Lightdeossk Captivating movie !

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

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

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.

Shemzl Sam Vaknin, the subject of this documentary, we are told, has a high IQ (185!!!), a sense of humor, an irresistible charm, a fake doctorate, and a submissive-codependent doll of a wife. I saw no sign of the first three. Sam is nothing short of loathsome, with a reptilian quality that would send shivers down any normal spine. He is a sadistic and robotically methodical verbal thug who exalts in his handiwork as he reduces everyone around him to stammering nervous wrecks. His wife, Lydia, is a tragic, heart-wrenching, truly lovable figure. What she sees in this physically and spiritually repulsive putrid shell of a human being is beyond me. The moments with her were the strongest in the movie and Walker made a bad call of not pivoting the film around her demure presence. I hope she doesn't get her wish and have kids with Vaknin. She and her children deserve far better.But I harbor grave suspicions regarding the director of this "gem", Ian Walker. Clearly, there is no love lost between him and his protagonist, Vaknin. Equally clearly, we cannot trust him to be truthful and to avoid the kind of editing that borders on misleading the viewer.Consider Sam's allegedly forged academic degree. Whatever his shortcomings and repugnant traits, Sam is brutally and unflinchingly and invariably and unfailingly honest about himself, his disorder, and what a monster he is. Why would he lie about an irrelevant and minor topic like his academic degree? Throughout the film and in its closing 2 minutes Sam protests that he had attended a full-fledged university with campus, faculty and students; that he had submitted a doctoral dissertation (indeed, it can be found in the Library of Congress!); and that he has had to defend it. Walker than plucks a sentence out of context and adds it artificially to Vaknin's previous protestations to create the (patently false!) impression that Vaknin admits to having a fake doctorate!!!Or, consider this: Walker meticulously documents Vaknin's abusive raging outbursts. On many occasions, it is crystal-clear that Vaknin is reacting to off-camera taunting and ill-treatment by Walker. Walker even admits in his PR material to having "poked this snake with a stick". The film's logo is an image of Walker decapitating Vaknin! But Walker never shows us what he did to Vaknin - only what Vaknin did to him, ostensibly unprovoked. Walker uses clever, one-sided editing to achieve a highly unethical result: a misrepresentation of what happened, for sure!This is what I mean when I say that I cannot trust the seethingly hateful, resentful, and envious Walker to be an impartial guide to Vaknin's circumstances, conduct, and psyche.Shouldn't documentary filmmakers harbor at least a modicum of sympathy and compassion in order to avoid the voyeuristic pornography that most exposes become? Walker failed to skirt this particular trap. Hence 7 stars instead of 10.

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. (: