David Satterlee ...at least they didn't have to sit through this piece of garbage!Take an interesting subject and present it with the directorial finesse of a mentally retarded 12-year-old on Quaaludes who's just been handed a video camera and you'll come up with something pretty close to this pseudo-documentary. I'm not sure what was more entertaining, the fake mustaches in imminent danger of falling off during the reenactments or trying to count the number of different ways the director tried to use the same three pictures of the perpetrator.And let's not forget the 1,914 uses of the closing-iris-fade-to-black effect (not sure what it's called but if you managed to get through at least 10 minutes of this cinematic abortion then you'll know what I'm referring to.) Perhaps the best use of "H.H. Holmes - America's First Serial Killer" would be as a primer on how *not* to edit a movie.Look up "amateurish" in the dictionary and it'll lead you to HHH-AFSK. Those with in interest in the exploits of the good doctor would be best served to read Erik Larson's "The Devil in the White City" or, at the very least, to look him up on Wikipedia.Ugh...I think I need to go take a shower.

Der_Schnibbler 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.

Syl 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.

Martin Wagner I came to this movie after seeing its rave review on Bloody-Disgusting.com. A fan of historical crime writer Harold Schechter's (who is interviewed in this film), I was surprised and delighted to see someone had attempted a documentary on H.H. Holmes, the subject of Schechter's book "Depraved". Then again, I suppose it wasn't too surprising, given the bestseller success of Erik Larsen's "The Devil in the White City", and the upcoming movie of same.John Borowski knows his way around the documentary form, inter-cutting vintage photos, interviews, and clever re-enactments with a strong sense of balance. HHH:AFSK succeeds in conveying a sense of time and place, and communicating Holmes's psychosis. The narrative is gripping, and there's never a dull moment here. Unlike a lot of indie documentary directors, Borowski knows that making a documentary is still all about Film-making, not merely filmed journalism.If HHH:AFSK lacks in any department, it is in conveying the full, jaw-dropping magnitude of Holmes's most audacious crime: his systematic murder of the Pitezel family, carried out while manipulating them to travel in two separate groups halfway across the US and even into Canada. Borowski also leaves out the detail that, on this evil trek, Holmes was also dragging along one of his three clueless wives! Borowski surprisingly rushes through the journey, making it all seem like just another of Holmes's outrageous deeds. Compared to the way Schechter evoked the cruelty of Holmes's actions and the heartbreaking emotional trauma suffered by the Pitezel children's mother in his book "Depraved", Borowski misses a chance for some really strong emotional depth.But some things are, I suppose, going to get left out in an hour-long production. The running time is kind of odd. Too long to sell to TV (this film is certainly worthy of the History Channel, on which I have seen considerably worse stuff), too short for feature length. And yet, by the time it's over, you feel that to go to 90 minutes might have been just a shade too much. At 64 minutes, HHH:AFSK is perhaps just right, artistically — though 70-75 would have been ideal, allowing Borowski to flesh out the story as I described above. Commercially, 64 minutes is problematic. Perhaps a direct-to-DVD release was all Borowski had in mind from the first.Veteran actor Tony Jay provides brilliant narration with his one-of-a-kind voice (why isn't this man more famous!?), and there's a swell orchestral, Bernard Hermann-esquire score that I'm surprised Borowski was able to get. If anything gave me an unintentional smile watching the DVD, it was perhaps Borowski's tireless self-promotion in the bonus materials. I'd have gladly sacrificed Borowski's efforts on his making-of featurette if he had channeled that work into just a bit more of his documentary.A worthy film for fans of true crime and American history rolled into one.