In 1994, a 13-year-old boy disappears from Texas; three years later, he apparently shows up in Spain, disoriented and uncommunicative. The boy's family quickly retrieves him, but it's soon obvious that something is awry. Is it possible this is not their little boy after all? The Imposter's title gives you a strong indication to the answer to that question, but there's much more to the story.
This is a documentary, so let us begin with some cold facts. The story is propelled by interviews given by the real-life people at the center of the drama. Right away, we are introduced to one Frederic Bourdin, a 23-year-old Frenchman. His mission: find and steal the identity of a teenager. It turns out to be a little harder than one might imagine, particularly when the boy chosen by Bourdin turns out to be a cause celebre, and thus Bourdin is not able to simply escape the clutches of the Spanish police but instead must continue his ruse as he's taken to the United States.
Along the way, he asks himself why the boy's family is so eager to accept him as young Nicholas. Bourdin has beard stubble and dark hair, whereas teenage Nicholas was blonde and a bit too young to shave. But accept them they do. Is this simply a case where the family just wanted so desperately to believe that their boy was back that they overlooked obvious discrepancies? Or did they have something else to hide?
In addition to Bourdin himself, interviews with his older sister, his mother, his brother in law, and his brother - along with law-enforcement officials both local and national (including Interpol) - are interspersed throughout the movie. It is only from these subjective interviews that the audience can make any assumptions or deductions, as director Bart Layton doesn't push the plot in any particular direction. Well, not at first. For a good part of the movie, we are led to conclude two things: that Bourdin is certainly not Nicholas and that Nicholas' family is surely aware of this.
And then, from almost nowhere, an allegation arises that cannot be revealed here. Does it seem plausible? Yes. Is it supported in the movie as a valid theory? Not entirely. It is at this point where the director introduces the allegations behind which he also throws his own weight, a bit of a departure from the plot to that point. Layton seems to believe this allegation has at least a grain of truth - he is not the only one in the movie to think so, although there appears to be no direct evidence to support it.
And that's a shame. Up until then, the movie seems almost amiable: the lovable rogue sneaking into the U.S. by pretending to be someone much younger, fooling officials but not the family, which doesn't care anyway. After the tone shifts (abruptly), the movie itself changes - now it's much more of a mystery, and unfortunately it's one without a satisfying resolution.
If this were a work of fiction, the movie could have been effective if it was able to delve into the minds and actions of the Gibson family. Because the movie is nonfiction, throwing in plot devices that may or may not be factual would have been unethical and embarrassing. But it would have been far more entertaining than The Imposter, which promises a lot but cannot deliver on the tone set by its creepy, unsettling premise.
This is a documentary, so let us begin with some cold facts. The story is propelled by interviews given by the real-life people at the center of the drama. Right away, we are introduced to one Frederic Bourdin, a 23-year-old Frenchman. His mission: find and steal the identity of a teenager. It turns out to be a little harder than one might imagine, particularly when the boy chosen by Bourdin turns out to be a cause celebre, and thus Bourdin is not able to simply escape the clutches of the Spanish police but instead must continue his ruse as he's taken to the United States.
Along the way, he asks himself why the boy's family is so eager to accept him as young Nicholas. Bourdin has beard stubble and dark hair, whereas teenage Nicholas was blonde and a bit too young to shave. But accept them they do. Is this simply a case where the family just wanted so desperately to believe that their boy was back that they overlooked obvious discrepancies? Or did they have something else to hide?
In addition to Bourdin himself, interviews with his older sister, his mother, his brother in law, and his brother - along with law-enforcement officials both local and national (including Interpol) - are interspersed throughout the movie. It is only from these subjective interviews that the audience can make any assumptions or deductions, as director Bart Layton doesn't push the plot in any particular direction. Well, not at first. For a good part of the movie, we are led to conclude two things: that Bourdin is certainly not Nicholas and that Nicholas' family is surely aware of this.
And then, from almost nowhere, an allegation arises that cannot be revealed here. Does it seem plausible? Yes. Is it supported in the movie as a valid theory? Not entirely. It is at this point where the director introduces the allegations behind which he also throws his own weight, a bit of a departure from the plot to that point. Layton seems to believe this allegation has at least a grain of truth - he is not the only one in the movie to think so, although there appears to be no direct evidence to support it.
And that's a shame. Up until then, the movie seems almost amiable: the lovable rogue sneaking into the U.S. by pretending to be someone much younger, fooling officials but not the family, which doesn't care anyway. After the tone shifts (abruptly), the movie itself changes - now it's much more of a mystery, and unfortunately it's one without a satisfying resolution.
If this were a work of fiction, the movie could have been effective if it was able to delve into the minds and actions of the Gibson family. Because the movie is nonfiction, throwing in plot devices that may or may not be factual would have been unethical and embarrassing. But it would have been far more entertaining than The Imposter, which promises a lot but cannot deliver on the tone set by its creepy, unsettling premise.