kevin Murphy and Bill Corbett. Comic genuises they are! Just between you and me, Corbett is my favorite Crow. I loved his jaded and cynical takes on the movies. As for favorite episodes, there are so many. As for Joel, anything from Season 2 on I can enjoy happily. As for Mike, I think his best stuff was during the Sci-Fi years.

You're right, MST3K has a way of bringing people together I find.

Peace is not the absence of affliction, but the presence of God. ~Author Unknown

[–] nobodies666 12 years ago

Its based off real events and real pics.

Rise. Rebel. Resist. Rise. Rebel. Make a fist. Resist!-Otep (FREE Randy Blythe! *beep* jail)!

[–] zharth 12 years ago

"I recommended this movie to my sister and mother and I don't remember describing it to them like that at all."

Really? I think the OP is right on this point (and others). I would never, in a million years, recommend a movie like this to my sister or my mother, or anyone in my family really. I wouldn't even recommend this movie to my friends - but then, I'm the guy in my group of friends who likes to challenge myself with really horrific movies. The rest of them would rather spare themselves that kind of torture. If I were to recommend this movie to anyone, it would be to other people like me who go hunting for horrific movies that really challenge your tolerance for the extreme.

The director might say a movie like this is created to be a "warning", something every teen and every parent should view, so they know what they're supposed to be scared of. As if they don't have enough already. As the OP said, they're scared enough as is. While horrible stuff like this does actually happen in real life, it is thankfully very rare, the internet is not nearly as dangerous as movies like this one make it out to be (and there's no reason meeting a guy like Josh on the internet increases the risks compared to meeting some stranger at a party, so I don't get the emphasis on the internet being so dangerous), and teens are thankfully, for the most part, not as naive. After all, that whole claim about how teens are more tech-savvy than their parents? That doesn't mean they lack the common sense to use that technology. In fact, I don't see any reason to believe that parents, in general, know MORE about internet safety than their teenage kids, when they know less than their kids about every OTHER facet of internet technology. (Except, perhaps, for the fact that parents are notoriously paranoid and overprotective when it comes to their kids' safety - although this, too, is not always true, as not everyone has white suburban middle class parents or whatever).

I mean, really, would you ever expect, in a million years, for a movie like this one to be the type that becomes mandatory viewing in internet safety courses in high schools all across the nation? And why not? Because it's exploitative and gratuitous, and schools would be SUED by angry parents for showing their kids videos (even fictional ones) of kids (even played by adult actresses) being tortured, raped, and murdered on screen. That sort of thing definitely puts a fear into you, and that's probably what the director is hoping for. I, for one, can tell you that actually watching a movie like this puts a real visceral feeling to something I knew from the start. But, there it is. I already knew from the start that kidnapping, torturing, raping, and murdering teen girls is horrifically and atrociously wrong. I didn't need to see it happen (even simulated) to know that. And I doubt many people do. Do you really think people are not fervent ENOUGH yet about internet predators and so on, with all the hysteria and witch-hunting going around left and right? As if we need MORE fear-mongering?

I don't recall if it was the OP of this thread or someone else, but it's true that when stories like this one are told, especially when they are presented in the context of being cautionary tales - something you need to become aware of so that you can watch out for it - it creates a great deal of anxiety, especially about sexuality and growing up. And so directors and politicians and media pundits and what have you will talk about how having material like this available is good for the social conscience (while, curiously, simultaneously condemning equivalently graphic material that is made for 'prurient', rather than politically correct, purposes), when in fact contributing to this fear-mongering is in rabid opposition to the good health of our social conscience.

I am not saying people shouldn't be free to make 'cautionary tales' like this one - I am a true defender of free speech, after all. But it does strike me as curious that somebody would make a movie like this, that very clearly appeals to the horror-hounds, while being only dubiously (at best) in the interest of good moral citizens, and not really grasp that irony. Except for the fact that material like this is greeted with fanfare when presented in the right context - even to the extent of gaining official approval from some victim advocacy boards (who seem, sometimes, way too eagerly absorbed in the gruesome details of horrific cases while simultaneously speaking out against them - I don't think they understand the irony, themselves) - but run out of town when presented from the wrong angle. In which case, the director may be acting disingenuously, but knows exactly what he's doing. ;-)

[–] Isnam777 12 years ago

Well I certainly feel for where you're coming from. Perhaps in my defense of this movie, I came off as naive in regards to the director's intentions. I also see a little conspiracy in everything, so I realize the director very well decided to make the movie more "juicy" so to speak by throwing in all the ugly content. After all, what grabs the public's attention more than sex and violence, right?

What I am willing to give the director in this regard is the benefit of the doubt. If I was trying to make a powerful film, I might try to attach some sort of social commentary to it to make it more meaningful. If I were making a movie about what COULD happen to a child (even if the odds are incredibly against it) I would want to throw in content sure to capture attention (even if it's negative attention).

What you said about the odds is correct, but you know people (especially parents) like to live in the small percent of what COULD happen, and why not? Good parents would go to any length to guarantee something like this would never happen to their kid. Sadly, look at the parents of Etan Patz. They finally let their kid walk home by himself, and the very first time he does he goes missing. Was it the parents fault? No. I'm still sure they blamed themselves though. What are the odds of something like that happening? Close to zero, but it did happen.

And what you said about recommending this film to my mother and sister. Well I'm like you, I seek out horror that challenges me. My sister (and I must say this with a degree of pride) seems to be following in my footsteps to an extent. And my mother, well my mother naturally seeks out these kinds of stories like millions of other parents do, so me recommending this movie to my family isn't so strange, you just have to know our family.

So to sum up, I partially agree with you that the director's intentions may be less than wholeheartedly pure, but I'm willing to believe him to a small degree about this being some kind of warning. You have to admit he grabbed people's attention, and the fact that an actual parent of a murdered child was able to appreciate the film as more than just a horror movie kind of swayed my ultimate decision to side with the director on this point.

I hate to go back to using this kind of example, but we all know World War II was an actual historical event, but did I appreciate what the soldiers went through until I saw a film like, oh say, "Saving Private Ryan"? No. Some would say that movie was gratuitous too, so just because this movie wasn't directed by some big name respectable Hollywood director like Spielberg doesn't mean another director can't approach this difficult subject matter with the same kind of fervor.

Peace is not the absence of affliction, but the presence of God. ~Author Unknown