How well do you know your loved ones? If you were separated for several years, would you recognize them instantly? In the case of the Barclay family, they thought, they knew their own missing child, Nicolas, only to find out that that something about his return is not quite right. Without spoiling too much of the twist for you in this review; I felt that 'the Imposter' could had done the same. Not spoil it all for the audience. They should had left some suspense about the return of so-called 'Nicolas'. However, the documentary directed by Bart Layton felt to spill all the beans about the audacious fraud, a little too early for my taste. 3 minutes in. It ruin any build any suspense that this 'Nicolas', was not the real Nicolas. Instead, the central focus of the documentary, is if the family knew, deep down that the person that they brought back to their home, was not their son, or not? After all, how in the world, did this family not recognize that the person portraying the Texan native, had a thin French accent, and didn't have any of the right facial features of the boy, but of, an adult man!? Even, the family doctor did not think the child was Nicolas. It seems so obvious! Yet, the family accept this person into their home. Are they that clueless or were they were so grief-stricken that they willing to take anybody to replace him? Or- as the imposter, Frédéric Bourdin alleges himself, to hide the fact that the family murder the boy. These suspicions questions about the family come to dominate, most of the film; as the documentary really does want you to suspect them, despite the police reports, saying the family was not in fault of Nicolas disappearance. This force direction by Layton really does seem its walking a tightrope in terms of the ethical standards when it comes to journalism. Why? The documentary's direction felt like an all over the place unfocused scapegoat interrogation type piece, rather than a keen open discussion on how the imposter was able to nearly get away with his crimes. Don't get me wrong, maybe, the family shouldn't come out of this, without some criticized. After all, following the boy's disappearance, the police were called to their home on multiple occasions. Most of the calls were due to fights between the parents, whose relationship grew volatile to the stress of looking for Nicholas. Regardless of that, the twists and turns through exploitative dramatization should focus on the imposter, rather than the family. After all, the movie barely scratch the surface on who Borden, truly is. Much of his mysterious past & his identity crimes after the Barclay case, remain untold. The film doesn't even show how he supposedly finally found love & happiness through other means, like falling in love with a woman and raising kids. I guess the film doesn't want us to feel too sympathy to this creepy guy. No wonder, why Borden hate this movie. As for the documentary treatment of the law enforcements in Spain & United States who mistake Borden for Nicolas. The officials also felt like they not accurately portrayed. Nearly all their quotes is taken out of context, quote-mined, or deceptively edited, in order to make them, look more clueless than they were, in real-life. It's highly extremely manipulative and kinda off-putting. Look, I get that, the film is about deception and self-deception. So, I get, where Layton was going for, with pulling the viewer, into the feeling of being fool by an unreliable narrator. However, there is no place for gimmicks like that. This isn't a fictional retelling like 2010's crime drama movie, the Chameleon'. This is a documentary film. Thus, it is expected to adhere to reasonable standards of journalistic integrity by presenting facts & research to back, certain claims up, in order to allowed people to decide for themselves. Despite that, the movie is well-shot. Every subject in the story is shot in a normal interview style, but looking off frame at somebody else. Except for the imposter, who is up to our face! Close up. Blur! With his sociopath's charm, Bourdin is utterly creepy. Seeing his words come from the lookalike actor, Adam O'Brian playing him in a reenactment was equally as disturbing. Those vocal crossovers parts are well done. The sequences including the slow-motion, dropped-out sound & time-lapse photography technique are also very smooth. Even the music by composer, Anne Nikitin & the London Symphony Orchestra work well with the piece. It capture the scope of the drama. Overall: If recommending this movie to somebody, could had help find Nicolas Barclay. I gladly promote it, even if I felt this documentary could had been a little bit better. As of this date, he still missing. It's been many years since his disappearance. I hope, that he is found alive, one day. Until then, films like this, will have to continue to shine, in order to keep the case active. While, 'the Imposter' has many flaws, this film is still worth searching for. I highly recommended seeing it.

I had not heard anything about this story before watching the film, I found it fascinating insight into humanity and how we can ignore everything that contradicts what we desperately need to be true. It was amazing to watch the honest, gut-spilling confessions, and I give the director respect for getting them to do this. The negatives, though, two things. The narration used exceedingly flowery language. There may be a time and place for such writing, but in a gritty, honest documentary it is jarringly out of place. It should have stated things as simply and succinctly as possible, using the same kind of natural language as the interviewees. The overly poetic narration style did not mesh at all with the honesty of the interviews. Second. Nowhere in the entire film did anyone say the word 'gang.' The way he held his fingers when photographed? Throwing up gang signs. The tattoos on his hand? Gang related. Gangs kill each other every day. This likely scenario, that he was the victim of gang violence, should have been at least mentioned if not explored. Surely the local police recognized these signs, hopefully they explored this angle.

This was a stunning documentary movie about the 1997 incident. Tells the story of a Texas boy who returned home after the 3 years of disappearance. Created a lot thrilling excitation that equals to any masterpiece crime-thriller movie. Particularly to say it is what Hitchcock would have chosen to do if he was alive today. Sadly, it was a documentary movie, that does not really stop anyone from a watch. It is one the documentary you should watch if you are a Hitchcock fan, especially if you are interested in the crime-thrillers that deals about identity crises. As it is a true story, it was unbelievable.A 16 year-old Nicolas Barclay from Texas was missing for 3 years. All the sudden one day he appears with the changed personality. That brings joy in his family who was praying for his return. But Nicolas tells the strange story about his disappearance that convince his family, but authorities suspect that something is not right. What is true and what is not is the remaining narration that reveals as it happened.''I saw the opportunity.''This movie is what reminds me the Indian movie 'Naan'. Same kind of narration that does not keep the secret from the viewers, but each other from the movie characters. It was about claiming the fake identity, that was not done perfectly because of the faultless display, but failed to recognize the truth, especially in the modern world with all the facilities are available to detect such flaws. Like saying, all is well when everybody is happy. There are lots of similar incidents happening, but everything won't come into the lights. I am glad this story brought into the silver screen.It was awesome, I thoroughly stuck with it till the end. Yes, the end leaves behind many doubts about the whole structure of the case that could possibly take us to the day since Nicolas was missing. But in another angle it is a kind of offense to believe where the story leaves everything and finger points the other way. Whatever the truth is, it leaves us on a thin border of the two possibilities and we have to take what way we think could possibly would have happened. In the meantime the mystery about Nicolas keeps unanswered. I hope this puzzle will be solved one day in the near future.

if this wasn't a true story , frankly I wouldn't have believed it myself,, the story is so strange and complicated, but yet straightforward.. a young boy goes missing,, and years go by , then all of a sudden a boy presumed dead is alive and well,, well let's just wait a minute here I smell a scam,, and sure enough there 's on in the works,, a French boy on the run from the law from practically everywhere in the world.. claims he is the missing boy that the family is looking for,, but a police detective notices that the eyes don't match,, lot's of stuff in the movie just don't add up,, like the ineptitude of the national center for missing children,, like wouldn't they run dna and blood tests.. just saying,, but overall very interesting movie,, makes you wonder what really happened to the family's little boy,,, if they actually killed him or not,, this is a must see movie,, I gave it a 10