1/10
Was child-abuse itself in its "use" of too young children+suspicious ulterior motives
27 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I find this film seems itself to be abusive to children; I was sickened and shocked. There are also two other alarming questions to ask about this film's making. I'm a grandparent with 7 children and several grandchildren; after being into this film a little more than 30-40 minutes or so I could no longer finish watching it as some of you out there who are parents are likely to soon understand why. BUT BUT, I did watch ALL the special features.

Why hasn't anyone mentioned that there were actual REAL small too young children acting as subjects of child sexual abuse who were actually talking to actors who were acting like real child sex abusers. In other words Simulated Child Abuse (even if only mildly) much like simulated sex in soft porn movies. Those younger child actors were WAY WAY too young to be even learning AT-ALL anything about such subjects as child sexual abuse/prostitution! They need to have STAYED as innocents about anymore than the minimum knowledge about sexuality any other normal average younger child that age knows. So - - for me - - this WAS a milder form but still child abuse to have used/hijacked these children this way; and there was no thorough explanations or clarifications in the special features to relax viewers that they blue-screened the children separate from the male abuser actor etc or some other shielding or at least ANY further explanation than what was insufficiently offered to assure viewer that these children were sufficiently protected. The film's Special Feature's ONLY explanation was that the mothers were on the set at all times; hey guess what; what about those "other" mothers who really did send a child into prostitution they were fully aware also. How many of you parents out there would allow your child to be an actor in such scenes who, it's totally normal, will then want to go and see the movie they "starred" in? Sick Sick and TOO sick!! Is it too politically incorrect to accuse this to be some kind of cultural defect, like many accuse Muslims for how they treat women; what other world culture does this kind of thing to this level of severity; do Muslims allow this kind of thing for their little innocent children?

"We bought the script immediately;" the doctor states, whose idea started the project. Bought? Say what? Again - - for me - - the appearances imply they simply hijacked this issue simply in order to make hero-celebrities of themselves and be able to travel around and make speeches. Reminds me of Jerry Lewis's abuse of Muscular Dystrophy children.

If it was filmed in Thailand which is historically, going back hundreds of years, WAY more famous for child prostitution; then Cambodia, then why wasn't the Thai governments historically weak efforts to combat this problem mentioned; or that this country allows actual jet sex-charters to land on their runways as if they were like those gamblers-only charters going to Las Vegas.

If this film was truly to expose then why didn't it really expose the so so much more there IS to expose? Again, the appearances seem to imply these people just hijacked one of the saddest sickest most hidden issues on earth just to make hero celebrities of themselves since the film too over emphasized Cambodia while too under-emphasizing all the other well-knowings by those of us who have for decades really fought this holocaust against children. Were they way more concerned about getting their film made then offending those who really need to be way more than just offended; IE in prison.

Please boycott, as in don't buy any goods made in Thailand; period!!!
3 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed