Plain-faced, casually-dressed female teen (Sarah Lind, a very good actress) is recruited by a scout to try her hand at fashion modeling; after just one flyer with her picture goes out, the girl's newfound career takes a sordid turn as the agency proves itself to be a front for cyber-porn. Not much different from the "Portrait of" teen movies from the '70s, with the warning that nobody gets a free ride in life without payback. Better, more ambitious efforts, such as "Fallen Angel" from 1981, actually go further with this subject matter while attempting to expose the sleaziest aspects of child-exploitation. This telefilm gets its point across early, and then turns into a crime drama (with our heroine racing down several flights of stairs near the finish in her bra and panties!). Even theatrically-made features run the risk of treating exploitation crassly--here, it's just shucked off for the sake of cheap suspense. I didn't buy it, though the movie's target audience (girls around 14 or 15) probably won't notice.
11 Reviews
lesson of the week
SnoopyStyle24 October 2016
Mia Sampson (Sarah Lind) and her friend Chelsea Burns are at the mall looking for a low-paying food court job. Mia is approached by Malcolm Lowe who claims to be looking for a model. Her mother Abby Sampson (Mimi Rogers) goes with her to talk to Lowe. They are convinces by Lowe and the girls led by Simone to join in his internet modeling. It starts off innocently. Mia gains confidence and gets some fast easy money. She attracts the attention of classmate Justin Johnson. She does more and more suggestive photography and joins in live chats as she gains members like obsessive Gabriel who later turns menacing. The situation spirals out of control and she's contacted by Web Watch warning her about Lowe. Gabriel is actually James who works for the volunteer group.
The icky factor is quite high. It's one of those lesson movie of the week. Sarah Lind is compelling and there are some good solid actors to back her up. It's not all believable. She got paid a lot for her first session. I could only guess that Lowe paid her extra to reel her in. Some of the situations are cheesy. As far as a Lifetime TV movie, this is better than most but there are limitations.
The icky factor is quite high. It's one of those lesson movie of the week. Sarah Lind is compelling and there are some good solid actors to back her up. It's not all believable. She got paid a lot for her first session. I could only guess that Lowe paid her extra to reel her in. Some of the situations are cheesy. As far as a Lifetime TV movie, this is better than most but there are limitations.
pure hypocrisy
baba4471310 April 2006
This is supposed to be a movie that will show and condemn the exploitation of teens on the web today. It succeeds on some levels, but mostly in the way those Christian or government anti-drug campaigns work e.g. without much subtlety and with forced drama and pathetics.
What angered me the most is the pure hypocrisy of this movie - whoever made this has never turned on MTV or opened a teen magazine in his/her life. Those things regularly have pictures of teens in far more lascivious poses than what the movie tries to sell as ultra-perverse yet it is considered quite normal in our society - better yet, teen models from those magazines are probably the most popular kids in their schools, unlike the movie protagonist who is mocked and laughed upon - plot device that really got a few things wrong with todays teen mentality.
Furthermorem the movie chose the dreaded cheesy approach - a cliché egomaniac web-site owner as the antagonist and a cheap thriller side-plot to keep the audience from sleeping. Oh, and if this movie is really so much against teen exploitation, than there is really too much of that running-in-bra-and-panties schtick.
On the other hand, the actors are all on-par (except Mimi Rogers with her one-facial-expression-fits-all acting ability), the movie doesn't drag too long and the issue it addresses should be addressed. But really in a more realistic and less hypocritical manner.
What angered me the most is the pure hypocrisy of this movie - whoever made this has never turned on MTV or opened a teen magazine in his/her life. Those things regularly have pictures of teens in far more lascivious poses than what the movie tries to sell as ultra-perverse yet it is considered quite normal in our society - better yet, teen models from those magazines are probably the most popular kids in their schools, unlike the movie protagonist who is mocked and laughed upon - plot device that really got a few things wrong with todays teen mentality.
Furthermorem the movie chose the dreaded cheesy approach - a cliché egomaniac web-site owner as the antagonist and a cheap thriller side-plot to keep the audience from sleeping. Oh, and if this movie is really so much against teen exploitation, than there is really too much of that running-in-bra-and-panties schtick.
On the other hand, the actors are all on-par (except Mimi Rogers with her one-facial-expression-fits-all acting ability), the movie doesn't drag too long and the issue it addresses should be addressed. But really in a more realistic and less hypocritical manner.
Predictably stereotypical...
Cinerama889 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
**SPOILER ALERT** As expected, I found the plot of this TV-movie reflected the typical, negative, knee-jerk reaction toward anything smacking of "child exploitation", a topic which has unfortunately been savagely overblown--particularly in the North American media--and which seems to become even more paranoic every time a child is victimized--even if such victimization had absolutely nothing to do with the internet.
First off, I always find it a stretch to see teenage characters being portrayed by actors and actresses in their twenties (in this case actress Sara Lind who was either 22 or 23 years of age--a la the hard-to-swallow "believability" of Beverly Hills, 90210).
Under the circumstances, Miss Lind did her best, I suppose, but c'mon...her school "friends" were from another dimension entirely and didn't appear to match her personality whatsoever. In reality, nothing is so black and white when it comes to accepting another person's choice of hobby or occupation. In fact, it seemed to me that most of the other girls in the plot were more jealous than "outraged" over Mia's modelling site.
Momma--played by Mimi Roger--was equally dense even when "clues" stared her right in the face. Really: how dumb are some of these parents anyway?! Worse, though, are the ones who don't seem to have a clue what their kids are doing out late at night: probably spray-painting graffiti everywhere! Wake up!
Plot holes in "Selling Innocence" were everywhere as well. If (16 or 17-year-old?) Mia was so concerned about her mother finding out about her online activities, why was she so careless to leave her $27.000 pay statement (in it's already opened envelope yet!) right under her keyboard where Momma could so easily stumble onto it?! How dumb was that? Then the notion that a modelling agency would risk exposure and/or legal action by refusing to close down a retired model's website at the model's request, is just plain ridiculous to say the least.
Yes, no doubt such a policy may indeed exist with the most hard-nosed or just plain reckless (perhaps offshore-owned) outfits, but the majority of such online modelling agencies have more than enough models to pay their bills, so the loss of one model here and there is par for the course. No model stays forever and no one should expect them to, either.
More common than not as well is the fact that many online modelling sites are managed and overseen by the PARENTS of these children, who themselves then have a stake in their earnings, and who--for better or worse--are even the main motivating factor in pushing and promoting their offspring toward what they hope will be eventual fame and fortune--whether or not it ever actually turns out that way in the end.
However, what I found most bizarre within the plot of "Selling Innocence", was the blatant way in which a member of a so-called "child assistance agency" is revealed to be Gabriel, the mysterious stalker and presumably the assailant of a previous model. Now how unbelievable would that be in real life? Okay, so truth can indeed often be stranger than fiction, but I ended up shaking my head at the end of this slice of baloney.
So, listen up, girls: if you want to be an online model--great! Go for it! But, first get your parents approval, have a plan, aim towards a specific time frame when you want to move on--or out--and, of course, check out the agency first by determining how your photos or videos will be used and that you be able to repossess your material if you decide to quit. Then get it in writing. Don't be stupid, and you won't become exploited. If Madonna and Britney could take charge of their careers, there's no reason why YOU can't take charge of yours--no matter if it's nowhere near that stratospheric altitude.
Best of all, though, is to find out from other online models how they succeeded--or didn't succeed--in the business, before you commit yourself.
Online modelling is not for everyone, of course, but, let's face it: being paid $27.000 beats flipping burgers any day.
To summarize: know what you want, keep your eyes open, and know when to say "No!"
First off, I always find it a stretch to see teenage characters being portrayed by actors and actresses in their twenties (in this case actress Sara Lind who was either 22 or 23 years of age--a la the hard-to-swallow "believability" of Beverly Hills, 90210).
Under the circumstances, Miss Lind did her best, I suppose, but c'mon...her school "friends" were from another dimension entirely and didn't appear to match her personality whatsoever. In reality, nothing is so black and white when it comes to accepting another person's choice of hobby or occupation. In fact, it seemed to me that most of the other girls in the plot were more jealous than "outraged" over Mia's modelling site.
Momma--played by Mimi Roger--was equally dense even when "clues" stared her right in the face. Really: how dumb are some of these parents anyway?! Worse, though, are the ones who don't seem to have a clue what their kids are doing out late at night: probably spray-painting graffiti everywhere! Wake up!
Plot holes in "Selling Innocence" were everywhere as well. If (16 or 17-year-old?) Mia was so concerned about her mother finding out about her online activities, why was she so careless to leave her $27.000 pay statement (in it's already opened envelope yet!) right under her keyboard where Momma could so easily stumble onto it?! How dumb was that? Then the notion that a modelling agency would risk exposure and/or legal action by refusing to close down a retired model's website at the model's request, is just plain ridiculous to say the least.
Yes, no doubt such a policy may indeed exist with the most hard-nosed or just plain reckless (perhaps offshore-owned) outfits, but the majority of such online modelling agencies have more than enough models to pay their bills, so the loss of one model here and there is par for the course. No model stays forever and no one should expect them to, either.
More common than not as well is the fact that many online modelling sites are managed and overseen by the PARENTS of these children, who themselves then have a stake in their earnings, and who--for better or worse--are even the main motivating factor in pushing and promoting their offspring toward what they hope will be eventual fame and fortune--whether or not it ever actually turns out that way in the end.
However, what I found most bizarre within the plot of "Selling Innocence", was the blatant way in which a member of a so-called "child assistance agency" is revealed to be Gabriel, the mysterious stalker and presumably the assailant of a previous model. Now how unbelievable would that be in real life? Okay, so truth can indeed often be stranger than fiction, but I ended up shaking my head at the end of this slice of baloney.
So, listen up, girls: if you want to be an online model--great! Go for it! But, first get your parents approval, have a plan, aim towards a specific time frame when you want to move on--or out--and, of course, check out the agency first by determining how your photos or videos will be used and that you be able to repossess your material if you decide to quit. Then get it in writing. Don't be stupid, and you won't become exploited. If Madonna and Britney could take charge of their careers, there's no reason why YOU can't take charge of yours--no matter if it's nowhere near that stratospheric altitude.
Best of all, though, is to find out from other online models how they succeeded--or didn't succeed--in the business, before you commit yourself.
Online modelling is not for everyone, of course, but, let's face it: being paid $27.000 beats flipping burgers any day.
To summarize: know what you want, keep your eyes open, and know when to say "No!"
Selling SEX
FilmNoirOnline28 July 2006
This movie makes me think of that anti-death penalty bumper sticker: "Why do we kill people to show people that killing people is wrong?" Here's another: "Why do we make movies showing off half-naked kids to show that showing off half-naked kids is wrong?" The hypocrisy is sickening. Do you think they made this movie to "wake people up?" Really? Or, was this a movie made to make money by selling the titillating notion of teens showing themselves half-dressed on web sites? Duh.
It is amazing to me how many people watch this and say, "This is what we need to wake people up!" Please. Hollywood is not known for their altruism for true blue altruistic purposes. But, preachy movies that make people THINK they are crusading against this or that - WHILE EXPLOITING the very thing they are crusading against? Hollywood knows that game better than anyone.
Hypocrisy - plain and simple.
--------------------
It is amazing to me how many people watch this and say, "This is what we need to wake people up!" Please. Hollywood is not known for their altruism for true blue altruistic purposes. But, preachy movies that make people THINK they are crusading against this or that - WHILE EXPLOITING the very thing they are crusading against? Hollywood knows that game better than anyone.
Hypocrisy - plain and simple.
--------------------
You know what I mean
raulfaust16 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Well, considering it's a television movie made with unknown actors and limited budget, I don't find it all that bad. One thing I can complaint is that this movie feels too conservative; you know, I'm a Brazilian guy, and I don't know how these things work in other countries, but in mine, people are used with seeing female porn stars on ordinary TV shows without any bad judgment. I'm not saying that everyone in here shows off every time, but it's nothing considered insulting as this movie portrays it to be. I agree, the girl was underage, but the pictures they took of her weren't all that appealing. She made some money and that's fine, it's not like they filmed her having intercourse. Another thing I disliked is the questions with no answer; for instance, did Malcolm ever know who was Gabriel? Could he do something about to avoid the chasing-- which was the only good twist anyways--? The movie ends and spectator can't say who is wrong and who is right. Actually, there is simply no right or wrong when it comes to this subject; some girls will do porn (which isn't the case of this film) and some will not, which doesn't mean the girl is a hooker or a saint. People can say what they want, but I felt "Selling Innocence" made a tempest on a teapot about this subject.
Pretty Good Movie, but Unrealistic in Places
mrtron8129 June 2005
I thought this was a pretty good movie overall. Sarah Lind did a good job playing a much younger character of High School student Mia. It also had a nice plot twist near the end that I didn't see coming at all.
On the other hand, the movie's creators went so far trying to make teen modeling web sites look bad that it became unrealistic in places. There is no chance that the students at Mia's High School would have ridiculed her for being a (non-nude) model. Today's teens are much more jaded about sex in the media than that. Britney Spears wears far less in her videos and concerts. If anything, she would have been more popular with the other students for being a model, especially the boys.
On the other hand, the movie's creators went so far trying to make teen modeling web sites look bad that it became unrealistic in places. There is no chance that the students at Mia's High School would have ridiculed her for being a (non-nude) model. Today's teens are much more jaded about sex in the media than that. Britney Spears wears far less in her videos and concerts. If anything, she would have been more popular with the other students for being a model, especially the boys.
Real issues
betacamcowboy12 April 2006
It's clear that Selling Innocence has struck a nerve. That's not surprising given endless stream of internet exploitation stories we see in the news. As a viewer I found it to be a gripping enough thriller to watch its second run Saturday on CTV. As a television reporter I felt a ring of truth on several levels. I have met creeps that exploit children, and they are just like Malcolm, cold and full of justification. And I've seen cases of young women drawn to the flame of fame, only to have their lives ruined. Is Selling Innocence hyperbole? I don't think so.
I do find disturbing some of the criticism that Selling Innocence doesn't show "the real thing". If it did, we'd have never seen or heard of Selling Innocence, because it would be buried in the back of the local porn store. In mainstream media we always sanitize our images. Even in news, notice we don't show the gore in the latest car bombing? We show a body bag, or an ambulance pulling away. The real images are too disturbing. Thus with child porn. I covered the trial of a kiddie porn merchant and could not show the images on the air. So we digitized the least objectionable ones. Do you get a clear picture? No. Do you want a clear picture? For most folks I would think not, for the truly curious it's not hard to find. Bottom line, criticizing Selling Innocence for showing sanitized porn is like attacking the media for showing sanitized war. Same deception, different genre.
One writer suggests it's inconceivable that someone sworn to help victims of web abuse would turn out to be a stalker. I would suggest they check the legal archives and begin to try to tally up the number of teachers, counselors, clergymen and boy scout leaders who have been convicted of child molestation. The point is those who prey on young powerless kids tend to seek positions of power in their lives. They earn the trust of these kids, which is why Mia would turn to James rather than a stranger at the police station.
I see Selling Innocence as a cautionary tale. Well told, and delivering a strong social message.
I do find disturbing some of the criticism that Selling Innocence doesn't show "the real thing". If it did, we'd have never seen or heard of Selling Innocence, because it would be buried in the back of the local porn store. In mainstream media we always sanitize our images. Even in news, notice we don't show the gore in the latest car bombing? We show a body bag, or an ambulance pulling away. The real images are too disturbing. Thus with child porn. I covered the trial of a kiddie porn merchant and could not show the images on the air. So we digitized the least objectionable ones. Do you get a clear picture? No. Do you want a clear picture? For most folks I would think not, for the truly curious it's not hard to find. Bottom line, criticizing Selling Innocence for showing sanitized porn is like attacking the media for showing sanitized war. Same deception, different genre.
One writer suggests it's inconceivable that someone sworn to help victims of web abuse would turn out to be a stalker. I would suggest they check the legal archives and begin to try to tally up the number of teachers, counselors, clergymen and boy scout leaders who have been convicted of child molestation. The point is those who prey on young powerless kids tend to seek positions of power in their lives. They earn the trust of these kids, which is why Mia would turn to James rather than a stranger at the police station.
I see Selling Innocence as a cautionary tale. Well told, and delivering a strong social message.
Excellent
JeerMe18 June 2005
This film was excellent at hitting an issue that has become very common recently. Children being photographed in provocative clothing that is being passed off as modeling. These pictures are then setup on a web-page. This web-page is then suppose to be getting the child out there for clients to see. Without proper steps being taken to make sure these are real clients that want to use the child in a modeling job. Some sick perverts use the website as a way to "get off". This has been an issue that has been discussed on several talk shows. This film was had a great storyline. You really felt the emotions of each of the characters. By showing all sides of the story you understand why each character does what they do. A great movie considering it was made for Lifetime unlike some that are drawn out.
Fabulous
bajan_gem4 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The movie dealt with many pressing issues such as the reliability of modeling agencies, the safety of the Internet and child pornography. The movie contained all the right characters; the girl who was happy to be accepted and making a lot of money (Mia), the modeling agent who seemed to be above par but was not (Malcolm), and of course the stalker (James/Gabriel). The element of surprise at the end where James really turned out to be Gabriel was very ingenious. I really did not expect that. The way his true character was introduced was also very cool. The concerned parent was also there, of course. The movie was very realistic. It included the ostracized best friend, who is put aside when Mia gains her fame. Also, no high school would be complete without the girl who thinks she is all that. Though she had a minor role, it fit in well because she tried to destroy Mia by posting her pictures. That simple act showed the seriousness of the situation. The ultimate end of the movie showed that Mia really couldn't erase the pictures because they were still out there, and probably would always be. All in all it was a great movie and worth watching.
Creepy Twist O.o
a_kilpatrick12 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was an awesome Made for TV movie. I usually have my skepticisms about those, having judged from past experiences that they're not all that entertaining. This one had me hooked however. Mia had lots of people who cared for her and she knew she was doing something wrong, but then when the guy who was supposed to be helping her turned out to be the stalker! That was just way too creepy. My friend in Ontario watched it 3 hours before me and I resented him telling me that there was a huge twist in the plot, needless to say once I saw the guy whom I can only think of as Hank from Corner Gas My mind sorta clicked and I thought "He's the guy." It was a pretty good move though, and it is an issue that needs to be taken care of. This movie may just have raised enough awareness to actually get something moving. But maybe not. Nothing is for certain, especially with today's attitude towards profanity and anything sex-related.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
