Change Your Image
Not6Not22
Reviews
The Platform (2020)
Definitely no spoilers
The pre-credit opening scenes were promising. Then the opening credits start rolling, and I see "Dean Cain" and think, "from Lois and Clark!?!"
Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Another couple scenes go by, and all is well. Then Superman enters. I don't know if I'm going to be able to continue the show. He is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo baaaaaaad! Easily the worst actor in the world. And I'm including kid's plays, community theatre, delusional one person shows based on the memoir of the 23 year old writer/performer. He might be able to play a severely brain damaged drug addict. That's how he delivers every line. Completely random volume and tone changes. Somehow never stressing the correct syllables like he doesn't actually speak English but is just reading a phonetic script that has been prepared for him
Problem is, he's supposed to be some kind of mentor to the main character. And the main character is supposed to be a genius. I have a niece who hasn't hit her first birthday, and she's already surpassed the knowledge of Dean Cain in every facet. Why would anyone hire this guy? Did they think they needed some US "star" to attract attention?
There was a little girl in the opening scenes. Probably 5-7. She'd be more believable in Cain's role. His name is "John," and he's American. They could call her John and let her only speak Arabic, and she'd still be more believable as the American mentor to the main character
Stop watching? Hope his part is tiny? (And FF past his scenes?) Or hate watch this clown?
The Curious Case of Natalia Grace (2023)
Pay Attention; More than two choices
TLDR: EXTREMELY thought-provoking and debate inducing! (See below for details/examples.) Points deducted for not spending more time on some of the most interesting elements.
Yes, Michael is EXTREMELY unlikeable.
No, Natalia was NOT 6 years old at adoption. Even if you completely disbelieve the pubic hair and menstruation claims, just look at her teeth. In the Disney World pictures all her visible teeth are adult teeth. How many six year olds have you seen with a full mouth of adult teeth?!?
So in addition to Michael and Kristine being liars, so is the Ukrainian "mother."
And the other little girl with the same condition who was also supposedly 6 for their playdate, and that girl's mother, were thoroughly convinced she was MUCH older at that meeting. And a ton of neighbours and the psychiatric hospital staff all say she was highly sexual.
So let's piece things together. Shady adoption agency. First adopting family wanted to get rid of her immediately. Barnetts wanted to get rid of her immediately. Witness testimony from all the neighbours and hospital staff. Judge decreeing that she was legally 22. (Documentary didn't give enough info on this, but it can't just be thrown out as irrelevant.) Visible teeth and facial structure CLEARLY NOT of a child at adoption. Playdate and mom certain of the same.
Seems like everyone got locked into a false dichotomy: 1) completely innocent 6 year old OR 2) sociopathic (22+) adult at adoption. I have full confidence that NEITHER of those options is correct.
Natalia didn't "mastermind" any fraud. She may have been as young as 9 at adoption, though I'm reasonably certain that she was somewhere between 13-18. So she likely didn't know her exact age, and she seems to have some intellectual development delays in addition to the cited medical condition (an exploration of how much of that is nature vs nurture would be very interesting); but it's highly unlikely that she believed she was six at adoption.
Now let's get into a bit of LIMITED conjecture. It seems highly unlikely that two sets of adopting parents would immediately regret their decision. Yes, she is disabled. Yes, they already knew that. Perhaps just the recognition that Natalia was (much) older than six could prompt that. But it seems far more likely to me that Natalia truly did exhibit some very real behavioural issues. And why wouldn't she? We have no idea what happened for the first 9-18 years of her life. Is she even from Ukraine? Again, the "mother" is a liar. (No, I don't really trust the "DNA test," but she could be her mother and be lying about the age; again 6 and 22 (mother SUPPOSEDLY would have been 10 - trust that age claim???) aren't the only options. Natalia was definitely rejected by at least one family. Realistically, she'd probably been rejected by at least several more. She is aware of her disability and very likely - and understandably - angry that it is causing her so many additional issues, so much additional pain. Then she gets placed with the Barretts, who are definitely NOT the ideal family. Assuming that at least some abuse occurred - which seems highly likely - the (escalated) behavioural problems are thoroughly understandable.
In other words, not only is the 6 or 22 a false choice, so is the idea that the Barrett story is either 100% true or entirely concocted after the fact.
Imagine this scenario. Kristine is more or less as depicted - narcissistic and manipulative. She goes to bathe her cute little six year old for the first time and encounters a pretty wild surprise. Not being a wonderful, balanced person, she proceeds to take out her anger at being lied to on Natalia, who - though definitely not six - isn't at all responsible for the lie, and likely doesn't have much in the way of answers to provide. So, now, an already traumatized, disabled child/teen is being routinely victimized by her (at minimum) 2nd adopting family. Self-soiling would be expected at this point. Kristine gets even angrier, not thinking at all that even if Natalia is 15-18, given her life, that the self-soiling is understandable, certainly not malicious. Circle of misbehaviour and abuse escalates to violent ideation by Natalia, who - again - is definitely not 6. Let's imagine 12 for now. Wouldn't a 12 year old subjected to all or even just a good chunk of what we know or nearly know be expected to act out? So the knife hoarding and threats make sense to me. Did Michael exaggerate? We watched the same Michael, right?
Now let's answer that question about technology and estimating her age. Yes, Natalia could easily get a highly reliable estimation of her age from a medical professional or few using multiple methods. Begs the question of why she and her new family haven't, doesn't it? Maybe that will be revealed in the upcoming follow-up documentary. But I highly doubt it. The new family is playing Natalia for fifteen minutes and benefits from the mystery and depicting Natalia as young and innocent as possible.
In other words, save some of the outrage that ya'll are casting at Michael and Kristine for all the other people who did this (young) girl wrong. 1) Everyone involved in early adoption efforts in her home country (which might not be Ukraine and could even be the US); 2) the second adoption agency in FL that gave her to two unsuitable homes. CONSIDER: the Barretts might actually be BETTER than the family who shopped her around and who another prospective adoptive father described as exuding pure evil; 3) adoptive family "one;" 4) the Barretts; 5) the clearly incompetent social worker who began investigating before the age change; 6) the child and family "protective services" system in Indiana (and, let's be real, the other 49 states too); 7) the doctor who clearly didn't do a thorough job preparing his report on Natalia's age; 8) the judge who (seemingly - the doc didn't dig into this) issued an order far too hastily; 9) the law enforcement officials who clearly prioritized headlines over diligence in their work; 10) "Doctor" Phil for continuing the freak parade treatment of the story and giving an uncritical megaphone to the new family; and, finally, 11) the leaders of this documentary by not exerting more effort to dig into some really interesting aspects, like whether she was even born in Ukraine, how old she really is, what happened to her before she was 9-18 when the Barretts adopted her, and the behaviour of the doctor, first social worker and judge
If this wasn't a thoroughly though-provoking work I definitely wouldn't have just wrote that whole piece. So, like other have said, the low ratings are of the events and people covered by the doc, not a fair rating of the doc itself.
141 A.D. Mission in Dacia (2018)
So much positive! If only . . .
If only the "acting" wasn't biological waste inside a dumpster fire.
Costumes and props: 12/10!!! Completely on point. Covers a multitude of the deficiencies elsewhere. This aspect of the film does a wonderful job drawing the viewer into the setting. Far better than the vast majority of huge budget blockbusters. Truly impressive!
Natural beauty of filming locations: 10/10. Honestly, this film is worth watching for the beauty alone.
Effective use of natural beauty: 8/10.
Script/dialogue: 6/10. It's a simple film following a simple story. They did a good job in keeping things clear and focused. My Romanian is VERY basic (watched partially as language practice), but I'm pretty confident the awkwardness I discerned in much of the dialogue would be felt by native speakers too. It had that film school project feel to it. Both pedantic yet stilted simultaneously. However I'm also sure this was not helped by the . . .
"Acting": -20/10. Possibly the worst I've ever seen in a film. And I've seen dozens of VERY low-budget movies. "Acting" might say it better than any other words can. But I'll try to capture its essence by damning with a bit of faint praise - the only nice thing I can say about the acting. Two of the actors were convincing as human beings. The rest might as well have been played by 1980's TV robots
It's a real shame they didn't/couldn't get a decent cast together. Good acting and a moderate rewrite to the script could have elevated this so much. I believe those two changes would have been enough to get this work traction in the indie/foreign categories at festivals. And that could have led to Romania getting some positive attention both generally and as a production location.
(I don't mean to offend anyone involved in this film. They put together a wonderful work clearly inspired by passion. But I can't ignore the abysmal acting. A better way to show their commitment to the project would have been to recognize their limits and work as hard as necessary to find actors who could adequately fill the roles.)
One last note: there are significant periods of silence. I loved this aspect of the film because I feel that it helps draw the audience into the setting and helps set the mood. But if you can't stand "slow" movies, then this probably isn't for you