Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Cortechba Overrated

Sharkflei Your blood may run cold, but you now find yourself pinioned to the story.

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

SnoopyStyle In 1977, Roman Polanski was arrested after having sex with and providing drugs to a 13 year old Samantha Geimer in Los Angeles. She had gone with her mother to do a photo shoot with the famed director for a magazine. The mother leaves Samantha alone with Polanski and they have sex. The lawyers come to a plea without jail time. Judge Rittenband using questionable methods orders a 90 days psychiatric evaluation in prison. After serving 42 days, he is released. With favorable reports, he expected probation but the judge is under pressure to impose a heavier sentence. In 1978, he left for Europe and has not yet returned to America.The overriding question for me is, "Did he have sex with a 13 year old girl?". At the end of the day, he did the crime and he spent 42 days in protected custody. It's not the biggest injustice ever. In fact, I don't see it as that harsh. The most revealing element is the incompetent judge. He is worst than judge Ito but I doubt he's the worst. The movie dives into Polanski's troubled life but it doesn't have him explaining himself. He is an enigma in this movie.

blanche-2 There's no point arguing about this blight on the life of Roman Polanski. People's opinions are strong on both sides. He is a controversial figure and that will never change."Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" takes a biased look at the child molester case against the director. The interesting part is what went on behind the scenes with Judge Rittenband, the Judge ultimately removed from the case.Frankly, if all of that is true, which I guess it is since the Judge was removed, I can't blame Roman Polanski for running. Even the District Attorney assigned to the case said the same thing.The documentary points up the difference between the European and American cultures, and a psychiatrist who examined Polanski speaks of what may have caused his interest in young girls. I'm not sure if he still has such interests, but he has been married now for 24 years to actress Emmanuelle Seigner, and they have two children.The victim was a very pretty young girl with show business ambitions. She developed into a lovely woman and went on to marry and have a family. She was interviewed and it was pretty obvious in this documentary that she's sick of the whole thing and people's opinions about it. She feels her mother was unjustly criticized for allowing her to spend time with Polanski.I haven't walked in her shoes, which must have been pretty uncomfortable, so I am in no position to judge. I thankfully was never in her situation as a teenager, never went through schoolmates knowing what happened, never went through the European press publishing my name and having reporters looking for me. The fact that she went on to build a gratifying life is a remarkable achievement.And I haven't walked in Polanski's shoes, also I'm sure very uncomfortable. I can't pretend to judge a man who lost his parents in a concentration camp and his wife and baby in a brutal, sadistic murder. I didn't have to put up with horrendous things being written about me and his wife in the press after the murders. That he has been able to make any contribution at all to his art form is remarkable.So I don't come down on either side. As far as the documentary, I found what the attorneys had to say fascinating. If you have any interest in the law, you will find it interesting.

woolshirt It is interesting that this "documentary" was released as efforts were being made to extradite Polanski to the U.S. to stand trial for his alleged drugging and repeated anal raping of a minor. The film seeks to excuse his behavior based upon his horrific past including the loss of much of his family to the Nazis and to excuse his fleeing trial because of the judges alleged reneging on some deals he'd cut with Polanski regarding which crimes He'd would be charged with. The shameless way in which this film slants every detail to curry sympathy for this repeat pedophile strains credulity. It is unlikely his affliction can be traced to his parents demise and even if it did it would not excuse his crimes merely how they would be punished/treated. One of the films characters even accuses Polanski's detractors of playing the blame game while simultaneously blaming the victims parents for allowing her to be photographed, unchaperoned, by Polanski. Admittedly this was not a wise move , but who'd think that a high profile personality with such resources would stoop to such a heinous and ham-fisted act.The film did gather some fascinating information though, namely regarding the support Ploanski enjoys from a number of Film industry moguls. One is left to speculate on why this may be but in the end they are besmirching their own characters. Even the country of France, of which I am personally quite fond of for a number of reasons is left looking barbaric in their harboring of Polanski, though it should be pointed out that three quarters of it's people favor his extradition. It is one thing to dismiss sex with children under 16 years of age , it happens here certainly, but not with a forty-three year old. And to turn a blind eye to drugging and raping a 13 year old child is inexplicable.I have to give the film credit for weaving a story in a smooth and well produced fashion and for piecing together a substantial cast of participants who were involved with Polanski and his case at varying levels, but the degree of bias and the yawning lapses in logic and moral bearing are ultimately inexcusable. I would not be surprised to learn that Mr. Polanski funded the project himself.

SanFernandoCurt The title "Wanted and Desired" indicates empathy toward Polanski: He's the naughty fugitive, despicable yet playfully, passionately attractive. Perhaps that was the original aim of director Zenovich - to provide a celluloid defense of the long-exiled director, an apologia and plea of forgiveness for what Hollywood "heavyweight" Harvey Weinstein calls the "so-called crime". But the documentary ends up quite ambiguous, indicating perhaps, that review of the case against Polanski forced Zenovich to change her mind.And I think that shift was triggered when Zenovich encountered Polanski's victim... the woman now and especially the frightened 13-year-old she was three decades ago. The film covers, extensively, her grand jury testimony, in which she testifies she resisted his advances and asked him to call her mother before he drugged, raped and sodomized her. In 1978, L.A. prosecutors allowed him to plead to lesser charges to spare her what likely would be a torturous cross-examination. Did you know that? His crime against a child should be the only issue here; she's the one who was penalized, severely, for the crimes of being young, fresh and physically beautiful.In a Tatler interview, Polanski said, "If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!" As the "Wanted and Desired" title suggests, there is an assumption of envy toward the director. From his defenders and from his own words, there is current among them belief that his outraged accusers - all of us common folk - are jealous of his ability to seduce innocence, and have his way. Perhaps Polanski's victim was, as the European press pictured her in 1978, a young Lolita as enamored with him as he was of her body. Perhaps what's actually corrupt and hypocritical here is our own bourgeois morality, our belief that a middle-aged man raping an adolescent is... criminal, if not evil.Today, there is concerted effort to downplay his crime, to rehabilitate a man who is unarguably a great director. Even his victim has pleaded his case, asking the courts, as he does, for time served as penalty. But what about other victims of future predators, perhaps encouraged that they can evade punishment by vacating the country a few decades?Polanski's gifts for projecting his angels and demons onto humanity at large perhaps feed his artistry, but not every man is a pedophile predator pouncing 13-year-olds, or even wants to be. And perhaps there are a few judges and juries who don't want to f--- children. Remember, in 1978, he was a famous rich man in his 40s, she was a scared middle-school student barely in her teens. And this is crucial: She resisted his advances before he drugged, raped and sodomized her. If being appalled and repulsed proves I'm a provincial bumpkin, I am very, very much a provincial bumpkin.A good portion of the film concerns what has become Polanski's major point of defense: That the court reneged on a deal to free him with about seven weeks behind bars, a term he'd already served. And it's true: A fame-struck L.A. judge did betray this negotiation. So... was Polanski treated unfairly by the L.A. Superior Court? Yes. Was his crime heinous and should he be punished for it? Yes. Polanski is a cinematic genius and disgusting child rapist - truly, a renaissance man.