That was an excellent one.

Memorable, crazy movie

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

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.

Albert Fish, the horrific true story of elderly cannibal, sadomasochist, and serial killer, who lured children to their deaths in Depression-era New York City.While Fish is well-known among serial killer fanatics, I do not know if he is well-known to the general public. He should be, or at least he certainly should deserve the honor. For all the films that have been made based loosely on Ed Gein, it surprises me that Fish seems to influenced practically no one in the artistic world (beyond Joe Coleman).The biggest complaint about this film from other reviewers is that it is slow and boring. I will grant that it is a little bit slow, but you are dealing with a subject that has limited photos and even fewer videos. To compile this, the director had to stretch things a bit. Maybe it would have been better as 60 minutes, but I am still impressed by the images they were able to find (some I had seen before, some I had not).I also liked that Fredric Wertham plays a role in here. I was not aware he testified for the defense of Fish, as Wertham is better known (at least to me) for his crusade against comic books and television violence. There is some irony there, I suppose, that a man who defends the insane ends up battling comic books for their erosion of morals.

Ridiculously slow and corny as hell. I like serial killer documentaries but this was too awful to ever watch again let alone recommend. Reenactments of things that DID NOT need reenactment, and I'm not talking about anything gory just stupid stuff like him painting a wall with fake blood. It added nothing to the story and didn't even happen they just did props like that to be ridiculous in the film. I hated the narrators voice in which they tried to make the guy sound like he was from Jersey. The only thing remotely interesting was when they were showing a man cut up some obvious raw beef to try to make it look like it was a human. Well at least I got a good laugh out of it.

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.