anspruchsvoiier

There are so many errors in this wanna be documentary that the producers should hang their heads in shame. The documentary begins with a broad generalization claiming that serial killers are a phenomenon that only started post World War II in the 20th century, only to turn around and mentioning famous 19th century serial killers like H.H. Holmes, Jack the Ripper and Jane Toppan and ignoring the fact that between 1900 and 1950 more than 180 serial killers were active in the US alone (120+ internationally).

Many facts of the Lipstick Killer they covered were outright wrong: He didn't murder his 6 year old victim in a basement, but merely dismembered her there after killing her at some unknown location. He also didn't blame the killings on an alternate personality like this shoddy film claims. That was what the police claimed after they drugged Heirens with sodium pentothal which then caused him to utter the name "George" under the influence of the drug a couple of times. He never claimed the name of his alter ego was George Murman and especially not that this was short for murder man like the film claims. That's what the press came up with.

They don't even get the pronunciation of Gein's name right and this could have been easily rectified. Not just did Wikipedia list its proper pronunciation as early as December 2007, at the same time news footage from reporters talking to Gein's neighbours and pronouncing his name could be found on Youtube...and the stuff is still there! The lackluster research doesn't just reflect negatively on the producers, but also on their experts. Apart from the fact that none of them got Gein's name right, their statements are usually absolutely useless, merely expressing opinions about the horror of serial killings with very little hard information. Most of the interpretation of how serial killers tick come from a "true crime writer", a person without apparent education in criminology, psychology or psychiatry.

To call this film a documentary would lend more credence to it than it deserves. The film has a massive 90s feel about it, judging by the choice of background music and editing style they used. I was almost willing to cut this film some slack. After all, research in pre-internet times was by far not as quick and easy as it is today, even though that's no good apology for such a project that must have taken months to put together and for which proper research should have still been done.

When I discovered that this was made in 2009 I was actually at a loss for words. How can something so shoddy be released to the public FOR MONEY when it was produced in the era of Wikipedia and Google Books where correct information was just a mouse click away? The problem is that from a less knowledgeable perspective this looks like a pretty watchable documentary. Though antiquated the style may seem, the editing is solid with using plenty of original footage and pictures, though not as much as it could. People without detailed knowledge regarding the cases might end up memorizing false information. Viewer beware. Don't forget a pound of salt when watching this. You might find it entertaining, though to those seeking accurate information, you'll be utterly disappointed as you'll find yourself researching every little fact yourself after discovering that you can't trust anything that is being said in this film.

The title and short description of this documentary sounded promising, but it already fell flat in the first few minutes where it actually tries to give itself the moral high point with an artsy intro which is completely free of information and rather just wastes time.

It then wastes over 10 minutes to interview some teenage boys about why they like porn. The answer of course is a given: because of the depicted sex. D'uh! Who would have thought that?? Only the majority of people have watched porn, online or not, so everybody but the most removed from reality already know the answer to this waste of time.

There's a lot of filler in between scenes that doesn't serve any purpose other than probably to set a mood which goes beyond me. A feeble attempt follows to explain to us how the internet came into existence. In the same sentence it's being explained that the heads behind it didn't foresee the role of porn, giving them somehow a negative slant. This kind of allows to reconstruct the question the interviewer asked, but which is not audible in the documentary: "Did the people behind the internet ever consider this could be used for porn?" Oh how very relevant... The same question could be asked regarding VHS-tapes, DVDs or Blurays, but what does that have to do with the supposed porn problem?

Shortly after, the interviewer is standing in front of a server center and has someone explaining to us that there are data cables in the earth that transmit all the data - even very sensitive data - through it. No really...Who would have thunk that... She then asks the server guy: "I thought the internet was in a cloud?" That was 15 minutes in. At that point I decided to stop this sorry excuse for a documentary. Not being able to ask valid questions in 15 minutes or not giving at least a shred of valid information is one thing, but trying to be so high and mighty to lecture people on the dangers of the internet, yet not being able to tell cloud services from the internet is where I draw the line.

It became painfully obvious that the people behind this movie have no clue about the subject matter. This will be obvious to anyone who has ever used the internet for more than sending emails. Don't waste your time on this.

Usually, I don't pick up B-Movies for the evening, but I had nothing else to watch, so I went with this one. I have to say I am pleasantly surprised. While the movie has the look of a low budget film, it certainly doesn't feel like one. The characters are cliché and the acting is exaggerated, but that is all positive, because it perfectly fits the comical style of the movie. Another strong point is that the acting performances were pretty stable throughout the whole film. Especially the main character is charismatic enough to keep you interested. He also does a great job narrating the movie by letting the viewer know what the main character thinks in certain situations.

The plot is surprisingly fresh and keeps you guessing right up to the end, who the baddie is. All in all, this was a fun ride and worth watching. If you don't need big names and huge budgets to enjoy a movie, then this might be one you could enjoy. I know I did.

On a final note: I have to give kudos to the people behind this movie, because B-Movies here tend to have 10-star ratings by the time they are released, due to the many fake votes by those involved. I hate this trend and I appreciate a movie even more, if people don't resort to cheap tricks like that.