Think of me as you will. My opinion is based on the film and it's message and not the Mr. Comes, just to make things clear. This film is supposed to show the traumaitzation of a man who was abused by a member of the Catholic Church when he was a young "boy". The problem with the whole story is, the stories that are being told are from men who claim to been abused at the ages from 12- 16. They say that they were unaware of what was happening to them and that they (the victim) would wake up and there was a man from the Church having their way with them. These story tellers say that at the time they weren't sure what was happening and that they let it occur. Right off the bat, I would say that those statements have no validity. In and around the age of thirteen, teenagers know about sex in way or another. You learn it from school, society, or family. To say you don't seems to be the way to cope with allowing your curiosity to happen. I remember I was in the fifth grade when we were given the crash course on sex, so at that age I was 10 or 11. Things that weren't taught (obviously) I learned from peers. So at that age I was aware of what sex was and would have some sort of idea of what may have been happening. What the story tellers also fail to mention is that they weren't coming forth about the abuse (if that's what they thought it was then) to anyone. Not parents of friends, or any one else in the Church. They allowed it to happen and happen multiple times. I mean, once they were 16 and the abuse was continuing, there was no excuse that they would still have no idea what was happening. They show a man referred to "John Doe" who remembers being drunk and naked and being in bed with a alleged sex offender and nothing else. He goes on how that experience disturbed him, but then he recalls experimenting with this man. How? First he said he didn't remember, but remembers everything else and was disturbed, but then allowed it to happen on another occasion. Why? This is only one small example, there are many other points that are trying to be made that get spun around based on the reactions and delays of the "victims" described in the film. Another example (a large one at that) is that even though one person in the film claims he is haunted by what happened everyday and that he is against the church (due to a lawsuit he's filed about 18 years later), the Church is still a big part of his life. He was married in a Catholic Church, sent his daughter to a Catholic school, and we see her receive her first Communion. And feeling all this bitterness and frustration with the church, he goes in and accepts Communion with his daughter. Once again, if this is all so traumatic and one claims to be abused or raped and lied too, why go back to this church? Why accept Communion, something sacred to this church? It's backwards. It's things like this that hurt the credibility of this film and it's story tellers. It rides the wake to a major controversy in America. It doesn't seem like a documentary, but like a movie of fiction. It tries to strike emotions with circumstances that seemed staged. The point and message of this film is lost with it's irony. I feel sorry for the story tellers not because of what they claim has happened, but because this film hurts what they have to say.<br /><br />to the film makers, this is a bad film.<br /><br />D- To all of you users here on IMDb, I stand by what I say. It's simple psychology since we are now being told a story decades down the road from what they claim happened. Over the years stories stretch and wear, till the very foundation has changed. I still find this movie to be dis-miss able. And personally to colorscheme, my review of a bad film was straight forward to the point using references from the film, therefore I am backing up my opinion so you can see for yourself. It's your review that has the wide array of emotions, not mine. I told you to think of me as you will, but truth be told and I'll say it again, this movie is awful and has a message lost in translation.