Stellead
Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful
Odelecol
Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.
PiraBit
if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.
castilesoap
The whole point of Sam taking part in this documentary was self promotion, to promote his book and to show the world how intelligent he is. When things did not go his way, the diagnosis he is not narcissistic and his credentials were questioned, he decided to sabotage the documentary by escalating. This behaviour was to intimidate the film-maker into ending the project. IT WORKED! I think this could have been predicted. This is one of the tactics of the psychopath. I think the film maker should have researched more and been prepared for this. We have one advantage over psychopaths, they are predictable. Once you become aware of the tactics, you always know they will always behave this way. This is one of their weaknesses, another is bragging on tape!It would have been interesting to see the violent reaction if the tape of Sam bragging about his purchased credentials at the time he defended them with the psychologist. You think Sam was abusive at the end of the film, it would have been fireworks, just to get the focus away from being caught out!My high score is due to the fact it exposed how totally stupid psychopaths are, it doesn't make them any less dangerous to the uninformed. It is rare to see this on film, their manipulation usually doesn't allow it. Most of us would have used common and not taken part because we know our lies would be uncovered. The psychopaths ego would over-ride common sense and risk does not phase them, they thrive on it. Great doco!
sacbutt
I would expect that "I, Psychopath" will take it's rightful place in the annals of scarumentary (crockumentary?) next to " Reefer Madness" sometime in the coming decade or so. OK, slightly (ever so) less lurid than the latter. (The score of '5' reflects it's entertainment value only)But Please. A director incapable of setting limits on his subject? Who is this "documentary" about? "For months afterwards, bits of Sam's taunts come back to haunt me"? What actually WAS the point of this 30 minutes-that-I-shall-never-retrieve? (Yes, I DID miss the first 30 minutes, thankfully) But really, is this a "beware, they're out there"?Or a "they live and they wonder about their life" (If so, we-e-e-ll, has Big Brother not already done this to death?? AND been taken off the airwaves?!)kinda effort?Or is this a self serving rehash of a-a-all those times that the mean boys were, well, mean, dressed up as a sycophantic attempt to capture a sound byte and be able to essentialise and dismiss as 'pathology' a complex interaction between the aberrant self (cos Vaknin = not a your most stable of tables) as 'self being viewed' by 'self assuming a nonjudgemental-but-nonetheless-emotionally-involved- stance' And what fresh hell is this?? Espousing the diagnostic test "PCL whatnot" as a definitive measure of Is He a Psychopath? Gaaaah! Strewth, what next, Phrenology as the Next Big Thing? Ech. Tiresome stuff. Pass me the librium, slap that whinging director, tell that silly man Vaknin "No, not allowed", his wife maybe to get some help with her self esteem issues and shame on you, ABC, for screening this programme without a "park your credulity here" disclaimer.
hte-trasme
This is a fascinating documentary about a fascinating subject -- a man who is -- or believes he is a psychopath, and whether his claims can be verified. Like good food for thought, it raises more questions than it answers: How can a psychopath be self aware enough to know and be curious about his psychopathy? Can he be faking being a psychopath? Would doing that make him a psychopath? It's so fascinating at least in part because we can get closer but never really arrive at these answers. It's a credit to the filmmaker that I wished it had gone on longer.Personal taste but I found myself wishing the focus were less on the implications of psychopathy in the business world and on general background, and on even narrower character study of Sam and his wife. The documentarian, though, is to be commended on his insight, self-reflection, and thoroughness in presenting a picture of such a difficult subject to capture. In the end I was left eager to know more about Sam what drives him, and disturbed by his pattern of behavior as well.
Mark Knoffer
I've just seen this great peace of film on "arte".It was a very impressive documentary about a man (Sam Vaknin) who claims to be a psychopath and manipulates the people around him. the filmmaker Ian Walker accompanies Sam and his wife Lidija in journey through Europe, visiting psychologist and Neuroscientist to test Sam's psychopathy.The interesting point of the film is not proceeding on the assumption that psychopaths are criminal, mass-murderers or even (physically) dangerous nor that they can be recognize at first sight.In contrast to most other psychopaths, Sam wants to find out about his character/substance and why he is ready to hurt him and others to achieve his goals.i am very sorry for Ian Walker. he sacrifices himself to his film, science and the truth, while being attacked by Sam the whole time. i have hardly seen filmmakers committing mayhem to themselves like this. (:
