H.H. Holmes: America's First Serial Killer (2004)

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Despite being America's "first" (or at least first known) serial killer, H.H. Holmes doesn't ring a bell the way the names of other well-known sociopaths' do. So there isn't too much to go on, and this documentary, I suppose, is all we're going to have for a while as far as film sources go.I cannot judge how factual or historically accurate the documentary was, it being my first exposure to this man, but there are a few comments I'd like to make on it purely as a documentary.Firstly, the narrator is the best part. Great voice. The score is also good. Pictures and newspaper headlines are used very well. The narrated excerpts from Holmes' own writing succeed in bringing this creature to life.What distracted heavily were two things.Firstly, the unnamed (or perhaps I missed his name) guy sitting in the room with the too-bright background (in comparison to the shots from which his scenes would cut) who always ended his sentences with a rising inflection? Do you have any earthly idea how irritating and distracting that is? It nearly makes you want to pull your hair out?The second was the so-called criminal or forensic psychologist or whatever ludicrous title they chose to give him. A round-faced, over- excited, bug-eyed little man who, instead of giving us authoritative, factual, and insightful commentary on Holmes' character, acts more like a two-bit talk show host. Get this MORON out of there. Why in the world would the director, who certainly spent no small amount of time and money on this documentary, intentionally mar it with this nincompoop?Sometimes scenes would cut from the first guy mentioned above (maybe it was the director himself) to the clown guy, and it would just make you insane.I never understand why people who put in sweat and money into making a film would not have the sense to at least avoid such glaringly obvious errors. Did no one think to tell that dude, "STOP ending every sentence like it's a god damned QUESTION!"? Did no one think, "No, better not hire some weirdo charlatan type who claims to be a forensic expert. We can certainly find a knowledgeable person who will lend insight and capture viewers' interest." Why did no one think of this? Why? What a shame.Special mention is due for the unnamed lady who all too briefly appeared once or twice and professionally, intelligently gave us great information on police and forensic techniques of the late 19th century. It should have been her instead of that clownish dolt.

Alright. Not much to say, other than READING is far more entertaining than this horribly narrated and presented documentary is. I will just get right down to what wasn't good about it. And there wasn't that much bad about it. It's just that the falling points to the film are constant and never expand nor decrease.The narrator to me was like an older Ben Stein telling me all about the 19th century. I really don't like listening to Ben Stein attempt to educate me. The information is also poorly presented. For example, a big part about Holmes was his building he designed. Now they do have a segment on it, but they really don't emphasize (enough in my opinion) how he really went about it. They did a sad little black and white RE-ENACTMENT of a innocent victim going through the labyrinth and being caught and placed inside the trap-walls. But it seriously just belittled Holmes.The chronology was poorly paced and just didn't have much direction to it. I found myself wondering what was pacing through Holmes as his evil began to really take part.Now I understand that Holmes existed before modern science and psychology, so everything about who he was, how he was, and all of that is pure assumption. But we have a thing called educated guess and I don't think anyone will be upset about several educated guesses to breathe some life into the film. This was not done at all.The entire film seemed to drag on. The first thirty minutes felt like two hours. Literally. I was hoping that it would pick up so pace towards the end. But it actually just slowed down.Overall, this film is very educational, but I would seriously recommend having some background knowledge first. I would seriously expect this film to be on a shelf at some high school; an idle threat to force the students to watch and take notes on the film. Because it's extremely dry on a very INTERESTING subject. Honestly though. You will thank me and yourself for picking up a book or essay vice watching this dry cardboard cut out of HHHolmes.

Uninspiring so-called "Documentary" which was patched up by a pseudo-filmmaker, complete with insipid, low budget "retellings" that don't excite or allow for any valid renderings of facts. It is amazing that this even attempted to analyze the "killer" so directly, who was portrayed erroneously in many of the segments. Historical accuracy is replaced by slander, innuendos, assumptions, half hearted guesses and mind readings. The "experts" resemble boisterous and lonely people who parade before the camera without any insight and pretend to know how 'murderers' operate. At best this is a laughable attempt at horror, at worst, a mockery of objective film-making. Everything about this production is tedious, including the t-shirt order address on the DVD.

Who says you have to spend so much money to make a good quality film, well you don't. John Borowski's documentary on the notorious Dr. H. H. Holmes born as Herman Mudgett is a perfect example. It's creepy and reminds you of the golden days of good thriller films where it didn't take much to scare the life out of you. The story of Dr. Holmes should not be forgotten. The reenactments are not that graphic or bloody. I like the fact that Tony Jay narrated the documentary. He was wonderful. John Borowski is an up and coming director from Chicago where the house of horrors and part of Dr. Holmes' crimes took place. Nobody could imagine the horror not even by reading Harold Schechter's book, Depraved, about his crimes. Schechter gives great commentary but I think he could have been used more regarding his knowledge of information. The forensics specialist came off kind of too detailed for the average person. The criminal profiler reminded me of Chris Parnell with blonde hair. He kind of had a good sense of humor despite the horror. I recommend watching the behind the scenes the making of the documentary. It's well documented and looks 100 percent professional.