User reviews

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.

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.

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.

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.

--------------------

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.

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.

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.