Watch Albert Fish: In Sin He Found Salvation For Free

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

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

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Albert Fish's story is one of the most fascinating and shocking American tales of the 20th century. If you haven't heard of him or seen this film, feel free to take the time to Google his name and get some backstory.If you've already done that, then this film isn't really going to tell you anything new. "Albert Fish", the film, offers a confusingly paced story told through cheaply produced reenactments, with input from subjects without any real qualifications to be exploring the mind of a serial killer, sexual predator, and psychopath.The film opens with the story of the Grace Budd murder, including a voice-over (portraying Fish) reading the infamous letter. During which we hear melodramatic sound effects including a second voice-over (portraying Budd) squealing "I'll tell Momma!" with a tone so campy I literally started laughing out loud. It's then explained how Westchester Police used the letter to finally arrest Fish. So right off the bat the most horrific and compelling chapter of Fish's disturbing life is laid out to us, removing all drama it could've held later.But that's OK. This film isn't interested in drama. It's interested in exploring Fish's religious psychosis without any real narrative to follow. And it insists on laying out the depth of Fish's psychosis not through psychoanalyses, but through lots of projection from its interviewees and even more cheaply made dramatizations portraying what the film insists are the visions Fish had. Fish may very well have had some extreme religious psychosis, but the film makes little effort to produce the evidence of this.It also provides little background of Fish himself. Mentioned sporadically throughout the film are anecdotes about his childhood and adult life, but rarely is this explained in any detail or with any connection to a narrative. The film notes his married life, fatherhood, and abandonment by his wife with little interest in the psychological impact any of these aspects had.Many reviews have claimed Joe Coleman's inclusion in the film was superfluous, but I disagree. Coleman was the perfect allegory for what the film was trying to accomplish: heavy projection in lieu of evidence or thoughtful examination. Coleman's credentials hardly make him an authority on the subject of serial killers. Such as they are, his greatest attributes seem to be having a creepy collection of souvenirs and apparently stealing the Grace Budd letter from the police. Unable to speak authoritatively on Fish, he instead openly uses his own religious background to speculate greatly on the motives for Fish's crimes. Eventually he claims that he (Coleman) personally was meant to own the letter.If you are hoping to learn anything new about Albert Fish, head to the library, because you won't find it here. It you'd like to literally watch paint dry (there's a reenactment in the film which gives us this opportunity) feel free to watch this film.

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.

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.

This is a brilliantly filmed documentary on one of America's most notorious serial killers, Albert Fish. The film contains intricately detailed and accurate accounts of the crimes and does not shy away from the sheer brutality of it's subject matter during the re-enactment segments either. The musical score adds to the creepiness of this bone chilling account of a man who is undoubtedly the worst criminal of the twentieth century! As the film reveals, there is no known perversion that this creepy old man did not practice and practice frequently on both himself and others. He was a cannibal, a pedophile, a necrophile, a masochist and a sadist and he also practiced numerous other unspeakable perversions! Known to have murdered several children (the actual count of which were lost in his foggy memory) and most noted for having inserted dozens of needles into his own body, many of which were discovered after his death rusted and corroded (an indication that they had been there for YEARS) and dangerously close to vital organs. The actor who portrays the "Moon Maniac" in this film bears an utterly chilling resemblance to the actual perpetrator and this aspect only adds to the value of this film. The DVD release boasts of additional footage and documentaries on the case and the film itself. True crime buffs and horror movie fans alike will thrill to the delight of this devilishly gruesome little documentary!