To me, this movie is perfection.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

This was apparently made in 2007, but has a much much older feel. Pretty much all documentaries from the mid-80's and back have this same lowbrow over dramatic recreations.It has no proper flow, no credible basis for telling a story that is already written for them, and just generally insulted my intelligence. On several occasions while watching this I asked myself... do they think I'm some moron who's drooling on themselves? This could be used as an example of the worst way to document something on film.The maker of this, and anyone who likes this style of documentary, must live on a different planet than me, and may be even be a different species of human.

Okay, this is not the 'documentary' I had expected, but the tagline 'In sin he found salvation' could have been an indication. This is not so much a professional documentary as it as an amateur project that throws several overly exaggerated ingredients (such as re-enactments, bombastic music, religious scenes and voice-overs) into the mix with the serious subject matter of an American serial killer (among other horrific things) called Albert Fish who lived in the 19th and 20th century.It would be easy to disqualify this (and it should be, for the greater part) as an over the top piece of amateur art that does not distantiate itself enough from the dark matter it claims to shed light on. Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate a good hobby project that is labored with love^ - and this seems to be just that - but the fiction and non-fiction are just not in sync here. The re-enactments are mostly of poor imagination, a lot of it is repetitive, the voice-overs are stereotypical and the music is pompous and unimaginative. The only pluses that I can find are the use of clips from old New York, actual pictures of Fish and newspaper clippings and Fish' accounts of his life and that of several sources around him from that time. And a few re-enactments were actually okay.Beyond those ingredients, especially the presence of painter Joe Coleman jumps out; his adoration for Fish borderlines the unsound, even though he at times wants to emphasize otherwise. Or maybe he is better with paint than with words? In any case, I felt he had no place here, other than that he may have offered the original 'Albert Fish letter' for display. The only other interviewee, Katherine Ramsland, is an author and professor who is apparently most famous for her book 'The science of vampires'. I haven't read it, nor do I know anything about her other work, but why would someone of status would get involved in something like this? It makes me wonder.I agree that the story of Albert Fish and his victims is one that should be told, but this is not the way (let alone the fact that a few details about the Grace Budd killing were inaccurate). Or at the very least, not for me. Still 4 out of 10, because there was still plenty of info and footage to be appreciated.^ The call of Cthulhu (2005) or Wisconsin death trip (1999) for instance.

Strong stomachs and nerves of steel are required in order to sit through this "shockomentary" revolving on the crimes and confessions of Albert Fish; sadomasochist, cannibal and undoubtedly the most perverted serial child-killer in the history of the United States. The documentary opens with the extended analysis of the murder of young Grace Budd; the crime that eventually – six years after it was committed – resulted in his arrest. The notorious letter Fish sent to the girl's mother alone, explaining in great detail what he had done to her, makes you sick with disgust and automatically causes you to contemplate how a human being can possibly act like such a cruel and relentless beast. Subsequently, Fish's childhood and the development of his bizarrely perverted sexual tendencies (physical suffering, morbid religious aspects and the interest in young boys) get further explored and the life-story of the monster personified becomes more incredible and astounding with each minute. Quotes like "I always had the desire to inflict pain on others … and I always desired others to inflict pain on me" suitably draw an image of this deranged monster. If this were a fictional horror movie character nobody would ever take it seriously, that's for sure. The documentary is professionally made, with authentic images of New York during the depression era of the 1930's being altered with scenes with actors, atmospheric music and sinister voiceovers and nightmarish collages of morbid religious tableaux. The subject matter is truly engrossing and repugnant, yet fascinating to behold if you are interested in the darkest sides of the human mind. My sole complaint is one that I read in some of the other reviews already. I was hoping to get to known some new and still unknown little facts about the life and crimes of Albert Fish, but the documentary features absolutely no "scoops" or additional background.

I could have accepted a lot of the 'artistic license' used in this film if it were claiming to be a movie based on fact, rather than presenting itself as a documentary. A previous comment does a good job of pointing out the errors in the added period footage.It was a good introduction into a serial murderer I'd never heard of. It was also a disgusting overly dramatized exercise in attempting to concentrate more on the gross out factor than reporting the facts. Not content to describe once how good certain parts of a child's body were when roasted and eaten, it describes the heinous deeds in fact and again in a first person voice-over narrated by an actor playing Albert Fish.For shock affect it delved into ramming the details of his crimes down the throat of the viewer, again and again. At the expense of his victims and their families the film wallows in filth and was offensive in the extreme because of it. Either we're too stupid to digest the horror of his acts, or sales were forefront and above any other consideration the film makers claim.It's not a documentary. A documentary informs us of real events without trying to sicken people with fictitious scenes added catering to the director's opinion of what took place. That's fiction. It's not a movie, in a movie you can accept that 'based on' gives the director license to add whatever he thinks will sell. It is a sick perverted film on a sick perverted killer but that not being enough, it approaches the same type of sick twisted deeds on film, that Fish did in person. In this, the film makers succeed in showing their perverted intention on wringing out every last drop of human suffering in their own race for sales.Joe Coleman, obviously delighted to lay claim to notoriety by surrounding himself with the artifacts of the infamous and psychotic members of our society, sits smugly as he tells us he's thrilled to have the original letter sent to one victim's family, describing what Fish did to their child. How he was 'meant' to have it. Most serial murderers take trophies and this particular derelict of humanity, Coleman, does the same here, living with the material surrounding the worst part of themselves humanity has to offer. If any proof was needed for what I'm saying here, it's in the repeated interviews with this piece of crap. His sole participation in this film should have been only in examining this letter. Instead we're treated to repeated interview segments with no other reason than to try and help sell this presentation of crap.These flaws ruin what could have been a remarkable recounting of Fish's deeds. The makers of this prostituted themselves for sales and in doing so, reflect a watered down mirror of the same sort of sickness Fish succumbed to. It's a perverted reporting of a perverted person and because of this they have more in common with this man than they may want to realize.