User Reviews

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.

Albert Fish, like H.H. Holmes before him, was a serial killer before serial killers were commonplace names like Ted Bundy and the Son of Sam. Even as one of the first known serial killers in America, Fish was one of the most disgusting, perverted, and vicious murderers in history. He was a vile, sadistic, and despicable child murderer & cannibal and I would be hard pressed to find many more humans to be more disgusting in this world's history.

However, this review is not for the horrible man that was Albert Fish, but for the documentary, 'Albert Fish: In Sin He Found Salvation.' Before viewing, one should realize what this documentary is about. I do not believe this film's main goal was to be informative. Much of the film was about the 'shock' of the events of Albert Fish's life and crimes. Information was regularly repeated, but in just more dramatic ways. The film itself was compiled well, however. The dramatizations are well done, the structure of the film flows well, and the narration is fantastic.

If you're unfamiliar with the life of Albert Fish and looking for basic information with flair, this documentary is for you. However, if you already have done your research on the monster that is Albert Fish, watch this film for nothing more than seeing what you already know exhibited in new ways.

Final Verdict: 7/10.

-AP3-

Ok. Gotta few issues with this 'documentary':

1. Joe Coleman. I think anyone who watched this documentary in its entirety knows what I'm about to say. As if the fact of him being a painter and being interviewed about psychology isn't bad enough, the man doesn't keep quiet about the fact that he adores Fish and his acts, calling him a God at one point and claiming that Fish should be allowed to speak...? Yes, one or two of his sentences are plausible. But 98% of his monotone rambling is disconcerting and uncomfortable. Not to mention he claims Fish "couldn't have done what he did to her (Grace) if he didn't love her."

2. The Reenactments. I personally am not one for reenactments seen as they don't add anything to a story anyway. But these reenactments were beyond awful. Firstly, they were way too long (one lasting about 100 seconds in counting). Secondly, they were very cheaply done, to the point of it being almost pitiful. Thirdly, they were completely unnecessary. I mean, random cuts of a man playing Fish walking either down a street or through some woodlands or simply him staring at the camera being 'creepy'. It's just not needed when dealing with an already disturbing subject. Let's not even discuss the self-flagellation scenes shall we.

3. Shock Value. A documentary informs us of the information. This documentary shocks us of the information. And that's not to say this shouldn't be disturbing. It's the story of a sickening man with sickening desires, of course it'll be disturbing. But, come on. Voice overs of Fish murdering Grace and her screaming whilst the disturbing letter is read? And the emphasis on certain words like 'eat'-which is repeated three times in a row at one point during a terrible dream sequence. Furthermore, the same deep bass drop is used over and over and over whenever something 'shocking' is said or described. Needless to say, Borowski (the director) really doesn't do just to the victims by using their murders as shock tactics.

I think I've said enough. There is much more I could describe but this page doesn't need an essay. The DVD is actually selling on Amazon for just under £70. Which says an awful lot. It's a strange piece of film, if you want to learn about Fish, read Deranged by Harold Schechter, but be prepared. It's not an easy read. This film has less information than a book which was released eight years prior.

All in all... terrible.

First off, I was expecting a different type of film with ALBERT FISH than what I got. For some reason, I was under the impression that the film would be a "dramatization" of Fish's life, but instead got a pretty straight-forward documentary. As far as documentaries go, it holds up pretty well, but I didn't really get a lot from this film that I didn't already know about Fish already.

ALBERT FISH chronicles the life and crimes of the sexually-deviant serial-killer of the same name. We are given some background on his upbringing and some by-the-book details of some of the crimes that Fish admitted to when he was finally caught and imprisoned.

This documentary is relatively interesting and the facts are handled well - I just found that the information that was provided was much the same as any information that could be gleaned by reading any material about Fish. I didn't really learn anything new or find this particular docu to be very enlightening or provide any new insights to the man or his actions. Worth a look to docu-enthusiasts, or to anyone who may be interested in Albert Fish but doesn't know any details about him. Those that are already familiar with Fish and his actions will probably not gain a whole lot from this one...6.5/10

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.

Like before, in his 2004 documentary about "America's first serial killer" H.H. Holmes, Borowski focuses on a monstrous serial killer: the cannibal Albert Fish.

Though he manages to vividly portray Fish as driven by an excessive religious belief, Bukowski's film is not free from lame dramaturgical tricks: Red paint symbolizing blood, awkward musical arrangements to highlight dramatic climaxes, and so on...

But Fish is a thankful subject. His story is so bizarre and stunning that you get completely sucked into the tale. Credible proof is delivered that he was not insane but simply sexually deranged, and driven by a perverted form of Catholicism - His cannibalism is compared to the holy communion ("eat my flesh, drink my blood and I shall become a part of you") All in all, a compelling documentary with some weak moments.