This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized crime, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organized crime on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The version of the film I've seen on US cable, although uncut, contains disclaimers before the end credits stating that the New York youth correctional authorities and the Manhattan district attorney's office deny that the events in the film took place, also that Carcaterra stands by his story. Ellsworth 23:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Apparently this cable disclaimers are used elsewhere in the world - I saw the film on Dutch TV while visiting Amsterdam. Ellsworth 00:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I own the film on VHS and it includes the disclaimers as well. Thief12 (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I changed the year of the 2nd half of film back to 1981. In the bar scene, immediately before killing Nokes, John and Tommy overhear two businessmen talking about Reagan administration policies. Ellsworth 19:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The year is also clearly shown on the screen as the second half starts. Thief12 (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article mention that the story was all lies? (22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC))
I don't know if it's been decisively shown the book was "all lies," but there was certainly a great deal of controversy around its veracity, and that controversy reignited when the movie was released. So, yes, this needs to be discussed in the entry. Jimbonator (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, the more I'm reading about it, the more stuff like this comes up http://www.nydailynews.com/pretenda-lorenzo-carcaterra-claims-film-autobiographical-fact-based-truths-dull-childhood-article-1.737480 - which eventually makes saying "there was controversy around its veracity" just seem silly. I would read further, but there seems no need - the newspaper reports have convinced me "all lies" is pretty much obviously what it accounts to. People are understandably fooled by the book publisher putting "Non-fiction" on it and raking in the money, and irresponsible comments from the movie director like, who cares if it's true or not. One of these newspapers noted that the writer of the fake Howard Hughes biography went to jail for 15 years for fraud. Times have changed! I hope these people have their "Oprah moment" when they realize that a position of not caring whether things are fact or fiction - particularly things sold as fact - just doesn't cut it.
Interestingly, in the movie in the courtroom, truth or lie doesn't matter - at least, lying in court is weighed against punishing the abusive guards etc - some of these same issues. I'm not sure if there's noble dimension to calling the book/film a true story though. It's just a money-making scam and con game. Which seems to have worked. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)