Me personally? Have lost alot of respect for Mr Roth, particularly in his need to attempt to add nostalgia into the production - but moreover than just, what could be described as subjective criticisms, I found that this documentary favored the "quality' of recreation of anecdotal evidence and the needless addition of tasteless gore, above the recounting of the crime in a factually clear, concise and correct manner. Often times we don't know who is speaking, or if/when it's revealed we have no understanding of any real connection or relevance to the victem or even the case. In addition to that, very important details or even critical details are revealed at times and in ways that are either too casual (ik that's a poor choice of verbiage) or simply too ambiguously and that unfortunate cause it makes for poor story telling ergo a poor documentary. Ultimately and in my opinion, Eli Roth seemed to value his own narration his highly produced recreations, above the subject matter and any reverence or respect for the many victims that surely rippled throughout the families friends and community.
And finally and i hesitate to even suggest this but does anyone actually believe that a child would subscribe to beliefs in the devil and contracts with demons, had he first not been indoctrinatated into Christianity? (I had written a ton more but this app blanked me and frankly I can't be bothered to re write something non if you will read anyway :( )
