Commentaires des utilisateurs

I can't understand why this movie was called racist! It happened and there is a prevalent problem with some child custody cases involving parents from different countries. I did read Betty Mahmoody's sequel book entitled "For the Love of a Child" . It basically deals with the aftermath of her escape from Iran with Mahtoob, but she also writes about other cases where children from such marriages (one parent from a foreign country) who use the international system to hold their children hostage against the other parent. I recommend this book more than "Not Without My Daughter" It shows the nightmare of losing your child to international courts in nasty child custody battles. I had no idea it was such heartache.

While I was re-watching bits of this movie a few weeks ago, I read the user comments here at IMDb and was very disturbed. Since it is still bothering me, I decided to write my own comments on the movie and on what has been said here.

First, the movie. It is about an international custody battle. That is a very real problem in this day and age. When couples from different countries break up they often each want the children to live with them and grow up in the country (and culture) in which they were raised. Each naturally thinks the way he or she was raised is better for their children.

This movie is Betty Mahmoody's story. And the culture clash is between the United States and Iran. It takes place in 1984. The Ayatollah Khomeini was still very much the leader Iran and the Iran-Iraq war had been going on for 4 years and would continue for another 4. Iran was quite isolated from much of the world at that time.

And 'Moody' Mahmoody, an Iranian-born doctor practicing in the U.S., brings his American wife, Betty, and their daughter, Mahtob, to Iran for a visit. When they arrive, Moody is dismayed at the changes in Iran, especially the breakdown of the education system and the resulting shortage of doctors. Then he becomes an ultra, ultra fundamentalist Muslim – so reactionary he makes suicide bombers look moderate. He demands that Betty dress and behave how he thinks a good Muslim wife should and wants their daughter to be raised to do the same. He becomes physically abusive to Betty. If she wants to return to America, it is fine with him, but Mahtob will remain with him in Iran. So Betty plans a dangerous escape for herself and her daughter.

Does the movie work? Somewhat. 'Women in peril' movies are always a guilty pleasure and Sally Field is a good actress. The biggest problem is with Moody's character. Alfred Molina is a wonderful actor, but it's hard to do much with a character that undergoes such a radical change in his basic character in a matter of weeks. I kept expecting to learn that he had once been diagnosed as psychotic or schizophrenic.

Is the movie unfair to the Iranian people? Again, somewhat. Virtually all the characters in the movie except Betty and Mahtob are Iranian. Some are good. Some are bad. But you can't have a 'woman in peril' with no peril. And that is provided by Moody and his family. But the people who help Betty escape are also Iranian. What unfairness there is lies not in maligning the Iranian people (it doesn't do that) but in implying (and sometimes saying explicitly) that the Iranian culture is inferior just because it is not westernized. As a free American woman I would not want to live in any fundamentalist society, regardless of which religion was in control. But post-revolution Iran is no more representative of thousands of years of Persian culture than Italy under Mussolini was representative of a land that produced the Roman Empire and Michelangelo.

Is the movie unfair to Moody? No, because this is BETTY's story. Talk to anyone in a bitter custody battle and they'll tell you all about why their ex is evil. And they wouldn't be lying. They are giving you their point of view. That doesn't mean Moody doesn't have a different point of view which is equally true and equally untrue (and which, I gather from the comments, was explored in another movie.) But 'Not Without My Daughter' doesn't pretend to be a sociological examination into the two sides of a dispute. Let me repeat for the third time, this is BETTY's story.

That brings me to why some of the comments disturb me so much. I would fully understand if some viewers thought the movie was silly or inaccurate or biased. But several writers have used their reviews as an excuse to joyfully bash the United States. My favorite was 'Who died and made Americans god to do movies about other countries??' That writer is from Sweden but doesn't seem to have a problem with Jan Troell making 'The New Land' (Nybyggarna) about America. And, were we to listen to her, we wouldn't have 'An American in Paris' or 'The Killing Fields' or 'Out of Africa' or 'Amadeus' (all of which are much better films than 'Not Without My Daughter.') But in the United States we have freedom of speech. That means that movie producers are free to make any movie to which they think they can sell tickets. And, as a member of the viewing public, when I disagree with what they are saying I have a very simple remedy. I don't buy a ticket.

First, I would like to say that this movie pulled me in.. Akin to "Midnight Run" without the drugs.. they replaced the drugs with subservience.. Overall I thought it was a good movie!

If this movie is a true reflection of (Iran's version) Islam, I can't comprehend how any 'supreme being' can allow the total dominance of one human being over another!! We (as westerners) live (supposedly) in a world of equality and I have a hard time understanding how anyone can follow a religion that suppresses someone's freedom, to the point of slavery!!

This movie hit a cord with me, knowing what has transpired in the last number of years. With religions and beliefs all over the world battling against each other, (Jews/Muslims, Christians/Muslims, Hindus/Muslims, BinLaden/Freeworld)

I have nothing against Muslims, I have lots of friends that are Muslims. What I don't understand is how these 'radical' factions get away with what they do, without being castigated from their peers!!

"Can't we all just get along"

Cheers TheMovieWatcher..

Wow, this was an eye-opener. Really good script with a solid performance by Alfred Molina. I didn't find Sally Field strong enough for the role, although she wasn't all that bad either. I was so anxious during some scenes rooting for Betty (Sally Field) hoping she can finally escape. Based on a true story, it is nerve wrecking to think there are women trapped in similar situations, and how horrible it must be for them coming from a free world. I thoroughly enjoyed this film.

Betty Mahmoody (Sally Field) was happily married to her Iranian husband Moody (Alfred Molina). They had a young daughter and a very comfortable lifestyle in the U. S. Then, when Moody told Betty they'd have to go to Iran temporarily, everything changed. Moody, under the heavy influence of his family and the very--I'll say different--culture of Iranian Muslims, began to change. He became more aggressive, abusive, and authoritarian toward Betty as though that were his duty. To tell you the truth, the change in him was very strange. It was almost as if the Moody Betty met was back in the States and an uglier version occupied his body in Iran.

Betty was getting no help and no sympathy from Iranian men or women. Eventually, it became clear to her she had to leave. She could, if she wanted to, but Iranian law dictated that the child belonged to the father and she'd have to go alone. And, as the title states, she wasn't leaving without her daughter.

NWMD does a number on you. The movie is a true story which makes it doubly angering, sickening, and depressing. It's like a "Behind Enemy Lines," the non-military version. The performances are all good even if I feel like some things were dramatized. I heard that her husband made a response movie to set the record straight. I also heard it was a dismal failure. Yeah, no one's gonna wanna hear your side of the story.

I think this movie is awful in many ways.

First of all it's filmed in the most deserted and horrifying areas around Kabul (Afghanistan) and we are supposed to think its Tehran, the capitol of Iran. That gives a wrong impression of this beautiful city.

Second, the Persian family that is presented here in this lousy American propaganda movie is a very unusual family. I'm a Persian myself and I've never come across meeting or even heard of such a family. I think this movie gives a completely wrong and distorted picture of what a Persian family is like.

I live in Denmark, and a lot of my friends asked me after watching this movie, is it really like this in Iran. And of course I said 'NO'. Because it isn't. It's not Paradise either, but it's not that bad, as we see it here in this picture. I've noticed how this movie has affected people's vision of Iran in a wrong way.

Third, it doesn't make sense to me at all. Moody is a loving father, a man that has been living in America for many years, suddenly when he comes back to Iran he's transformed into a tyrannical, cold-hearted beast. It's not logic…..He must be a very disturbed man.

This movie among many others is used for making a commercial for U.S.A. A politically propaganda movie. We are supposed to conclude that America is the perfect country, and every time there is something wrong in other areas of the world, America is there like an angel, and America will save us from all evil. I'm sick of this Americanisation. America is NOT the world……and I'm extremely happy about that!!!!

I've seen other people comment on how good and factual this movie is!!! To those I would say, unless you are Persian or Iranian, you should not comment on this film at all. This movie has only been made for propaganda.

Can you tell me about an American movie that has been made about (Iran) that is positive?

Please write back to me and name some movies!!! Surprise me please!!!

If I were to review the book, I would give a clear 10/10 as the content shows Betty Mahmoodys lack of bias and gives more of an idea as to how the Muslim religion is etc.

I would lie to begin by saying that like others I am disturbed by these film reviews. It does not portray ALL Iranians to be violent and inhospitable, it portrays Moody in this light and his family.

Those of you who believe Betty Mahmoody is a liar, racist, prejudiced or all of the above need to take the time to move away from your TV screens and read her books 'Not Without My Daughter' and 'For The Love Of A Child'.

In 'Not Without My Daughter' she expresses gratitude to the Iranian people and speaks of the oppression that reaches Iranian women. She only seeks to highlight her treatment at the hands of Moody and his family. She finds solace in the Muslim religion and respects it.

In 'For The Love Of A Child' Betty explores how this story is familiar to couples of all cultures. Such stories feature a South African woman taking her children from her Libyan husband, a German woman kidnapping her American husbands daughter, Algerians taking French children...Betty does not seek to paint the Middle East in a bad light and this can be seen in the way she explores what she clearly sees as a world wide issue of parents being 'left behind'. This book also shows how she counsels Mathob in remembering her Persian roots and not holding her father in contempt. At many points she tells Mahtob that it is okay to still love her father and remains within their Iranian, Pakistani and Iraqi social circles in America. She also highlights how the climate between America and Iran created bias around the film and how she personally along with Sally Fields attempted to illustrate that the Iranians were kind.

I know it has been mentioned that the Iraniabs are more hospitable than Americans. At the time of Mathob and Bettys plight that was most likely not the case. You must bear in mind that Betty simply couldn't fabricate this story, that is why we have laws against libel in most corners of the world. If the details of this film were untrue why has Dr Moody not successfully sued Betty? In addition to this friends of Dr Moody who were based in Tehran at the time of the story occurring confirmed the details. What reason would they have to lie? I think when watching a film like this its important to bear in mind that your bias' will come in to play and that seeking the facts is a better route to take than ranting like a maniac.

I have never written anything for any movie because both my English and my knowledge about cinema are not good enough. However, last night after watching this movie I decided to write my idea about it. I am an atheist and I hate the Islamic Regime in Iran. I am also by no means a nationalist. But after watching this movie I was so angry that had to walk a few minutes to cool down. The Iranian society even today has lots of problems. In 1980s after the Islamic Revolution the situation was much worse. But the situation pictured in this movie is so exaggerated that you can't believe it is just a misunderstanding about Iran. This movie has certainly been made for a political purpose. Anybody who has been to Iran even for a few hours will agree with me. There are lots of things I can mention here that are not (and have never been) true about Iran and you can see them in this movie. For example in this movie all Iranian women are wearing chador (a kind of Islamic cover). There are lots of women in Iran without chador who use scarves to cover their hair and they don't even cover it completely as was shown in this movie. There are a few cases of asking women to cover their hair and it is never done as it is shown in this movie. They are often asked politely to cover their hair. The other point about chador is that it is not common for Iranian women to wear it at home and they definitely don't wear black chadors for praying at home. In this movie all women are wearing chador, even at home and even when they are praying. It was obviously tried to show everything about Iran dirty, ugly, primitive and savage. The houses and streets are dirty and destroyed, the women are ugly (which is actually the opposite!), men act like wild animals, etc. There are pictures of Khomeini and the logo of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards everywhere (even inside the house!). No woman wears make up. And I have no idea why there are soldiers and military cars in the streets! If you haven't been to Iran, please do not believe what you see in this movie. Although the Islamic regime is not what most of us want in Iran, it has never made our country as it is shown in this movie.

I have seen this movie a few times and in my opinion, I enjoyed it and didn't find it racist at all. This is what happened to Betty and her story.

Is she saying that this is how ALL Iranians are? No, just what happened to her. The movie didn't give Iranians all a bad name because who were the people who helped her to escape from Iran? They were Iranians. It was not like every single person she met in Iran was rude to her. She is just talking about her husband's family and the way they treated her.

Also remember this happened in 1984, twenty years ago. For people to compare Iran now to the Iran in the movie, it's totally different. The country has changed in the pass 20 years.

I fully enjoyed this movie and admire the real Betty's courage. As a mother myself, I totally understand her not wanting to leave without her daughter. I would fight to the ends of the world for my child and that is what Betty did for her child as well.

This movie has a story full of tension that makes you care about the characters.

This story makes you empathize with the main character, worrying about her and what happens to her, the love of a mother to her daughter is reflected in this movie. The film exposes the gender inequality that exists in Iran and how women's rights are trampled, it also shows that gender violence is very normalized, and how the national and international government does not do much about it. This film highlights the importance of separating religion from the government since many injustices are committed by being in a theocratic government. It may seem that this film is a criticism of Islam, since it sometimes focuses on attacking beliefs and customs, but there is no denying the terrible conception of women and the violation of the human rights of many people, on the other hand, it also alludes to North American society by judging people only by their religion and their country of origin. It also shows that we are governed by the standards and demands of our religion more than our own conviction. The production design and the acting are very good, but the ending was not as emotional as I thought, it lacked a bit of emotion in that part.

The criticism it makes of Islam makes this film a hate propaganda for this religion, but the story manipulates us to understand the injustices suffered by women of this religion, I think that a story told from the American perspective is not the best for understand these issues and this type of government, but even so I think it reflects the abuse of human rights in various parts of the world and how nobody does anything about it.

The story of Betty Mahmoody is a truly frightening one. The book she wrote and this movie based on it are controversial (many see it as little more than a racist slam against Iranian culture) but to me this movie came across as both believable and balanced. There's no doubt that life in Iran isn't presented as paradise, but the story really isn't about life in Iran; it's about one woman's experience of being forced to remain in Iran against her will after she and her daughter accompany her Iranian born doctor husband back to his homeland to visit his family, and about her subsequent efforts to escape Iran with her daughter. It also does a great job of depicting the almost complete lack of rights and freedoms women possess in Iran - having a status as little more than property to their husbands, and subject to their complete control.

Sally Field was excellent in the role of Betty and Alfred Molina was also disturbingly believable as "Moody" - her husband. As the story opens, the family are living a comfortable life in Michigan and Moody is a completely Americanized doctor working in a local hospital - a loving husband and father. Against her better judgement, Betty agrees to visit his family in Iran - a family more radically Islamic than Moody who from the moment they arrive begin to pressure him to stay and adopt their ways. Molina did a good job of showing the gradual changes in Moody's character and as he becomes more and more abusive and controlling toward Betty. Field superbly portrays Betty's growing desperation and her feelings of helplessness (and hopelessness) as every opportunity for her to escape with her daughter seems to close. Finally, with the help of some sympathetic Iranians, Betty and daughter Mahtoub make a mad escape attempt toward Turkey.

Whether all aspects of Iranian life and culture are accurately portrayed here seems somewhat beside the point to me. This isn't, after all, a documentary about life in Iran. This is Betty's own story as she experienced it and remembered it - and it's a story that makes the viewer ache for her as she tries to figure out a way to escape this nightmare she's caught up in. I found her story completely believable and brilliantly portrayed.

It's obvious that review bombing films is nothing new, as they were doing it back in the early 2000s and I saw one review from freaking 1999. Complaints about the film not being set in actual Persia or Iran had me rolling my eyes- the ignorance of these people. As if these countries would allow Westerners into them to film.

I watched this tonight and was wowed. The little girl could act, made you feel for her, and was so precious. Sally Field was savvy, resourceful, and someone to look up to.

Molina showed true anger in his eyes. Whenever he came onscreen I could feel my heart jump in fear for the two girls.

Stunning portrayal of the unfair and unjust laws set around women in other countries. Ladies, we don't know how amazing we have it here. It could be taken in an instant, and this film does a phenomenal job of reminding us that good men are vital to a harmonious and free culture.

Worlds collide - I mean if this was not based on a true story ... I can not imagine this having an easy standing with anyone who cares about political correctness. Quite a lot of things that many would consider cliches - a lot of hurdles and a lot of folks seeming to be as "evil" (by western standards at least - though human wise too if you ask anyone with common sense). I also just read that certain things are not entirely accurate (like the way the Muslims pray in scenes) ... which do not make this any easier to watch or rate for that matter.

You can totally understand the mother - and her struggle to survive with all that madness trying to swallow her whole. And her daughter that is. I am not sure how or why certain people would not be able to help them ... but that only makes it even more tense and even more of an exhilarating experience to watch.

This movie was quite (in)famous when it came out. I remember hearing many good things about it, but I decided not to watch it. Might not have been in the general mood for a drama like that - and I have to admit, this was not easy watching. So many things that make me furious here ... you have to remember where to focus that anger though. Things like that unfortunately tend to (still) happen ... it is not something we want to have on our mind or consciousness ... Madness and a movie that gives you something to think about - if you can handle it. Amazing performances, especially by Sally Field by the way.

Very interesting subject and excellent performance from Sally Field and the appropriately named Moody. The final third act is the best and I enjoyed it.

It will not give you a realistic view of Iranians, but a pessimistic one based on Betty's version of the story.

I have also heard her husband's interview who tells the story in a different way, which seems more rational. The film lies. MGM has left a bad record by producing this film.

I generally and sometimes in a different way agree with one of the people who had leaved comments that despite what the film says directly/indirectly:

1) Tehran does not have sheep roaming its streets. Its a sprawling metropolis, with smog clogging up its streets, and it hasn't had sheep since about 1890. Why the hell the filmmakers have chosen a street in rural Occupied Palestine (so called Israel) to film this movie, and use this village to represent Tehran is beyond all reasonable cognition. They wanted people to think Iran is a backward country.

2) Iranian women are stronger and empowered than in many other countries in the world.

3) Why are almost all Iranians in this film brimming with animosity and anger? Iranians are warm, ESPECIALLY to FOREIGNERS!

How come looking at the credits there is not a single Iranian in the main cast? All religious and political divisions of Iranians can be united by the racism and propaganda that this film portrays against them.

I'm 15 years old, in the US. I saw the second half of this movie in my History class, as part of learning about the Islamic religion. My teacher said afterwards that this movie is very good, and I agree.

However, I know for a fact that it is not completely true, in all actuality. A nice movie, of course, but it would have been better if it had more... Fact... In it.

This is Betty's story, told as Betty saw it... And, to be perfectly honest, if I were in her situation, I might not be able to see the good in the country at that time.

Overall, I liked the movie as a regular movie- not one that you were supposed to learn from.

Many people on here have said that they were not speaking Farsi in this movie. Actually they were. Most of the actors were Israelis of Persian origin. Most of the dialogue in this movie was in Farsi, not in Arabic contrary to the claims made by many who have posted here. Even the non native speakers like Alfred Molina, etc muttered lines in Farsi, not in Arabic. In fact all throughout the movie you could see banners of Farsi hanging over the streets of Tehran, and graffiti saying "Marg Bar Amreekaa." This means "Death to America" in Farsi. None of this was Arabic.

How do you say "Death to America" in Arabic? "Al Mout Li Amreeka"....this line was not once uttered throughout the entire movie. And it never appeared on a single banner or graffiti message.

There was Farsi throughout the entire movie. Just for starters basic words or phrases like "Khoda Hafez" "Salaam", "Ashpazkhaneh" etc. etc.

Farsi is a very distinct language from Arabic. Very recognizable. Even if you didn't speak farsi you could easily distinguish it by ear from Arabic. Arabic is extremely loud and guttural. In contrast Farsi is much softer. The accents of these two separate languages are entirely different.

So to the many people who said they didn't speak Farsi in this movie, you are wrong. Its been a while since I have seen it, but as far as I can remember, the only Arabic used was in prayers over the loud speakers. And when the family was performing morning prayers, they did speak Arabic, but it was ironically even in Persian accent. But this is normal. Iranians always pray in Arabic, the language of the Holy Quran. The movie was absolutely right about this.

This movie was filled with Persian culture. Even the names of the foods were Persian, not Arabic.

And remember some of the names of the characters? Ameh Bozorg, Baba Hajji, Miss Alavi, Khanum Shaheen, Aga Hakim...etc. etc.

These are literally Persian names and titles. Very authentic.

So I am really clueless as to what people are talking about when they said they only spoke Arabic in this film. Clearly not true.

A note on Persian culture and language. There is no denying that Farsi is extremely arabized Persian. Farsi belongs to the Indo European language family but has thousands of Arabic loan words. Even the name "Farsi" itself is arabized. Its actually "Parsi" but the Arabs have no "P" sound, so its always been known as "Farsi".

So although Iranian culture and the Farsi language is quite distinct from Arab culture and is Persian in origin, there is no doubt that it is at least somewhat influenced by Arabic ways. Why do you think Farsi is written with the Arabic alphabet? Why is the main religion of Iran Islam? Obviously because of the impact Arabic expansion and culture had on Persia so many centuries ago.

Throughout the movie you also saw posters of Khamenei and Khomenei. Two Iranian totalitarian clerics. These men are not Arabs they are Persian.

There were so many references to Persian in this movie. Moody even said to Mahtob (another Persian name)...."You know, I was born in Persia."

So when people accuse the producers of this film of being ignorant about Iranian culture and Farsi language, you are quite mistaken. They did a very good job, especially with filming this in Israel. They could have easily botched this movie, but for the most part they didn't.

Also, some on here have said this movie is "racist." I beg to differ. This movie is based on a true story. The book is even more graphic. This movie actually sugar coated a lot of things.

And how could one be "racist" against Iranians? Since when has there been an "Iranian race" or a "middle eastern race"? Thats like saying there is an "American race" or "North American race" or something. It doesn't make sense.

But anyway, this is a great movie. Very informative about the current oppressive regime in Iran. The Shah was bad, and unfortunately America supported him. But the current Islamic theocracy is far worse. They hang little girls from cranes in public.

When Betty(Field, determined) go with Moody(Molina, transforming from loving to cruel) and their daughter Mahtob(Rosenthal, cute, devoted to her mother) back to his home country of Iran for a two week vacation, they find it very different from last time he was there. Since the revolution, the laws are more strict. And when the fortnight is up, he tells them that they will be staying. It's a dangerous place to be, women have few rights, and a divorce would just mean he gets custody. But she knows she has to get out, and her girl is coming with her. One way or another.

I don't know enough about the period to say how realistic this is, but it comes across as credible. We see some of the local customs, and the choice to keep it entirely from their perspective was smart - as long as they are in that country, so are we. The acting is good for all concerned, including children. Some of the dialog and cinematography are odd, taking you out of the experience, when they easily could have been better. Other than that, this is fairly well-produced. This is 108 minutes without the credits, or 111 with.

There is some solid tension, albeit these sequences tend to be over too quickly, and removed from any greater context. The pacing is decent at best. This stops and stalls, and it's one of the "based on a true story" pictures that focuses so much on being accurate, it forgets that it's also, ultimately a piece of fiction(not a documentary), and as such, has to entertain. There are plot strands that end up going nowhere, and this is easily 20 minutes too long. By the end, you've simply stopped caring.

There is some violent and disturbing content. I recommend this to those who badly want a film about these events. 6/10