The Imposter Reviews

  • Aug 20, 2019

    Chilling and to some degree unbelievable, it's an interesting documentary

    Chilling and to some degree unbelievable, it's an interesting documentary

  • Aug 16, 2019

    Unbelievable! Especially when you see TV interviews with "the imposter". Thought the film was a bit stretched out especially near the end. But still a very well made interesting and surprising tale of deception.

    Unbelievable! Especially when you see TV interviews with "the imposter". Thought the film was a bit stretched out especially near the end. But still a very well made interesting and surprising tale of deception.

  • Feb 18, 2019

    Loved the story and the guys honesty.

    Loved the story and the guys honesty.

  • Oct 18, 2018

    A gripping page-turner (or reel-spinner, I suppose) of a documentary, brilliantly blending candid, heartbreaking interviews with the real subjects of the story, and narrative reenactments shot with a true eye for cinematic aesthetics. In the vein of F FOR FAKE, for example, the result transcends generic expectations of what makes for an honest and objective documentary, forcing the audience to question what truths they are willing to believe and how they came to be convinced this way or that. In a sense, then, this is less a documentary about historical facts or a narrative feature about compelling characters than is a study in rhetoric, the art of persuasion-why do we so readily fall for liars, and why, despite the ostensible thrust of documentary filmmaking toward factuality, are we so hesitant to admit truth? Are not both-truth and lies-rhetorical constructs of which we need to be convinced? And how do we come to be persuaded when there is no master rhetor, no primordial agent, no super sujet-supposé-savoir who is in control of the facts here, the con as much a victim of the whims of his marks as they are of his?

    A gripping page-turner (or reel-spinner, I suppose) of a documentary, brilliantly blending candid, heartbreaking interviews with the real subjects of the story, and narrative reenactments shot with a true eye for cinematic aesthetics. In the vein of F FOR FAKE, for example, the result transcends generic expectations of what makes for an honest and objective documentary, forcing the audience to question what truths they are willing to believe and how they came to be convinced this way or that. In a sense, then, this is less a documentary about historical facts or a narrative feature about compelling characters than is a study in rhetoric, the art of persuasion-why do we so readily fall for liars, and why, despite the ostensible thrust of documentary filmmaking toward factuality, are we so hesitant to admit truth? Are not both-truth and lies-rhetorical constructs of which we need to be convinced? And how do we come to be persuaded when there is no master rhetor, no primordial agent, no super sujet-supposé-savoir who is in control of the facts here, the con as much a victim of the whims of his marks as they are of his?

  • Jul 28, 2018

    So gripping all the way through, the story is a great one, and makes you think. solid doco, recommend if you want your mind blown by what humanity can attempt in the spirit of lies.

    So gripping all the way through, the story is a great one, and makes you think. solid doco, recommend if you want your mind blown by what humanity can attempt in the spirit of lies.

  • Jun 01, 2018

    The villain is absolutely heartless and disgusting. The story is beyond crazy and it keeps you glued to the screen.

    The villain is absolutely heartless and disgusting. The story is beyond crazy and it keeps you glued to the screen.

  • Feb 10, 2018

    A well crafted, emotional film based on the crazy true story. Nicholas was 13 the day he disappeared (June 13, 1994). He would have been 16 and 8 months when he was reported found in Spain (October 7, 1997)... In 1994 a 13-year-old boy disappears without a trace from San Antonio, Texas. Three and a half years later he is found alive, thousands of miles away in a village in southern Spain with a story of kidnap and torture. His family is overjoyed to bring him home. But all is not quite as it seems. The boy bears many of the same distinguishing marks he always had, but why does he now have a strange accent? Why does he look so different? And why doesn't the family seem to notice these glaring inconsistencies? It's only when an investigator starts asking questions that this strange tale takes an even stranger turn. In a world so big, stories like this often go unnoticed. This is one of those crazy stories that I had no idea existed until I saw this film. This film was a unique blend of documentary and fictitious filmmaking, which I really enjoyed. I don't watch a lot of documentaries, but this was pretty interesting to me. Instead of typical b-roll footage (which would've been difficult given the situation), they kind of reenacted the scene with actors / actresses. It helped smoothen out the narrative and it helped us visualize the story much better. There were so many cool tricks and narrative devices they used that it made this documentary so memorable. The film was shot and edited very well. It took an interesting event and made it into a compelling story. I was emotionally hooked and shocked on what this film did. It looked great and the different ways they told this story was so interesting. They used different camera methods and ways to visually progress the story. It was a really well composed film and I feel like it does something not all other documentaries have done. In the end, I highly recommend watching this film. It's available on Netflix and one of the most memorable documentaries I've seen in recent memory.

    A well crafted, emotional film based on the crazy true story. Nicholas was 13 the day he disappeared (June 13, 1994). He would have been 16 and 8 months when he was reported found in Spain (October 7, 1997)... In 1994 a 13-year-old boy disappears without a trace from San Antonio, Texas. Three and a half years later he is found alive, thousands of miles away in a village in southern Spain with a story of kidnap and torture. His family is overjoyed to bring him home. But all is not quite as it seems. The boy bears many of the same distinguishing marks he always had, but why does he now have a strange accent? Why does he look so different? And why doesn't the family seem to notice these glaring inconsistencies? It's only when an investigator starts asking questions that this strange tale takes an even stranger turn. In a world so big, stories like this often go unnoticed. This is one of those crazy stories that I had no idea existed until I saw this film. This film was a unique blend of documentary and fictitious filmmaking, which I really enjoyed. I don't watch a lot of documentaries, but this was pretty interesting to me. Instead of typical b-roll footage (which would've been difficult given the situation), they kind of reenacted the scene with actors / actresses. It helped smoothen out the narrative and it helped us visualize the story much better. There were so many cool tricks and narrative devices they used that it made this documentary so memorable. The film was shot and edited very well. It took an interesting event and made it into a compelling story. I was emotionally hooked and shocked on what this film did. It looked great and the different ways they told this story was so interesting. They used different camera methods and ways to visually progress the story. It was a really well composed film and I feel like it does something not all other documentaries have done. In the end, I highly recommend watching this film. It's available on Netflix and one of the most memorable documentaries I've seen in recent memory.

  • Oct 11, 2017

    Was I watching the same documentary?? I kept waiting for the twist that would make this movie interesting! Yes it is weird that the family believed this brown-eyed French man was their missing blond hair, blue-eyed son! But there is absolutely no evidence to back up any of the claims the imposter (Frederic Bourdin) made about Nicholas' disappearance and supposed murder. The family is incredibly sketchy, but we see Frederic Bourdin, from jail, calling other families with missing children and lying to them about knowing anything of their fate. We see a man who is ridiculously proud of being a compulsive liar and conman. To make this documentary work, we needed some coabberating evidence that the family was guilty

    Was I watching the same documentary?? I kept waiting for the twist that would make this movie interesting! Yes it is weird that the family believed this brown-eyed French man was their missing blond hair, blue-eyed son! But there is absolutely no evidence to back up any of the claims the imposter (Frederic Bourdin) made about Nicholas' disappearance and supposed murder. The family is incredibly sketchy, but we see Frederic Bourdin, from jail, calling other families with missing children and lying to them about knowing anything of their fate. We see a man who is ridiculously proud of being a compulsive liar and conman. To make this documentary work, we needed some coabberating evidence that the family was guilty

  • Aug 31, 2017

    I cannot comprehend how anybody could give this movie any praise. It's awful, slow, has no pay off and just is a complete waste of time. Do yourself a favor...... skip it!!

    I cannot comprehend how anybody could give this movie any praise. It's awful, slow, has no pay off and just is a complete waste of time. Do yourself a favor...... skip it!!

  • Jul 21, 2017

    Has to be seen to be believed. Stupefying.

    Has to be seen to be believed. Stupefying.