Beware the Slenderman

NOTE: If there is a movie, documentary, play, or book you’d like me to review please let me know. For a while I reviewed television shows but I’m way behind on all of the shows of mine I like, so I will wait to catch up on those before I seek new ones.

As several of my friends know, I tend to find unexplained mysteries, disappearances without explanation, unsolved murders, and serial killers fascinating. I just find it so interesting given modern technology how people are able to escape detection from security cameras and can get killed or go missing without anyone knowing. It also is interesting to me what goes through the mind of a criminal that allows them to commit crimes or murder(s).

One of my best friends last week told me that she had recorded a new HBO documentary called _beware the slenderman, and I was immediately intrigued by it. Being from Wisconsin, I had heard about the case when it first happened, but I hadn’t followed up on it much until fairly recently. The movie explains the crime the girls committed and describes what the home life was like for both of the girls.

In 2014 Morgan Geyser and Anissa Weier, two twelve year old girls stabbed and nearly murdered Payton (Bella) Leutner in Waukesha, Wisconsin. I emphasized “nearly”, because myself and most other people I have talked to had assumed Bella died from her injuries. The two claimed their actions were done to appease the fictional character Slenderman. He is an unusually tall man with a thin build, who is always seen wearing a suit, and he  generally has a blank, expressionless face. Apparently, he has “proxies” that work for him and seem to do his bidding. Both girl claimed that they were told they had to kill Bella or Slenderman would kill their family, and after killing her, they could go to the Slenderman Mansion and become said proxies. Due to the developing backstory of the character, not much more information was provided about the fictional character. However, while most people associate a malicious or creepy tone to him, some people (presumably both girls) see him as a “Guardian Angel” of sorts.

Editing is always vital for the success of a film and the way the audience perceives the actions of the people or characters in it. For example, in December 2015 when Making a Murderer was released, it helped sway a lot of people into believing that Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey were wrongfully sentenced for crimes they may or may not have committed (see my review Making a Murderer to get a deeper analysis of what I thought). When I researched the documentary at a later point, I noticed other sources saying that the documentary left out some information that would make the two men not seem as innocent as how they were portrayed. While I have no clue how accurate these claims are, it does show how important editing is in driving a narrative and what the audience will take away. In regards to the editing of _beware the slenderman, the message was great but the flow of the film could have greatly improved. As I’ve already explained, most crime documentaries or shows have an agenda of clearing someone’s name or tarnishing it further. This movie  balanced both their roles in the crime without making one seem guiltier than the other, and the interviews with each of their families also gave interesting insight to how both girls behaved throughout their earlier childhood too. It just presented what happened without really trying to sway the viewer one way or the other.However, the flow of the film could have significantly improved. It seemed jumbled and out of order. It is understandable to want to build suspense and not give out all of the information immediately, but it felt like it jumped around a lot and was hard to follow at times.

A bit of levity came during the middle of the film when my friend and I laughed at the job description given to one of the people being interviewed. By his preference, or that of the editors of the film, he was referred to as a “Digital Folklorist”. The term folklore is often meant to describe traditions and beliefs passed down from generation to generation, but more importantly it has been associated with oral tradition. Hence, adding the “digital” in front of it seems counterintuitive. While many fabricated stories have gained notoriety (such as Slenderman), the digital age is a more recent phenomenon, and it has hardly passed anything down through generations, if any at all. The necessity of such a position is not needed at this point. I by no means have room to talk, because I am blog for fun (and free), but I would never adopt such a ludicrous title to describe myself. Anyway, that man and the latter half of the movie touched on the ever increasing influence of electronics and the importance they have in the everyday lives of most people. The father of Anissa felt had he not given his daughter a tablet she may not have gone down the path she had. His younger son is being mandated to use one in schools and the increasing necessity and reliance on technology worries him. At times it seemed like the film focused on technology almost as much as the crimes, without ever really acknowledging that it is doing so.

Despite all of the imagery surrounding Slenderman, I felt the creeper element of the movie was the videotaped confessions of both girls during their interviews. The way they responded to several questions just sent a chill down my spine. At one point Morgan mentioned how the girls didn’t kill Bella at the sleepover they were all at, because she wanted to give Bella one more morning, to see if the feeling to murder her would subside. Throughout, both girls phrased and said things in such a disturbing manner, that was emphasized by their young age at the time. After seeing the footage, the denial of their appeal (to be tried as children instead of adult, because of their age) seemed like the right decision. I do think it is unfortunate that children at such a young age may face a significant amount of time behind bars, but given their confessions, it is obvious the entire ordeal was premeditated with intent to kill, and once Bella was stabbed, she was left their to die. They were quite aware of their actions and there was no psychotic break. While I feel they deserve to be reprimanded for their actions, I do hope they are also able to receive guidance and therapy and Morgan will learn how to understand her schizophrenia and live with it.

I definitely think this movie is a great choice for anyone interested in crime related entertainment. Perhaps it is due to my close proximity to the crimes, but I felt engaged the entire time. While the pacing could have been improved, I felt like the overall product was well constructed and I would give it an 8 out of 10. It will definitely be interesting to see the story unfold and see whether a follow up will ever be produced.


Making a Murderer

It has been quite sometime since I have written a review or discussed my opinions on films, movies, shows, documentaries and other things. Primarily I was focusing on theatre for the majority of last year, then I was spending a lot of time working, and then I began work on several writing and editing projects. However, I have decided to start posting reviews again, and I feel like a great place to start is with Making a Murderer. There has been quite a bit of buzz around the show and I am going to discuss the merits of the documentary and my thoughts about the case itself. Please note, I have very minimal background knowledge about crime, laws, and procedures associated with trials, so if any information I provide is incorrect or flawed, I apologize. I am by no means a professional in this field and I am merely sharing my perspective about the whole situation.

With my reviews (as far back as I can remember) I would begin with discussing my perception of the overall merit of the piece (cinematography, pacing, overall story, etc.). Therefore, that is where I will begin with this my thoughts on Making a Murderer. For a production that was released in 2015, I was not overly impressed with the quality of the film itself. I needed to remind myself that most of the footage was shot around ten years ago, when the trials were going on, but about 90% of the footage was at a lower resolution and I think more current footage could have been spliced in. It was not a huge issue, but it felt like my eyes were not well adjusted to the screen.

I felt like the ten episode docuseries could have been condensed down a little bit. Quite a bit of the footage was repetitive and several segments could have been shortened with text like they did at other moments throughout the documentary. The benefit of the longer run time, in my opinion, was that it let the audience become more sympathetic for the Avery family and relatives. Personally, I felt quite awful for Steven Avery’s parents, and had they not included all of those moments with them, I may have never felt that way.

Now there are a few things I want to discuss about the show, so if you’re interested in whether I think Steven or Brendan are innocent or guilty, skip below to the bottom of my review for my specific thoughts on both of them (I will bold it).

One of the worst things that I think happens during any type of criminal case is that family of the accused are targeted by the press, media, and upset citizens. I personally do not care whether a person is found innocent or guilty, I think it is wrong to attack the families of accused or convicted felons. There have been plenty of cases of a terrible upbringing leading to someone becoming a criminal, but that doesn’t mean people should send nasty notes or death threats to the parents or siblings of the accused. It is despicable practice and if anyone does it, they should be ashamed.

A frustrating aspect of the entire case was that the state was not held accountable for the initial imprisonment. While I think the 36 million dollar settlement would have been a bit much, I do think that Avery and the others involved should have received more than the 400,000 dollars that they received and more action should have been taken against those that did not perform their respective duties in the manner that needed to be done. An innocent man spent 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit, because of a faulty justice system that was more concerned with revenge over following the appropriate actions that were supposed to have been taken. As well, I think it is absolutely ludicrous that people involved with his rape case and the lawsuit against his wrongful imprisonment were allowed to be part of the homicide case. I do not know how much it holds up in courts, but there clearly would have been a conflict of interest no matter how unbiased the officers claimed to be.

I think most people who watch the series would say the four most despicable men involved are Mark, Fassbender, Len, and Ken Kratz. From the perspective of the docuseries, it seems that Mark and Fassbender coerced a confession out of Brendan. The two men kept telling him to “be honest” any time that he answered until he gave an answer that they deemed satisfactory. Len, who was meant to defend Brendan, essentially threw him under the bus and did very little to actually help him. Instead of trying to prove his innocence it seemed like he was more interested in Brendan accepting a guilty plea or finding him guilty. Either situation would have helped in the Steven Avery trial and would have added more evidence against him. My personal least favorite person during the trial was Ken Kratz. His unbearable voice made me want to switch on closed captioning and press mute whenever he appeared on screen. However, it seemed he approached the trial in an unprofessional manner and I feel he released details of the case before the trial, and that could have lead to a tainted jury.

My thoughts on the two of them:

Steven Avery – Inconclusive

Brendan Dassey – Innocent

Due to evidence provided in the documentary, I do not think there was enough evidence to convict Steven Avery of murder. The biggest thing that I think the prosecutors had against Avery was the blood in the Rav4. If the tests would have came back  having said that the chemical from the test tube was in that blood, I think that would be the proof I need to say he is completely innocent. Everything else, in my opinion, should not have held up in court. With the key, why would it have only his fingerprints on it and none of Teresa Halbach’s? The DNA from the bullet was tainted by the lab technician that was looking at it. The fact that very little of her blood was discovered on the site just seems incredibly unlikely. Nothing against Avery or Brendan, but neither man seemed intelligent enough to think to be that thorough when cleaning. In general, it seemed like the majority of the factors that comprised his conviction were based on circumstantial evidence. The main question remains, if he didn’t do it, then who did? That is where I think the police failed in both cases against Steven Avery. As mentioned in the film, the prosecutors had “tunnel vision” and seemingly went only after him. I just feel like there is not enough tangible evidence to necessarily say he did or did not commit the murder.

For Brendan, I think he was given a corrupt lawyer and at least deserves a retrial. As far as I remember only his testimony placed him at the crime scene. I could be wrong, but none of the physical evidence provided in the series tied him to being associated with the crime. Without seeing his entire interrogations, it appears that he was lead to make the confessions that he did and the investigators took advantage of a teenager who did not have the mental capacities to realize the gravity of the situation.

All in all, I think it is a good watch. It might be a bit boring to those who are not really interested in watching court cases. However, it shows the plight of an accused man, and more often than not, people don’t really get this perspective in this type of situation. If anyone reading this saw the original trial and then saw this show, I would love to hear if views have changed after watching this. Also, if anyone wants to comment, I would love to have a conversation about your thoughts on the case. I do think the docuseries is biased by focusing more on his innocence than showing a middle ground, but nonetheless it is a thought provoking show and had already engaged quite a huge number of people. Only the future will show whether more of this case will unravel and we will get more of a definitive answer of who the culprit was and if either man will get a second chance.

Fat, Sick & Nearly Dead – Documentary

Another suggestion and another review. This documentary was perfect for what I was using it for, background noise. A few days ago I was trying to work on a project for a play I am in, and instead of sitting in the silence, I decided to put this on in the background. While what I said in the second sentence might sound harsh, I think I may have been bored even more by the end of the film had I paid attention the entire time.

The documentary is about a man named Joe Cross who is an overweight man with a lot of health concerns in his life. He has some immune disorder where his body will break out in rashes because the body thinks it is under attack. The example he uses is that when someone gets bit by a mosquito, their skin will swell in that spot, and it is a reaction by the body to help prevent toxins from bite to spread further. For him, his body has this reaction to random touches or scratches.

Anyway, Joe Cross decides to improve his health by going on a juice cleanse where he will fast for sixty days and the only thing he will consume are fruit and vegetable juices. However, he will only be using his own personal juicer, because the fruits and vegetables won’t be as processed or sugary as supermarket juices. Along his journey, he comes across a man named Phil Staples, who is a large truck driver who weighs over 400 pounds. Phil has the same condition as Joe, and he wants to lose weight to get healthier and happier. The first half is primarily focused on Joe losing weight and the second half is more focused on Phil.

One of the (few) good points brought up from the film is that losing weight and trying to be healthier is something that is determined by each individual person. While making his way across America, Joe comes across numerous people that he tells his story to. He’ll ask these people questions about their health and if they would do something like the cleanse or if they are concerned about their weight, and most people he runs into are apathetic and either don’t care about their weight or find themselves too lazy to do anything about it.

Although I wasn’t paying full attention to the movie, I don’t recall the documentary using a lot of statistics or scientific data. I think there might have been some moments here and there, but largely it was focused on this juice cleanse and while it apparently helped alleviate some symptoms and helps people lose weight, the film doesn’t discuss any potentially negative side effects. None of the “professionals” (as far as I remember) discuss much about the fruit cleanse. They will talk about food and the general health of people, but I don’t recall them discussing much of what Joe or Phil are doing.

The movie did focus, minutely, on the cost of fresh fruits and vegetables, but the movie used it to compare to the price of prescription drugs some of the people were on to treat their different illnesses. Over the past year I have seen several documentaries that have touched on health and food, and there is one big issue that Fat, Sick, & Nearly Dead missed out on, a lot of unhealthy food can be bought in bulk for cheaper. A lot of whole food or organic stores will provide healthy options, but usually it comes at a higher cost. Bringing up how pricey medication can get was a good idea, but the movie didn’t show all sides of the issue they it should have.

I give this documentary a 4 out of 10. While it was nice to see a healthier alternative for people to lose weight, the movie (as other reviewers have said) seemed more like a two hour long infomercial than it did a documentary. The format of the movie was also a little odd. I understand everything happened chronologically, but the movie seemed like two different segments, because Joe has finished his fasting halfway through the movie and the second half was focused on Phil. It made the documentary seem divided. The biggest fault, in my opinion, was the fact that it really didn’t include many facts. While eating fresh fruits and vegetables can be healthy, it didn’t really tell the viewer on ways to maintain healthy eating habits. A better title would have been Long, Boring, and Nearly Educational.

King of Kong – Fistful of Quarters – Documentary

This documentary was filmed prior to and released in 2007. The documentary is about two men, Steve Wiebe and Billy Mitchell, and a feud (of sorts) that arose between the two men who both held high scores on the 80’s arcade version of Donkey Kong. Billy Mitchell was the originally nationally recognized record holder for the highest score (back in the 80’s), up until the 2000’s when Steve Wiebe scored a higher score on his home arcade game and began receiving recognition for being the best player. From here the documentary dives into people discrediting Wiebe’s high score for alleged tampering of his game board and his attempts to reach a new high score in an official setting.

I will give King of Kong: Fistful of Quarters a 5 of 10, because I felt like the movie was less entertaining and more thought provoking. While I do like playing video games, I am not an avid player (especially not to the caliber of the people who are in the film), but I think people who are not “gamers” can still enjoy this film. Watching a movie, I like to be moved or come away feeling affected in someway, but I never felt an emotional connection to the documentary.

One of the things I appreciated the most is that the founder of the video game record company Twin Galaxies, Walter Day, brought up the fact that this rivalry is just as heated as any sports team rivalry. Personally, I feel like most competitions outside of sports are not recognized as much as they should be. I am not into sports, but I understand why other people like it and have an appreciation for it, even if I don’t. I wish people shared that type of mentality with things like this, because while it may not mean a lot to them, it means a lot to the people that are part of the competition.

The way that Billy Mitchell is portrayed reminded me of a conversation I had the other day with a few friends about people staying stagnant or evolving. Billy seems like the type of person who achieved a level of greatness early on in his life, and he was able to uphold that for nearly two decades, but never really grew much as a person after that initial success. The documentary shows he a successful businessman, but it still seems like the success he has in his business is rooted in the accomplishment he made with the video game. Instead of letting the high score define a moment in his life, he let that moment define him. Which raises the question: how many people in his position would do the same thing? If someone became a great success or famous overnight, how long would they let that single thing define who they are as an individual?

One of the issues that arises in the film is that Steve submitted a high score with a video tape, but it was dismissed because reviewers from Twin Galaxies (an official video game record keeping company) felt that his machine was not up to standard and may have been tampered with, but when Billy submitted a video tape with a high score, despite having unaccounted score jumps visible in the video, Billy’s high score was credited as the new high score and Steve’s was not. According to the Wikipedia page, this was recognized and an apologize was issued to Steve Wiebe, but it shows that the Twin Galaxies institution was flawed at the time. People were obsessed with Billy Mitchell to the point they allowed certain discrepancies to pass, partially because of who he was. I think this reflects heavily on a lot of different institutions that might not recognize the full effort or talent of certain people in favor of presenting someone else more recognizable or relatable. Instead of giving credit or a chance to a person deserving of it, they would prefer to stick with what people they are more comfortable with (the whole “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it” mentality). Whether it was dues to more consideration or the documentary coming out, it seems like the company has mended their policies and is taking a more impartial stance than it used to.

Overall, it was not my favorite film I have watched lately. I watched the entire thing because I wanted to see whether Steve would accomplish his goal of having the highest score or not. I feel like parts could have been cut out to make it shorter, certain segments seemed unnecessary, but it still had some entertainment value. As stated earlier, this film made me think and reflect more than it entertained me. You win some, you lose some.

Playground: The Child Sex Trade in America – Documentary

*****Note: I don’t go into any graphic details in this post, but it is a sensitive topic for some, so if you are not comfortable with this type of topic do not continue to read this article or view this documentary.*****

For a while when I would scroll through documentaries to watch on Netflix, the cover for this documentary would stick out to me. The cover is blue with a drawing of a swing set on it, nothing special, but the simplicity of the cover is what grabbed my eye. At first I was a bit weary about watching this documentary, because in my eyes one of the worst things that can happen are crimes committed against children. Whether it is sexual, physical, emotional, mental or any other form, it is disturbing and wrong and I usually cannot bear to read or watch something that talks about it. However, this film did not bother me as much as I expected.

The film begins with discussion about the sex trade in Asian countries, but then it shifts to focus on America. I felt like there was not a good enough of a transition between talking about the underage sex trade in both countries and the focus shift came abruptly. Obviously, there is a connection, but it was handled poorly and Asia was never revisited again later in the movie. From time to time statistics popped up, but it was a comparison of the entire world instead of comparing it to Asia. In my opinion, there was no need to discuss anything about the Asian sex trade.

One thing I learned that I thought that was really interesting in the movie was that children and teenagers under the age of eighteen can still be considered sex offenders. It isn’t a thought that had really crossed my mind before, because when I hear the term “sex offender” I tend to think it applies to pedophiles or people who are rapists, which tends to be older individuals. According to the film, the spectrum of sex offenders can go anywhere from intense sexual deviant acts down to public urination or publicly exposing genitalia. While those lesser acts are still wrong, it shouldn’t hold the same weight as someone who did actual physical or sexual abuse. This brought up a good point in the film that America focuses more on catching and jailing criminals than it does to help prevent or rehabilitate offenders so continual behavior doesn’t happen.

There were drawings in the film…I have no clue why. They were pretty good drawings of simple little scenes that would unfold using drawings of a variety of different kids. I was glad that they drawings pretty much just showed the kids doing mundane activities and were not used as reenactments. However, I don’t really understand the point of them. Occasionally, when a woman would be talking, a drawing would pop up and do something, but I felt like they were distracting. Maybe that was their purpose and it was better than having to stare at a blurred out face for a few minutes, but I would find myself getting lost watching the animation instead of listening to the story. I just felt like there was a more effective way to use the drawings.

The “plot” (and I use that term pretty loosely) focuses on the narrator and various people trying to find a girl by the name of Michelle. She was sexually abused very early on in her life, was essentially sold into prostitution, and then went missing for nearly fifteen years (I could be wrong with that amount, but I think it had been a considerable amount of time since she was last seen.) Past foster parents and an old social worker wanted to make sure she was okay, and through a variety of ways, the filmmakers were finally able to get a hold of her. Much like the drawings, I don’t understand why there was such a heavy focus on her.

I will give this documentary a 5 out of 10. It was informational, but did not offer many things that were new or exciting. The film just lacked much of a direction or aim. It went from focusing on the Asian sex trade, to the American sex trade, then it focused on Michelle and her journey, resulting in a sloppy outcome. If one element would have been focused on, it would have been much better. A few former child prostitutes shared their stories, and I found their discussions a lot more interesting than most of what was discussed about Michelle. Don’t get me wrong, I am sorry she went through what she did and has had to lead a hard life, but her personality didn’t allow for a great viewing experience. I can only imagine how incredibly painful it would be to relive and discuss certain things like that, but her tone came across as bored and it left me feeling bored afterwards too.

Suggestions 4/8/2015

Hello everyone!

I am looking for suggestions of new television shows, movies, and documentaries to watch. I do have a list of documentaries I want to start on that were already recommend, but I am still open for more suggestions. When it comes to television I want shows that either have fairly short episodes that I can binge watch fast or a series that only has a handful of seasons. Due to work and rehearsals, I don’t want to take on a five season or more show, because I don’t want to dedicate all of my free time to watching a show. With movies, I am not the biggest fan of gore and horror, but I will still watch them. I have a massive collection of DVDs, but I’m always looking for something else new to watch. It tends to be easier to just watch something on my laptop than using a DVD player.

Mainly, I want to write about things people want to read about. Whether it is good, bad, or somewhere in between, I would love suggestions on things to watch. Maybe I’ll love your favorite show or maybe I’ll hate it, we’ll see. Either leave a comment on this blog post or on either of the other social media platforms this posts on and I will try to get to it as quickly as I can.

Coming up soon I will write about: Playground (documentary) and Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt (television show).

Here is an updated list based on suggestions:
Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt
The Slap
King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters
Boy Meets Girl
Garfunkel and Oates
Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead
Lily Hammer
Gravity Falls
Peep Show

Serial Killer Culture – Documentary

First of all, I would not recommend this movie to the faint of heart or easily offended.

From now on, I will no longer follow the structure I set out for myself when I first began writing on here. I feel like a more productive way to review the material I watch is in a more organic manner instead of trying to force myself to comment on each separate element, because movies, documentaries, televisions and plays do not always focus on the areas that I originally wanted to discuss.

While scrolling through the documentaries on Netflix, I was searching for ones that sounded familiar from the ones that were suggested to me both a few weeks ago and last year. That is when I came across one titled Serial Killer Culture.  I have always found serial killers interesting, because I cannot imagine the thought process that a killer possesses that allows them to commit all of these horrific crimes. Based off of the description of the movie that was provided, I thought that it would delve into why people in general get intrigued by serial killers through discussion with the thirteen or so different people that were interviewed. Boy, was I wrong. The overall tone I gleaned from the film was that the majority of the artists and collectors just did what they did, because they found the killers to be interesting. There were a few who had scarring occurrences happen to them at some point in their life, from one person who dealt with the murder of a girlfriend to a grown man discussing finding graphic pictures (his father kept of prisoners he mutilated when he was in a war) as a kid.

Now, I have seen several other documentaries before that discuss serial killers, such as Cropsey, and the people had correspondence with the serial killer, but I was under the impression that most of the time it was strictly for the purpose of creating a film or writing a book to document the case. After seeing this movie, I realized there is a group of people who write to these killers just for the heck of it. Some of the artists and collectors will even write to the killers to gain more pieces for their collection.

Serial Killer Culture did have some great moments. One thing brought up towards the end of the film is the use of the term “monsters” to discuss serial killers. The man who discussed this brought up how even though they did these heinous crimes, they are still in fact humans. Quite often people will write killers off as subhuman and vile things, but at the end of the day, they are still real people that just had something snap or happen in their brain that allowed them to commit all of these horrible crimes, and I think that is where the fascination comes from for “normal” people. A “normal” person just wants to understand the inner working of the brain that allows them to pursue these unjust and unlawful actions. It was also brought up earlier in the film that some of the collectors and artists in the film idolize and put the killers on a pedestal, but at the same time news outlets often popularize and make serial killers a household name. People would not even be aware of half of these people if it wasn’t for media sources constant reporting on them.

Despite some good messages here and there, the movie was poorly executed. Every time someone new was introduced the person would get a few lines out and then the frame would freeze and their name with whether they were an artist or a collector would appear accompanied by the same cheesy riff. This got annoying and boring very quickly. The first few clips of the film might make the viewer seasick, because the the camera will constantly zoom in and out and shake as it pans across the collections. This does not happen as frequently later in the film, but that does not mean the cinematography got any better. Lastly, I wish they should have found a wider range of collectors/artists to interview. The film primarily focused on musicians, artists, and collectors. Within each of the categories, the people all seemed like the same type of person. It came across to me that some of the people in the film tried to play up a shock value or tried intentionally to be creepy (the first musician duo has a member that could give Suzanne Warren (played by Uzo Aduba) a run for her money for the title of “Crazy Eyes”). There was one group interviewed that discussed Dahmer tours in Milwaukee, but that was the only stand out as being relatively unique because they were not necessarily artists or collectors, but more like “historians” trying to share his tale and the back story of the places he was active.

I’d give this documentary a 4 out of 10. As someone who does find the topic of serial killers interesting, this film did not keep me that captivated. I kept watching in hopes that it would eventually get better, and some people were more interesting than others, but I felt the order of the interviews was sloppy and some people could have been cut. I actually went to bed before finishing the nearly two hour documentary. The most redeeming moment probably was someone mentioning that they do not want to profit off of the deaths or the sorrow of the family of the victims. The collectors/artists (mostly) want to just share the story and let people know these things have happened. If you’re interested in serial killers, you’ll see some oddities you may not have seen before, but nothing too new or exciting is ever discussed.