I'm not ashamed trailer

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


First trailer is out.

Well, guess this all goes down to what I was talkign aboiut ever since I learned of the film being made.

The film chose to propagate the "Do you beleive in God?" myth and as such is not giving an accurate account of what had happened.

My position is and was: Truth should be the foundation of any film, wether documentary or drama, about the CHS shooting. You cnanot honor the victims witha  work not based on truth. You cannot deliver a proper warning with a message that is not based on truth.

Eric and Dylan were motivated by many factors and their dislike of organized religion was just one and certainly not the most important one. If the film centers only on their anti-religious views (as the trialer would suggest), then it will only confuse the viewer and will not provide him with the information that could allow him to identify potential future shooters at his school or workplace.

And that alone is what I'd consider a cardinal sin as far as any film or book dealing with the CHS shooting goes.

Well put sabratha.

I'd go see it... Just to yell at the screen "THAT'S FUCKING BULLSHIT!!!! This is how it happened"

Pathetic. Hopefully the movie will do really bad, because this is just pure propaganda. Using a tragedy.

Yep... IMO it's the Scotts cashing in on this (again).

I didn't know Eric and Dylan looked like 30 year old men either

Don't pay for this shit if you are going to watch it.

Here is what I wrote in the other topic:

John Denver wrote:

What a horrible trailer. E/D are ridiculously demonized and Rachel is... What is the opposite of demonizing? Ugh. Painted as a perfect angel.

What a black-and-white, overly Christian and a cheesy Hollywood take on Columbine - as we expected.

And dishonest since it is commonly accepted that Rachel wasn't asked anything. Most likely she was the only victim of Columbine (besides maybe Daniel Rohrbough and Kyle Velasquez) who didn't even realize what was happening and didn't realize it was a school shooting.

I have nothing against Rachel, I believe she tried to be a good person, but what her family has done to her legacy, how they keep lying about her death, how they use her to sell their agenda... I'd much rather watch a movie made about Daniel Mauser or Dave Sanders or even Cassie (if they promise not to put the question in it).

I wonder if the Scott family even realizes that they are lying? Or are they so caught up in it that they have actually forgotten the real Rachel and are now living with this fictional character of Rachel that they have created?

I mean...

They have to know that Eric didn't pull her from her hair, call her by her name, taunt her about her faith and then say "well then, go be with Him".

They have to know that the Rachel E/D talk about in the Basement Tapes is not their Rachel.

I interviewed Devon Adams years after Columbine and she hated how the Scott family pictured their family life to be so perfect, how cheesy the funeral was, they played My Heart Will Go On (The Titanic theme by Celiné Dion) - a song that Rachel actually didn't like at all, according to Devon. She also told me that when Rachel cut her hair for the school play, her whole family harassed her about it, calling her "a boy" - and not in the good-hearted way of teasing.

Rachel was basically treated very badly by her whole family, said Devon.

And now - 16 years later - they lie about her life and death to make money.

I despise the Scott family for how they have spread misinformation about Columbine and used the whole tragedy for their own selfish purposes - and not only about the death of their daughter, but also it was Craig Scott who made up the story about Cassie's martyrdom.

They always emphasize that Rachel "was the first one killed"? What does that matter? Do they try to make it as that Rachel was the number one target? That she sacrificed herself to save others?

And what is this photo supposed to mean? (I took this from the trailer.) That Isaiah bullied E/D? You can't expect me not to think that character is portraying Isaiah, since Isaiah was one of the very few black students at that school and even fewer of them were athletes.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Who is the troll looking kid supposed to be?

John Denver wrote:

I interviewed Devon Adams years after Columbine and she hated how the Scott family pictured their family life to be so perfect, how cheesy the funeral was, they played My Heart Will Go On (The Titanic theme by Celiné Dion) - a song that Rachel actually didn't like at all, according to Devon. She also told me that when Rachel cut her hair for the school play, her whole family harassed her about it, calling her "a boy" - and not in the good-hearted way of teasing.

I didn't realize Rachel and Devon were friends. How well did Devon know Rachel?
Also I find it interesting that Devon mentioned Rachel's family harassing her about her short hair and in the movie
Rachel is portrayed with long hair. I have a feeling that was intentional

I don't think Eric and Dylan are going to bullied in this movie, the jocks will only shove around members of the trench coat mafia, like in the trailer, otherwise it will confuse people and think that this was all about being bullied, but the message they are trying to get through is that it's a Christian hate crime.

Isn't the Scott family actually giving Eric and Dylan what they wanted by putting them in a movie, this will be their first movie other than that short Zero Hour documentary, even not having their true motives will be giving them what they wanted because it means nobody could figure out the real reasons.

I know when this is released, people who don't know anything about the case will use it as their lazy research approach like they did with Cullen's book and get all their facts from this.

Those two actors don't look anything like Eric and Dylan, I know that wasn't really a main concern when casting them as they were probably just looking for local theater actors who had the right hairstyle who could act, the worst part of the trailer is when the guy playing Dylan is talking into the camera, he looks and sounds nothing like Dylan to the point where this just might as well be a fictional story loosely based on Rachel with the characters and most of the circumstances changed.

I'm pretty sure they also used Rachel's actual car in the film too. I'm 100% positive.

"A major Hollywood studio offered to buy the rights to the film for $26 million. However, the offer was declined. “I’m not Ashamed” was funded through private donors."

I wonder which studio offered that.

Istayaway1031 wrote:

"A major Hollywood studio offered to buy the rights to the film for $26 million. However, the offer was declined. “I’m not Ashamed” was funded through private donors."

I wonder which studio offered that.

Jesus Christ, that's a lot of money to decline. Well, it might be a big success (doubt it, but people are stupid so who knows?) and they cash in much more but they could also lose a lot if it turns out to be a failure.


No to 26 million dollars...

I just watched the trailer and… I'm SO ashamed of this movie D: D: D:

I don´t think that the actress match with rachel. i don´t know why.

browneyes11 wrote:

I didn't realize Rachel and Devon were friends. How well did Devon know Rachel?
Also I find it interesting that Devon mentioned Rachel's family harassing her about her short hair and in the movie
Rachel is portrayed with long hair. I have a feeling that was intentional

She said she was close with Rachel and Dylan, friends with Daniel M. and of course she also knew Eric. Her perspective was very interesting since she had friends on both sides (victims and killers).

I try to find my interview transcripts with her. It was really long, I did it back in 2006. For example, she told me that Eric always tried to copy everything Dylan did, which frustrated Dylan. And that Dylan wanted to join the baseball team in CHS, but couldn't, because he hadn't "name" for himself (sounds ironic now), which made him apathethic and he "just gave up".

This is ludicrous.

And it's straight out revolting and sickening because there's no longer any question as to whether or not those responsible for this (whether it is Rachel's family directly or indirectly) are perpetuating a myth for profit.

If the family is "in charge" of this, they are pushing lies. If they're not, they STILL had to give clearance for the use of their daughter's likeness being used in this film, so if this is in fact the case, they KNOW it is perpetuating a lie, and they ENDORSED it.

Let me just tell you something:

I believe in God very deeply; with all of my soul. I've discussed it here a few times, and I have no shame about it whatsoever.

I KNOW that God does not WANT OR NEED LIES being used to bring people to Him. He forbids such things. It is an atrocity to Him. Any lie, about anything, is a sin. No matter what the reason(s) is/are. These people are not doing anything very Godly right now. God is not happy.

That is the excuse some "Christians" make for this abominable behavior. Not only the "story" about Rachel, but about Cassie, too.

It was one thing for their loved ones to stick with such a story in the early days when they were in a state of shock and wretched despair. Sometimes it is the only way to cope minute to minute when you lose a loved one so viciously. But in their own minds, and amongst one another. NOT by writing books and spinning tall tales.

If someone wants to do right by God, they will tell the truth. The unadulterated truth. And if writing a book, or making a film is the avenue they feel is best suited to share a passed on loved one's story, they'll share the TRUTH.

Rachel is a special and beautiful soul. Her REAL story; the story she left behind, is motivating enough as it is. There is NO NEED for the embellishments and outright lies. Cassie as well.

@John Denver,
Can you share any more details about Devon's claims of Rachel's mistreatment by her family? I've heard this before and have always been interested as that is so different than anything else anyone else has ever said publically about the family.

And @tsfa and @John Denver,
After pondering this question for years I've come to the conclusion that Rachel's family sincerely believes that she is a martyr and was targeted because it was known she was a devoted Christian.
Rachel was open about her faith and it was the guiding factor of her life. However, she had Non Christian friends and didn't discriminate based on people's beliefs.
There was a claim made by her family in the first year that two of Rachel's friends told them that they overheard her witnessing to E &D 2 weeks before the shootings but I don't know if she would have been speaking about it to people who were so obviously not interested.
Her family was told for months after the shooting that she died refusing to renounce her faith, Richard's Mother told them he told her that when he first woke up in the hospital.
That is no doubt what they'd want to believe and that must give her death an incredible meaning for them so that is no doubt what they will always believe.

What a load of bollocks

John Denver wrote:

I interviewed Devon Adams years after Columbine and she hated how the Scott family pictured their family life to be so perfect, how cheesy the funeral was, they played My Heart Will Go On (The Titanic theme by Celiné Dion) - a song that Rachel actually didn't like at all, according to Devon. She also told me that when Rachel cut her hair for the school play, her whole family harassed her about it, calling her "a boy" - and not in the good-hearted way of teasing.

To be fair though, Rachel was trying to learn the song on the piano, and its not exactly a song you would tell all your friends that you love.

It's only a movie but the more I look into it, the more I believe Rachel did say something about God which triggered Eric to finish her off.

Sane One wrote:

It's only a movie but the more I look into it, the more I believe Rachel did say something about God which triggered Eric to finish her off.

What made you believe that?

Sane One wrote:

It's only a movie but the more I look into it, the more I believe Rachel did say something about God which triggered Eric to finish her off.

There was one of the versions stated by Castaldo pointing to such possibility.

Hoever, keep in mind Castaldo changed his version of the story several times, in the original statement given to the police he just mentions getting shot and flaling on his back - nothing about E&D approaching him or Rachel or saying anything to them.

Later on (iirc 3 years after the shooting) he told a different version - one where E&D came up and asked the god question. Castaldo said he to told his mother about this before the surgery, but supposedly forgot after the surgery and his mother brought it up a few years after the shooting.

I personally don't buy his second version, it seems to be somewhat too convenient in the sense it popped up only after all the "Rachel/Cassie/Val who said yes" debate was already public knowledge.

Another reason I do not believe it is the timeline. The whole shooting outside took circa 2 minutes, 3 minutes at most. In that time Eric engaged many kids with long and medium distance fire, reloaded, took off his coat, threw a cricket and walked to the other shool entrance (NOT the entrance next to where Rachel and Richard were).
My point is: a lot happened in such a short time, Eric was obviously busy shooting at kids on the other side of the field, to so he must have faced away from Richard and Rachel.
Simply put: I don't  think he had the time to do all that, then walk up to Rachel, ask her questions, shoot her point blank, then backtrack all the way to the other entrance and fire first at Hochhalter's group and then Kirklin's group too.

Moreover, no witness (aside from Castaldo's second version) ever mentioned seeing them walk up to Rachel and Richard. Neither the official Jeffco timeline, nor the BBC timeline assumes they ever walked up to Rachel.

Jeffco has the detailed autopsy, I'm sure they know if she was shot point blank at any time or not. That would solve this once and for all. However, with the info we have available now, everything seems to suggest they never walked up to Rachel. Castaldo's first version is coherent with other witness accounts and with the timeline. Castaldo's second version is not coherent with either.

Wow. I understand honoring your loved one's memory, but to paint a teenage girl as a martyr when she was a random victim is stupid. The reason they probably turned down $26 million is because taking the money meant giving up all their creative control. And I'm sure that the studio had no intention of portraying Rachel the way she is. That's a hell of a lot of private donations though, to make a movie.

You know, did anyone notice that "Dylan" has a pronounced - well, here in the States it is known as a "gay lisp" or "gay lilt."

The people behind this movie are Christians. You can't tell me this wasn't on purpose. Dylan had a deep, masculine voice.

So they're covertly trying to slam my brothers and sisters of the rainbow, too!

and now they have removed comments on the video.. most of the comments made really good points.

Detailed autopsy would clear everything up. Eric just strikes me as somebody who would want to check on his first victim to make sure that person is either  1. dead  2. to poke fun at them while their still alive and then make sure their dead

Sane One wrote:

Detailed autopsy would clear everything up. Eric just strikes me as somebody who would want to check on his first victim to make sure that person is either  1. dead  2. to poke fun at them while their still alive and then make sure their dead

Yeah and he seems to ahve acted that way to some degree in the library. But outside there was simply too many things going on.

By all evidence, once Eric shot at Rachel repeatedly, he turned to his left (was then facing North-northwest) and opened fire on kids on the grassy field and twoards the game field. Then he took off his coat and dropped it where he was standing - near the top of the stairs.

This fact is quite important, as tha coat was found by the top of the stairs, right where E&D were when they started the shooting. This means that Eric at least did not move around much just after shooting Rachel. He simply faced the otehr way and short at other kids at long range.

Then Eric and dylan faced south andf opoened fire on Kirklin's group who were walkign up the stairs, still oblivious to what is going on. They shoot at Kirklin and Graves, walk south twoards them and finally enter CHS through anotehr entrance.

My point is - after shooting Rachel, there's no indication they ever walked up to her. On the contrary - they fire at kids in another diection while facing away from Rachel, then they move south, again away from Rachel. All this takes place in some 2.5 minutes, because 3 minutes after the shooting you can already see Dylan peeking into the cafeteria on CCTV.

The CNN site has a good map. I'll quo9te it below as a spoiler, so you need to click on it to see (its a big image):

CNN Map, rachel being shot:

CNN Map, E&D fire on Kirklin's group:

Eric Fires on kids on the field:

Dylan briefly peeks into the cafeteria, through a different entreance:

Eric still in his original position, fires at Hochhalter.:

Eric fires at Anderson and Patti Nielsen through the door:

ERic and Dylan pass Rachel's body and enter the school:

So in short: A lot was going on outside in such a short period of time. Eric was firing and reloading and seems to have hardly moved from his original firing position. Keep in mind he fired some very long range shots at kids at the field, and then fired at a group of kids who were running (Hochhalter and her group), this must have taken some concentration and focus. Remamber Eric also dropped his coat, threw a cricket and had to reload several times. Simply put, he had his hands full and didn't seem to moive at all until both he and Dylan moved into CHS.

Dylan had his big 50 round clip malfunction, we don't know how long it took him to check the clip and decide to abandoin it, but I imagine he was likelly fiddling with it and trying to salvage the clip while Eric was shooting. Then Dylan abandonned the faulty clip, reloaded with a new clip and fired at Kirklin's group and Graves. Then he walked up to Kirklin who was wounded and lyign on his back and shot him point blank. Next, Dylan ran all the way to the other entrance, peeked into the cafeteria, then ran all the way back to Eric.
Only then did they move into the school togeather. Again, Dylan also has his hands full and for the most part he is actually moving away from Rachel.

They certainly did pass next to the body of Rachel and next to wounded Richard on their way to the CHS doors. But to my knowledge, Eric was pursuing Patti and Anderson, who were fleeing. Dylan seems to have followed Eric closely behind.

Simply put: I don';t think there's much time in there for them to approach Rachel and Richard, ask them questions, then shoot Rachel point blank. Its not impossible, but its highly unlikely imho. I think E&D simply left Richard and Rachel for dead, they were busy trying to engage a lot of other targets that were certainly alive and trying to flee.

Where can you see Dylan peeking in the Cafeteria on CCTV?

lol wrote:

Where can you see Dylan peeking in the Cafeteria on CCTV?

Around 11:21 if I recall correctly. There are also witness accounts to that end in the 11k somewhere. Dylan peeked into the cafeteria from the outer entrance, but he seems to have simply taken a brief look and then ran back to Eric on the stairs outside.

EDIT: It was 11:21. and no, he's not on the CCTV (tape was still not changed), but he was mentioned by witnesses.

source:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

Dylan shot Lance Kirklin again, this time point-blank in the face. Lance was critically injured by the shotgun blast that mangled his jaw. He lost consciousness and Dylan left him for dead, though Lance amazingly survived. From there Dylan went to the cafeteria entrance, stepping on Sean Graves when he entered the cafeteria briefly at 11:21 AM Dylan was, perhaps, trying to discover why the propane bombs didn't explode.

The standard interpretation from Jeff Co., Fuselier, and Cullen is that Harris shot her four times very fast from 20 feet. However, the bullet to her heart enters her lower chest and exits through her upper chest. That is not hard to imagine with Eric shooting a sitting person from 20 feet away.

One explanation is that he hit her in the head first and as she fell he hit her again, which might produce a bullet that moved from lower to upper, but only if Eric was kneeling.

Another explanation is that he shot her again as he walked by when she was lying on the ground.

One thing is for certain, though. Two of her injuries were of the immediately fatal kind--to the head and to the heart. If they spoke to her, it means she was shot in the leg or arm first, and then sustained the other two injuries almost simultaneously after Eric's conversation with her.

I don't think Eric had this conversation, there was too much going on to be able to do that, honestly, even in the library he didn't grab people by their hair and talk to them while they were dying, I guess the only way to know for sure is to interview Richard and his mother again, and find out if it's really something he said before unconscious, or it was something that they were pressured into to saying by the Christian community.

11:21 seems to be missing from that 'full CCTV' on YouTube, I always wanted to see Dylan enter the cafeteria full of people, I wonder how he must have felt doing so holding his guns and all walking in with loads of people looking at him, probably gave him power to feel like a terrorist on a mission and everyone in fear.

It's honestly going to be such a shame if this movie is indeed extremely popular and people yet again have such an off idea of what Columbine really was. This, on top of Cullen's book and yikes...

lasttrain wrote:

The standard interpretation from Jeff Co., Fuselier, and Cullen is that Harris shot her four times very fast from 20 feet. However, the bullet to her heart enters her lower chest and exits through her upper chest. That is not hard to imagine with Eric shooting a sitting person from 20 feet away.

One explanation is that he hit her in the head first and as she fell he hit her again, which might produce a bullet that moved from lower to upper, but only if Eric was kneeling.

Another explanation is that he shot her again as he walked by when she was lying on the ground.

One thing is for certain, though.  Two of her injuries were of the immediately fatal kind--to the head and to the heart. If they spoke to her, it means she was shot in the leg or arm first, and then sustained the other two injuries almost simultaneously after Eric's conversation with her.

One thing that is certain is that she was facing right when Eric shot her. I do not think its absolutely necessary for Eric to have been kneeling when he shot her for the round to enter her lower chest and exit her upper chest.In the autopsy said round was described as having cuased the "fracture of the right fourth rib".

I'm no medical expert, but I believe a collision with a rib might have possibly altered the trajectory of the round, casuing it to go up. Some time ago I was interested in the KLennedy assassination and read a whole lot of people writing on the topic of trajectory alterations, "magic bullets" etc. I walked away with the impression that bullets can change their trajectory a lot in certain ciurcumstances when bouncing off hard objects, bone etc.

I remember one guy who was in Afghanistan (or was it Iraq) mentioned witnessing an event: Two soliders were next to him, one sitting and entirely covered by sandbags, the other standing and sandbags only covered the lower part of the body. The standing soldier was shot by a sniper, and the bullet ricocheted off some bone, exited the body and hit the sitting soldier who would have otherwise been entirely shielded from the sniper by the sandbags. That's how much the trajectory can change after hitting a person. Sorry for the grisly account.


As for Rachel, well we cannot be sure given just the short autopsy report. But one thing is certain: all her wounds were caused by Eric's rifle and all hit the left side of her body. Given these two facts, I think its entirely possible all rounds that hit her were a part of Eric's opening volley. Alternatively she may have been hit once in the arm, tried to get up (still facing right) and then got hit by the rest of the volley when she was getting up.

CharlesWhitman wrote:

11:21 seems to be missing from that 'full CCTV' on YouTube, I always wanted to see Dylan enter the cafeteria full of people, I wonder how he must have felt doing so holding his guns and all walking in with loads of people looking at him, probably gave him power to feel like a terrorist on a mission and everyone in fear.

Yeah it was my error, I corrected it in my post above. Dylan's first peek into the cafeteria was not recorded, as the tape was being changed at precisely that time. The CCTV was not yet recording when he looked in the cafeteria.

So apparently a student who graduated columbine last year has started a petition to stop the production because it is disrespectful to "her community" I put these in quotes because she has expressed MY community several times in her rants on FB.

Heh, I wonder if Rachel herself, if alive, would start a petition to stop the production because she would consider it disrespectfull to herself? I have a hunch this might have been just the case.


I'm sure I'm gonna watch this Rachel film and probably enjoy it, although its probably going to be the enjoyment people get from watching bad films. I enjoyed Pearl Harbor, laughing my way through all the stupitities, inaccuracies, fallacies and mistake that film has. I anticipate the Rachel film to prove somethign similar.

John Denver wrote:

Here is what I wrote in the other topic:

John Denver wrote:

What a horrible trailer. E/D are ridiculously demonized and Rachel is... What is the opposite of demonizing? Ugh. Painted as a perfect angel.

What a black-and-white, overly Christian and a cheesy Hollywood take on Columbine - as we expected.

And dishonest since it is commonly accepted that Rachel wasn't asked anything. Most likely she was the only victim of Columbine (besides maybe Daniel Rohrbough and Kyle Velasquez) who didn't even realize what was happening and didn't realize it was a school shooting.

I have nothing against Rachel, I believe she tried to be a good person, but what her family has done to her legacy, how they keep lying about her death, how they use her to sell their agenda... I'd much rather watch a movie made about Daniel Mauser or Dave Sanders or even Cassie (if they promise not to put the question in it).

I wonder if the Scott family even realizes that they are lying? Or are they so caught up in it that they have actually forgotten the real Rachel and are now living with this fictional character of Rachel that they have created?

I mean...

They have to know that Eric didn't pull her from her hair, call her by her name, taunt her about her faith and then say "well then, go be with Him".

They have to know that the Rachel E/D talk about in the Basement Tapes is not their Rachel.

I interviewed Devon Adams years after Columbine and she hated how the Scott family pictured their family life to be so perfect, how cheesy the funeral was, they played My Heart Will Go On (The Titanic theme by Celiné Dion) - a song that Rachel actually didn't like at all, according to Devon. She also told me that when Rachel cut her hair for the school play, her whole family harassed her about it, calling her "a boy" - and not in the good-hearted way of teasing.

Rachel was basically treated very badly by her whole family, said Devon.

And now - 16 years later - they lie about her life and death to make money.

I despise the Scott family for how they have spread misinformation about Columbine and used the whole tragedy for their own selfish purposes - and not only about the death of their daughter, but also it was Craig Scott who made up the story about Cassie's martyrdom.

They always emphasize that Rachel "was the first one killed"? What does that matter? Do they try to make it as that Rachel was the number one target? That she sacrificed herself to save others?

And what is this photo supposed to mean? (I took this from the trailer.) That Isaiah bullied E/D? You can't expect me not to think that character is portraying Isaiah, since Isaiah was one of the very few black students at that school and even fewer of them were athletes.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

She's been dead almost as long as she was alive. They've lived with this comforting thought that she stood up for herself for so long its clouded the truth. On top of that they've always put religion and Rachel on the same pedestal. I wouldn't be surprised if they willingly allowed the continued exaggeration to make its way into the film purely for religious sake. Its sad that religion has been such an important part to the Columbine story when it was such a tiny part of E and D's overall hate. Christians are willing to do whatever it takes to make themselves look good through victimization. This movie's lies are nothing too shocking really. Until someone has the balls to make a "good" factual Columbine film this is the way the general public will continue to see it.

Is it just me, or is this forum the one place online where this film is most debated and gets the most attention?

Sabratha wrote:

Is it just me, or is this forum the one place online where this film is most debated and gets the most attention?

No, it's getting a lot of attention on Tumblr too. Mostly negative, although I have seen people praising the production values and how cute some of the actors/actresses are.

lmao. This movie will be a disgrace.

And I love how "Rachel" has long hair at the time of her death. Bunch of dumb asses. Rachel had SHORT hair at the time of her death. Hmm....I wonder why "Rachel" has long hair in the movie though. Maybe it's because her parents and family laughed at her, and made fun of Rachel calling her a boy because of her short hair that Devon had to cut for the play in April '99.

Please excuse my language, but fuck these people.

no she has long hair, so eric could pull her hair. that´s it. i don´t even like the actor.

lol wrote:

Rachel had SHORT hair at the time of her death..

Even more reason for this movie to be inaccurate, how could Eric have picked her up by her short hair?

em81 wrote:

no she has long hair, so eric could pull her hair. that´s it. i don´t even like the actor.

That but also the fact that her parents want to remember her as a "girl", and not a "boy".

Their words, not mine. Very sickening IMO.

Yeah well, my opinion is similar. For a film that otherwise implies that it tries to go to great lenghts to give an accurate visual effect (90s clothes, original car etc) this sticks out.

I'm perfectly aware some actors are unwilling to cut their hair or otherwise stongly alter their looks for one role. Still, that's mostly big superstars. If you look for a young actor for a minor film, I think it would be a standard requirement that "oh and you will need to cut your hair short or wear a wig for some of the late scenes".

And yeah the pull by hair scene is just silly. I have the same impression as with "Pear Harbor" - significant and dramatic event reduced to giggle-fodder because of inaccuracies and mistakes. :/

"This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy against spam, scams, and commercially deceptive content."
YouTube knows its shit apparently.

I want to see it because I love Columbine stuff, but oh my God the movie is full of bullshit.
Won't give my money to them.