chrissyresides

I watched this knowing that I am not a big fan of the music of Daniel Johnston, but found it ceaselessly moving and fascinating. No just because of Daniel's unstoppable creativity and heartbreaking slump into ever increasing circles of mental illness, but because of the honesty of people around him. Saying that they were scared, that they just wanted him to go to hospital and get better, the truth... I really thought this film would be a bog standard "worship the romantic tortured genius" thing, but it actually gave you a really authentic feeling of how terrifying and uncontrollable mental illness truly is. Also, let's see more Daniel Johnston cartoons, the bit with the eye ball flying out of the head on the stack of comic books was absolute genius.

This is an American film with English people in it. All the reviews in the UK broadsheets say that it's a scary horror and a black comedy, but to be honest, I think it's a "trapped in scary woods" scream-style American jump fest with some frat-lad jokes.

As such, it's OK. But if you are wanting black comedy a-la Man bites dog or REAL horror as in Night of the living dead this is not the film for you.

Please British film reviewers: stop being so nice about British films and tell us what they are ACTUALLY like.

Sad waste of Tim McInnerney and Danny Dyer's talents.

By the time I saw capturing the friedmans, I had been told so many great things about it that I was certain it would be as life-changing as the Corporation, or any Nick Broomfield doc. But it was not, not because of the story: the story is tragic, a classic tale of fit-ups, family breakdowns, bad legal advice, with the added bonus that it has something at its centre that no episode of CSi could: a likable paedophile who may or may not be guilty of the committed crimes. The weakness is in how the material is handled, it never explores anything properly: the police home in on Arnold from mailed magazines, is this entrapment? Would statements produced under hypnosis be admissible in courts now? Did the police woman say that she saw "foot high stacks of child pornography" in the trial? If so, has this now been struck off the records? There were just not enough details, and that made it feel wishy-washy and frustrating.