It's been a few months since I saw this film, and I've had some time to process it. As plenty of folks have noted, the trailer is absolutely misleading -- almost funny, since the entire PREMISE of the film is "dishonesty" (something the filmmakers express horror at). This is not a shocker, not a horror film, the "reveal" is not surprising at all.
I have also noticed that nobody (here or in paid professional reviews) has noted that filmmakers Henry Joose and Ariel Schulman are most famous for making the "fake documentary" horror film, "Paranormal Activity" (and the subsequent big money sequels). The original was a scary little low budget ($11,000) indie film, that was picked up by Steven Spielberg and shot to fame and money for the two filmmakers. That was in 2007; the events of this documentary happened inbetween the first two Paranormal films. I guess time weighed heavy on their hands. It also explains why the three young adult men seem to have oodles of free time and no apparent form of gainful employment.
As noted, it is hard to believe extremely smart, college-educated, tech-savvy young hipsters in Manhattan/Brooklyn were naive enough to believe this story (about a child prodigy painter in Michigan) and her hottie teen sister, without the slightest research or fact checking -- or that they had their cameras turned from the earliest part of the story.....at a point where there was no reason to believe some big "mystery" would ever be at the other end. For all they could have known early on, this would be nothing but filming brother Yaniv ("Nev") Schulman's internet hook-up with a teenager. (Ew.)
So in fact, my gut feeling is that everything here is staged, and even re-created, to make the documentary -- not too shocking in a pair of guys who filmed a "cinema verite" horror story and made millions off it. The only real part is that I think at some point, they DID get a copy of a painting (done by the adult Angela, not her 9 year old daughter) in the mail. I think that got them interested enough to start communicating with the family, and after that, the idea of exploiting them for a film mocking Facebook relationships must have seemed irresistible.
That just gives the whole thing a glaze of slick, urban contempt for "those awful low-class people in Mid-America" (who are so unlike cool, honest Brooklyn hipsters) and makes the film come across as exploitive and cruel. Angela never really scammed them; she wanted some attention and some innocent (non-physical) flirting with a handsome New Yorker half her age. There is no indication she asked them for money, even though her situation (caring for her husband's two profoundly retarded and handicapped teenage sons) appears to be just wretched.
Clearly, Angela has some serious mental problems as well, that they also exploited. Flirting is one thing; flirting in the identity of your OWN teenage (estranged) daughter online is deeply troubling, even incestuous.
I also agree with some other posters that the final speech, given by Angela's husband, is both scripted and fake. He must be the most tolerant man in Michigan, to allow 3 creepy strangers into his home, hear about their association with his wife, expose his handicapped sons in a very unflattering way and then confess all this stuff about his wife. Why isn't he furious? Why doesn't he throw them off his property?
The storyline of the homely, unattractive person (almost always a woman, though there is always Cyrano de Bergerac for the fellows) who masquerades in secret, to able to flirt with a handsome/beautiful and unobtainable partner, is a very old one and very popular in films and novels. Nothing new here, except the allusions to the internet and that Facebook lets you lie to people (yawwwn....). Like we didn't know that.
Voir plus 
