If it hadn't been ripped from the headlines the whole story would likely have been considered ridiculous. There again perhaps that why the hoax was so appalling successful. It's too ridiculous to be a hoax so nobody believed it was.
The subject matter is uncomfortable yet compelling, sort of like rubber necking a car crash. It's uncomfortable for any of us to think we could be taken in by such a hoax and go on to behave so appallingly towards somebody.
The film's strong point is that it becomes hard to dismiss the notion you would do something similar in the same circumstances.
The weak point is how the film explores the subject matter. The plodding plot line becomes predictable though never quite stale. It would be hard to write a plot spoiler for this film. If you were to watch the first thirty minutes then jump ahead another thirty minutes you still be able to follow what's happening no problem. (Yep, I did watch the whole thing.)
Actually I listened more than watched. A lot of the film is like a radio play with pictures thrown in. With the folks in the restaurant on the telephone explaining what they're doing and where to the fake police officer you could look away from the screen and still have a good idea of what is going on. Only towards the end does the film exclusively use pictures to tell the story.
A docu-drama would have permitted interviews that would provide a break from a somewhat monotonous plot line and add insightful context: why did the hoaxer do this? why did his victims comply?
That said, the film still managers to sell a powerful message to an audience that's become more sceptical by the end credits, namely don't unconditionally trust some anonymous voice at the end of a telephone no matter how convincing it sounds.
The subject matter is uncomfortable yet compelling, sort of like rubber necking a car crash. It's uncomfortable for any of us to think we could be taken in by such a hoax and go on to behave so appallingly towards somebody.
The film's strong point is that it becomes hard to dismiss the notion you would do something similar in the same circumstances.
The weak point is how the film explores the subject matter. The plodding plot line becomes predictable though never quite stale. It would be hard to write a plot spoiler for this film. If you were to watch the first thirty minutes then jump ahead another thirty minutes you still be able to follow what's happening no problem. (Yep, I did watch the whole thing.)
Actually I listened more than watched. A lot of the film is like a radio play with pictures thrown in. With the folks in the restaurant on the telephone explaining what they're doing and where to the fake police officer you could look away from the screen and still have a good idea of what is going on. Only towards the end does the film exclusively use pictures to tell the story.
A docu-drama would have permitted interviews that would provide a break from a somewhat monotonous plot line and add insightful context: why did the hoaxer do this? why did his victims comply?
That said, the film still managers to sell a powerful message to an audience that's become more sceptical by the end credits, namely don't unconditionally trust some anonymous voice at the end of a telephone no matter how convincing it sounds.