Diagonaldi Very well executed

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

kashmirlayla This documentary opens pointedly with a montage of 80s Americana, to the tune of even more nostalgic music. The opening is representative of the mix of familiarity and the forbidden that marks the way the film delves into the private side of a very public scandal - the arrest of the pedophile Arnold Friedman and his son Jesse. As many have said, we are not presented with a clear argument as to the pair's guilt or innocence. Rather, we are shown that what lies on the other side of the unspeakable in many ways is almost shockingly banal. The Friedman's home videos seemed to me at once familiar - their house, the decor, the old computers and camcorders, the intense family dynamics - a lot of it reminded me of my own childhood in the 80s. It is the added element of crime and shame which provokes the Friedmans' spiral from dysfunctional but ordinary suburban family to societal pariahs. At the same time, that very element emerged from all this banalia. This is partly due to the nature of the crime: pedophilia usually occurs within families, in the home. It is committed by people you may know and love. It provokes horror in us because it is a perversion of the places and people with whom we are supposed to feel most safe. And because we are really only shown the Friedman's side of the story, we are forced to identify with them, and wonder if such a catastrophe could befall our own family. It is probably for this reason that I also came away wondering about the nature of memory, especially childhood memories. The only person who really knew 'the truth' about the abuse was probably Arnold. The children who claimed to be victims may or may not have been manipulated by the police, and Jesse, even if he was involved in some sort of inappropriate activity with his father, has definitely convinced himself of his own innocence. Now there seems to be no truth we can really grab ahold of, only obscure memories reflected through years of trauma and denial. At one point in the film, the eldest brother David asks of old photographs, "do you remember being there when the photo was taken, or do you remember seeing the picture hanging on the wall?" Based on the evidence presented in the film, nothing really seems to make too much sense - neither the accusations nor the denials. Whatever did happen back in the 80s is now long buried under mountains of fantastical mental creation. The Friedman's obsessive video recording seems to both anchor the memories in reality, at the same time as it suggests that at some point the images of the past, real or imagined, take on a life of their own.

Kevin MacFarlane Well if you want to start a fight with your girlfriend. Watch this movie.This is actually a brilliantly told story,and really well don for featuring both sides of the story. The rest of this review could probably be int he philosophy section. Anyhoo.How can a documentary about a crime syndicate be two sided? Well the problem is, that is how we approach most documentaries about crime. Usually we already know that Ted Bundy and Charles Manson committed the crimes, and we are watching to find out how. So that is how this movie starts. An affluent US suburb on a peninsula of Long Island is rocked when customs officials, following the trail of some child pornography magazines, find the owner also teaches computer classes to young boys from his home. The officials go door knocking and all of a sudden the suburb is racked when a bunch of little kids start coming forth about the terrible abuse they suffered there. There are some interviews with people, family of the abuser, and victims too, but its hard to like any of them. Somethings not right. But you follow the scenes like any normal documentary. Then there are some inconsistencies. The police say there were piles of pornographic magazines everywhere - but photos THEY took don't show any. The only witnesses who testified about the abuse are pretty screwed up characters, but this is a situation that you would expect to leave any one screwed up. But it all starts to unravel as you get further into the case. The son of the abusing computer teacher is now brought into the case, some victims claim he is much worse.If this was happening in your neighborhood - wouldn't you do anything to make sure they both spent the rest of their lives in jail. But slowly, and cleverly,director Andrew Jarecki draws your attention to the gaps in the case. And its a tough sell. Child molesters need to go to jail, for protection of more kids, and to stop others from doing it. But what if the cops were so intent on the idea of child molestation rings, that they made sure they found it? What if there one hole in the case was that the son had been there, and would bear witness that the father had NOT done any of those things. So they made sure the son was implicated? Is that possible?The real crux of the matter is how the students were repeatedly and forcefully coerced into testifying. They started off not knowing anything about abuse, but the cops were intent on getting the information they expected from the kids, until some kids just broke down. Did little kids tell the cops what they wanted to hear to get respite? One witness admitted that he didn't remember anything until he was hypnotized, and to this day it is still so clear. But hypnotism has been shown to implant suggested memories as easily as uncover real ones. The real bone of contention here is now about how you feel about a potential child molester walking free, but about the perversion of the US justice system. And that's why this is so difficult to talk about. If you shout for the side of justice to be served, others see you (indeed the whole community at the time would view you) as a pervert protector... So you can imagine, naysayers keep their mouths shut, while angry parents and community members rally their hate, anger and coerce and bully and ensure the Friedmans go away for a long time.But is it right to punish anyone like that with falsified evidence just in case? If thats' true, couldn't it happen to you?The toughest part of this case was the fact that Friedman himself, confessed to like young boys, and having crossed the line with two young boys in another incident many years ago - but this does not mean that him or his son did these terrible things to those children - but its such a sensitive issue - no one will talk about it. Until this movie. I challenge you to watch this with loved ones, and come out agreeing on what actually happened and what should happen....

samanthaniedospial The story of the Friedmans is one that requires an understanding of the people involved. They are the ones who drive the story till the end. The way in which their confusion and deception of the situation, seeming to belong to the eye view only, is in any case a he said she said tale. The facts on both sides pulls you back and forth unaware of where you stand. When the Friedman family, with their crazy antics, believes what they think is to be right and to hold no other truth to the facts of the case, it makes you wonder who are these people? Where did they come from? It is a surprise until the end. A moderate and frustrating tale, Capturing the Friedmans requires much attention with little thought.

Lucien Lessard The Friedmans are your typical middle-class Jewish family. But when Arnold Friedman and his 18 year old son Jesse Friedman got arrested by the police for abusing and molesting young children's in the Friedman home. They got arrested at Thanksgiving in 1987 for hundreds shocking crimes. The oldest son David Friedman doesn't believe it as first, including his mother Elaine and his brother Seth. Documentary filmmaker Andrew Jarecki (All Good Things) interviews David, Jesse, Elaine including the reporters, victims, the prosecutors, sex crime unit, the judge, formers students of Arnold's computer class, Jesse's former friend and Arnold's brother. All the interviewers with the filmmaker are searching the truth of what did happen with Arnold and his son Jesse along with the students were sexually abused and some students claimed that nothing sexual happened in class. So, who is telling the truth?Director Jarecki makes an fascinating documentary with the now infamous "The Friedman" family. David Friedman, now he's an entertainer for children. Who seems to be still in denial of what happened to his family, although he's an intelligent person, who loves to entertained and being an magician to please young children. "Capturing the Friedmans" does have some darkly comic moments including some truly disturbing moments during the interview and the vintage news footage. The documentary is at its best during the amazing home video footage of the family to witness an better understanding of the family falling apart.Disc One has an good anamorphic Widescreen (1.78:1) transfer and an fine Dolby Stereo 2.0 Surround Sound. Disc One also includes an running commentary track by the director and producer/editor:Richard Hankin. An interesting commentary track if you truly liked the documentary. Disc Two includes unseen home movies from inside the Friedmans house, Great Neck Outraged, New witnesses and evidence and more. "Capturing the Friedmans" is certainly an difficult documentary to watch. But it is extremely admittedly powerful and unforgettable. Director Jacrecki and Producer:Marc Smerling received an Oscar nominated for their solid work. Since the documentary is not for all tastes. But this documentary shouldn't be missed and also is what to make of all this is wisely left to the viewer, what he or she thinks of the damaged family. (**** ½/*****).