Couldn’t see what the reviewers & director saw, which may show some bias on my part. I didn’t see the mom as selfish & awful to her family. I saw her as a woman who was shocked at what her husband had done & appalled that her sons unequivocally supported their father; thus she awakened to no longer being the traditional wife & mom & didn’t do it with panache & elegance, just screaming & outrage. Thought the sons were in denial. I was expecting more ambiguity regarding the son’s case & actually came into the movie expecting confirmation of that, but once I heard his repeated confessions & his lawyer’s statements, I thought, “Um, so why do we think that he’s not guilty.” Maybe the director of Capturing the Friedmans saw more that he didn’t include in the film & that is why he feels like the son is innocent, but I just didn’t see it. Once someone lies, then says, “Whoops, I lied, but now I’m telling the truth” repeatedly, I get suspicious, especially when it is not a lie that a reasonable person would make. Only God knows. What I found most disturbing: how the sons never dealt with the unambiguous fact that their father was a self-proclaimed pedophile. David, who was not accused, goes into a Clintonesque rant about what his father meant when he said that he was aroused seeing a child visiting the prison. Um….I suspect that they are not mentally capable of understanding what is appropriate & inappropriate behavior.