Fascinating performances by Colorado local actors. Who would have thought this state garnered so much talent. I was memorized by personal stories told by Hack Hyland, Suzanne Yazzi, Kit Thompson and Ronda Belser. This film is less to do with JonBenet and more to do with human emotions.

Out of the recent trend of documentaries of actual films that portray real stories, which are not as confusing as they sound (like "Katie Plays Christine"), "Casting JonBenet" is the best. I think I should say that before this movie I had never heard of the JonBenet murder and subsequent case; maybe I've been living under a rock or something. I say this due to the fact that it may have enhanced my experience with this film, and that people who are not entering it blindly might not enjoy it as much. After I watched the film I went online to judge the reactions of people, and far and away most general audience members seemed to dismiss this film as garbage. Many people stated that it added no new information to the case or that it was boring. To those people I would say that they missed the point, as pretentious as it sounds. This was a seemingly world famous case, what new information could they provide? What makes movies like "The Thin Blue Line" or "The Jinx" so good is that they actual had some real impact on the world by adding evidence not previously seen. Other movies/miniseries, like "The Imposter" or "Making a Murderer" show us cases that we otherwise never would have heard of. This movie has neither of those luxuries, so instead it does something different. It films the people in the community that Jonbenet Ramsey lived in and tasks them with playing the parts of members of the Ramsey family. All the while, the camera crew is filming these people and gleaning their insight into what they think about the murder. Their opinions range from insightful to off-the- wall batsh*t insane (think movies like "Room 237), and I enjoyed every second of it. Parts of this movie had me and my friends rolling on the floor with laughter due to just how peculiar and funny these characters playing characters really were. Other moments, like the ending montage I wont spoil, had me sitting in silence completely engrossed at what was on screen. Being able to have moments like that within the film make this movie truly special, as well as the first amazing film of the year. My only issue with it is that it lulls at some points towards the final 3rd, but even then it is still a very watchable film. Don't let negative reviews online discourage you from watching this movie. Watch it for yourself and make your own mind up

So, this film is obviously polarizing based on the reviews here. I felt compelled to write my own review because I think the film would make more sense if we thought of it as a social experiment and not a documentary. If you're looking for a typical documentary experience, or even looking for more information on the Jonbenet Ramsey murder, you're going to be disappointed. Some may even be incensed by what they watch in this film.

As others have stated, the basic premise involves a group of local actors in or near the Boulder, CO area who are "auditioning" to portray the people involved in this case. Right off the bat, this description is misleading, as these actors are not industry professionals, but rather people who work as actors but are essentially regular people. And this auditioning process we see in the film is actually the role itself. This aspect was the first to make an impact with me. The decision to use these local actors is ingenious. As actors, they're able to immerse themselves in the character and speculate on what their character may have been thinking or feeling during the events that took place. However, they're also not so professional that they won't open up and begin chatting about their own theories. The thoughts flow naturally and the actors speak freely. We see this organic flow of thought when these people are placed in their "roles", essentially placing them within the mystery itself. We see a group of people who already have civilian knowledge of this case who are speculating on a mystery, while also projecting their own personal experiences, resulting in a wildly fluctuating and differing opinion of what they think may have happened and why. And this is exactly what we, the public, did back in the 90s.

I was a freshman in college when the Jonbenet Ramsey murder occurred. The media storm that followed was intense. In 1996 and 1997, most people were still getting their news via newspaper, magazine and television. It seemed every publication had a Jonbenet story, in every issue. These media outlets were all trying to "out-scoop" each other by finding details or clues that their competitor may not have. This resulted in a media free-for-all and a fight for sales. There were/are so many blanks to fill in regarding this girl's murder and yet, there were also so many details being released to and scrutinized by the press, and we the public couldn't help falling into the same game. It's human nature to want to know the answer to a compelling mystery, especially one such as this. It's also not unusual for the human brain to try to fill gaps in information in an effort to decipher something which is incomplete and impossible to solve definitively. It's faulty thinking in the sense that the information we use to fill those gaps is manufactured and colored by our own personal experiences, opinions, and attitudes. The actors in the film projected their own experiences to form many differing theories. And that's what happened back in '96/'97. I count myself among them. These actors, strange or narcissistic or gossipy as they may seem, are all of us.

I think some of the negative reviews here are a bit contradictory and missing the point. One reviewer said the film "seemed like it could add a new layer of commentary to a tired, old story" and was disappointed when that didn't seem to happen. Well...this isn't just a "story" and just because it's old doesn't mean it's "tired". This murder case isn't, and never was, a story for our personal consumption. It holds our fascination for the reality and shocking nature of the crime. But searching for additional meaning or commentary about the case or murder is pointless because there is none. This film doesn't seek to shed new light on the murder. It's shining the light on us and it isn't the most flattering light. We watch films about this little girl because we all have some sort of morbid curiosity about her or the murder. How could we not when the news would publish photos of Jonbenet's body showing the little marks on her skin that were supposedly caused by a stun gun? We were given so much that it drove our imaginations. Often, discussions about the case would begin with, "Well, if that were me..." or "I would never..." We projected. We interjected ourselves into this mystery and chatted with friends and co-workers about the ransom note or the suitcase under the window. We were torn between our intense desire for justice and our own morbid fascination. I use some of the negative reviews here as example because on the one hand, these negative reviews say how morbid and exploitative it was to watch such blase attitudes about a little girl's murder, while in the same review complaining that they didn't get what they wanted out of the film. And this is exactly what I'm talking about. Some people watch this film hoping to get something more about the case, something to fill whatever void they may have in this mystery. But isn't that our own exploitative nature being exposed? For these people, I would advise finding a more traditional documentary that will discuss all the details and facts. And after viewing it, I challenge any viewer who didn't witness the frenzy in the 90s to not create your own theory or speculate on at least one person involved. It's what we all did and continue to do and I think some of the negative reviews miss the contradiction.

As a result, the actual murder case, the real people involved and any real facts fall to the wayside in this film. It's haunting in the way the actual case and Jonbenet herself seem like fading background photographs in this wildly colorful montage. I think it is here where the film's statement lies. When someone says, "This case took on a life of its own", I think this is what they're referring to. The public became so enmeshed in the tedium and sensationalism that the case itself fades into the background. Our theories, colored by our own experiences, feed the frenzy until you're left with what looks like a vapid, exploitative pony show. I think this is why there are so many reviews stating this film is pointless or exploitative. But that is the reality of what happened in this country in '96/'97. We all had an opinion, a theory. We personalized it. And we all just spoke up about what WE thought occurred. We became armchair detectives and regurgitated "case facts" that we read here or there like we knew what any of it meant. In an effort to satisfy our own curiosity, we interjected ourselves into the narrative and essentially took it away from the actual people involved. I think this film portrays that perfectly.