Perfect review, Chris. Or at least I felt exactly the same way about it. And of course we're right.

Yup. Just saw it - altho I have to say I didn't feel sympathy for Montgomery at all and was disappointed at the sentence he received. However, I almost feel MORE outrage towards the 3rd party.

Thanks Chris!

Amie, I didn't say that I had sympathy for Montgomery, and I don't. I'm saying that by interviewing only him and letting him cry on camera about how he misses his kids and how they're his entire world, people in the audience are going to be somewhat sympathetic to him - and some people in the Q&A at the screening I went to actually were (one person even went after Schroeder for including the racist comments from Montgomery in the film).

As for the third party, I think that person is a monster (and I said in my review that there are no redeeming qualities in that person), I'm just saying that I don't think what they did was criminal; creepy, disgusting, terrible, horrible, sure. There is a paper trail a mile-long of IM conversations but they were never arrested. Being a horrible human being is not, for better or worse, a crime.

*SPOILERS* ... What Chris said (again) -- and no offense, Amy, but I too hold Montgomery more accountable than the wretched third party (and think the film is based on an assertion that they're both arguably mutually culpable for what happened). I wondered about the racist remarks (?!--and was there a source for them from what the third party had written, or is "Tommy" just a psycho all ways around?). But they did offset the somewhat simplistic explanations from the weirdly exuberant therapist dude -- "He's a marine sniper! It's just his nature!" No, it's deeper than someone just being lost in a game -- contrary to the Hoover quote, this was about something more than addiction and secrets. People are addicts without becoming murdering lunatics. The push to punish the third party at the end seems a little red-eyed and frantic. Though she obviously knows how to cowardly fuck a whole lot of other people's lives (and her own) up.

Overall, though, the movie is a great reminder of something really important. I once had a redneck-type dude go completely ape-shit on me for my writing over the Internet, but it was just violent threats in postings and emails. It was scary, but it was brief and got me off that fucking website which was below my intelligence anyways. Fortunately he was indeed all talk and no action. But damn if there aren't some incredibly deluded people out there who are all about creating creepy cyber worlds; and not all of them are going to keep it on the screen.

Chris & Chris: I believe my comment was misconstrued. Of course Montgomery is the one who committed THE crime, and I in no way meant to imply that Chris B sympathized with him, or that he was less/equally accountable.

Having read the Wired article and the IM convos posted within it, I'm convinced that Montgomery was on the verge of cracking for awhile before this whole thing even started. I also have my own issues wrapped up in why I'm so horrified with the other person involved.

But this is a story to be told over drinks! So, we'll have to set some time up for that. :)

Yes to drinks and real time conversation on this!

And since I haven't read the original Wired article, you probably know more (especially about that third party) than I do. And I think there has to be a way to hold her more responsible, even though "Tommy" is the main culprit.

I finally saw this during the best-of-fest weekend, and when the film was over I walked out of SIFF Cinema freaked and angry. Despite its faults (and oh, there are faults) I can't deny the film is effective.

In his review ChrisB mentions the narrative voice being that of the murder victim ("a character who was magically brought back to life to tell his story"). I think this was a *horribly* misguided decision on Barbara Schroeder’s part. It's a corny device to begin with, the actor doing the narration isn't very good, and the dialogue (especially toward the end) includes vocabulary that Brian probably didn't possess. I found it all terribly hokey, and a serious blow to the film's credibility.

Coupled with the elements that make the low-budgetness shine through -- that clunky music, those subpar visuals -- it's bad news. But I can live with all that, because the big twist is what really gives the film its impact.

Without being too spoilery, my view is that the despicable third party MUST have some kind of accountability here. (There's at least one civil suit pending, so maybe there'll at least be a public trial.) I agree with Amie that this person's actions are horrifying. And I agree with ChrisB and Chris E that the film handles the killer, Montgomery, with kid gloves in comparison. He gets off far too easy, even in the jailhouse interview, which didn't even seem to include the question "Did you do it?". Or "If you didn't do it, who did?". Or "You claim you were coerced into a guilty plea, yet you also say you feel guilty every day. What exactly do you feel guilty about?". Schroeder gets so wrapped up with the elusive third party that her film seems to forget there are two villains here.

So, in the end, I was nearly as mad at director Schroeder as I was at the horrid third party. I wish I'd been at a Q&A.

If the real-time convo over drinks hasn't already happened, I'm in.

Folks, this is nothing but the primitive strategy at work. The fact it's through the medium of the internet is only incidental. We all possess the mechanisms supporting two wildly disparate mating strategies, one modern (long term pair bonding) and one primitive. Talhotblond documents one of the infinite number of possible destructive paths that human interactions can take when we follow the imperative of the associated behaviors. What's missing here is the real back story: how the third party's self-model was created in such a twisted form. Once we get to the point of internet chats and such the real drama is long over. (I should point out that the basis of the human primitive strategy is forced creation of a particular self-model in another person, to spec, so to speak. Who's spec is represented in the third party?) It's unfortunate that there isn't more general awareness of this aspect of human behavior, well documented scientifically as long ago as the early Eighties. Also unfortunate for the film's take on the story is the fact that the only way this sort of thing occurs is if the third party is a victim long before the others are involved, and then when they do weigh in, it has to be with specific, unrealistic (except in the most primitive sense) expectations. Both Montgomery and his ultimate victim were willingly victimizing the third party. The nature of any human behavioral strategy is such that, at the moment it's implemented, the associated behavior not only seems appropriate, but somehow entitled in some very fundamental way. After the fact things often look less sensible, but without some basic understanding of how the 'opportunity' for such bad decisions can arise they're doomed to occur repeatedly. Shoot, there's a whole world of self-help books & web sites out there dedicated to the subject of maximizing one's ability to take advantage of those moments, often with the help of a buddy. It's no wonder bizarre stories like this pop up from time to time. And given the ubiquity of the world-wide-interweb, it was bound to happen this way sooner or later...

... and what the heck happened to my formatting? It looked OK in preview.

Apologies, folks. I guess the filtered HTML option got clobbered between preview and send.

I need to know the name of the actor who narrarated this.

I need to know the name of the actor who narrarated this.

Stabile, here's David Simon from "The Wire" in the latest VICE to fuck up your concept of the "bad decision" of the "self-model": It seems to me that people want to be sort of special, unique snowflakes, and the Shakespearean thing addresses that more. Right! Let’s celebrate me and the wonder that is me. It’s not about society. The Greeks, especially the Athenians, were consumed with questions about man and state. They gave Socrates hemlock because his ideas were antithetical to their notions of state. Listen, that’s totalitarianism in any sense, but for him, he was cynical about democracy and he was an iconoclast about the democratic principles. That went to the heart of Greek thinking. It was like, “Don’t fuck with that.” Now, the thing that has been exalted and the thing that American entertainment is consumed with is the individual being bigger than the institution. How many frickin’ times are we gonna watch a story where somebody— Rises up against the odds? “You can’t do that.” “Yes, I can.” “No, you can’t.” “I’ll show you, see?” And in the end he’s recognized as just a goodhearted rebel with right on his side, and eventually the town realizes that dancing’s not so bad. I can make up a million of ’em. That’s the story we want to be told over and over again. And you know why? Because in our heart of hearts what we know about the 21st century is that every day we’re going to be worth less and less, not more and more. Worth less and less as people, you mean? As human beings. Some of us are going to get more money and be worth more. There are some people who are destined for celebrity or wealth or power, but by and large, the average American, the average person in the world on planet earth, is worth less and less. That’s the triumph of capital, and that is the problem. You look at that, and you think that’s what we’ve come to and that’s where we’re going and it’s like, “Can you tell me another bedtime story about how people are special and every one of us matters? Can you tell me that shit?”

Enjoyed the conversation. Even the dings. ouch. Would be happy to answer any questions in a chat if anyone's interested anymore! The narrator was Steve Clement, hired after auditioning 50 some 20 ish year olds. We liked his tonality. Feel free to contact us! info@talhotblond.com

This 18 yr old pathetic pig started the whole thing. Oh wait , lets start "man bashing" morons!

Nice contribution to the discussion Anonymous! It's always refreshing when having seen the film in question isn't a barrier to joining the conversation.

You have to feel sorry for the 2 young people involved, one of them is dead, the other lost trust in someone that you should trust the most. It sickens me that the slimeball mom is not in jail, rotting away from society. It even makes it sadder still, that she is still on the internet, talking with men using photos of her daughter. I almost fell off my chair, when they showed an upskirt photo taken by mom, which in itself tells me that mom is a real sicko. Women always get the easiest in cases such as this , because the court system still thinks women are soft and delicate. I hope sicko mom gets her just desserts in the end, as she destroyed so many peoples lives with her sick twisted internet fantasy world!

Not sure what Chris Estey's comments address, but the concepts I mentioned are solidly established independently of this discussion, or the facts of this particular example, and so on.

The mother's behavior is defined by some male or males in her past; often it's impossible to sort out just which character promulgated which trait, or who she originally might have been.

But the effect is clear, and as my wife often mentions, "It's everywhere." We're looking (in this case) at a world defined by a male perspective, and when it gets to this sort of stuff, the male perspective is usually pretty narrow.

The unbelievably stupid nature of many of the facts here is a dead giveaway, folks. Learn to see it, or live with the consequences: once the behaviors defined by the primitive strategy kick in, the female is assumed to have no legitimate input into the result.

What she wants does not matter. What she gets is the task of trying to understand who she must be, to be (apparently) pursuing the events she sees her self participating in.

The fact she usually has to invent a new, sometimes radically different self model to make sense of the memory of her own actions should come as no surprise.

And that's just the science of the matter. The reflection in our lives is even more fantastic, which, is, of course, why we're here, talking about this particular example...

Ok personally i don't feel any sympathy for Montgomery I feel he was the main cause of the whole ordeal. what he did was wrong , and perverted considering he was a married , 40 something man .. and knew better.

really need a link for this, can't find one anywhere, anyone help ?

Anon: http://www.talhotblond.com/