UnowPriceless hyped garbage

ShangLuda Admirable film.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

O2D This is the story about how the world's foremost authority on gas chambers and all methods of executions proved that the Nazi "gas chambers" could have never operated the way historians claim. It completely destroyed his life, proving that Jews control the world. I assume Errol Morris wasn't intending on letting his feelings be known but it seems like he tries hard to make Leuchter look like a bad man and he consistently fails. It's really strange that he would make dramatic recreations of stuff that happened. That has no place in a documentary. The most interesting thing about the movie is that everyone who tries to discredit or insult Leuchter has absolutely no facts or real argument. They can only say things like he "desecrated a holy land" or "wasn't qualified". After the Jewish man who did the tests on the concrete samples and then testified that his results and report were 100% accurate and true, found out what the trial was about, he quickly says that he performed the wrong tests. The only argument anyone can muster is "you have to be crazy to say this". They claim Leuchter just wanted the spotlight but it's very clear that's not true. He was dragged into a court case and provided expert testimony, without bias. The only accurate statement his detractors made is that he came from nowhere and returned to nowhere. It's not only true, it's all he wanted and it doesn't even matter. This movie proves he is right.

John Smith Here's the major lie by omission - the film and interview of the chemist conveniently excludes the fact that Leuchter also took brick samples from the delousing chambers at the camps in the exact same way as he did from the alleged homicidal gas chambers. His delousing chamber samples registered extremely high amounts of cyanide, proving that the cyanide is in fact easily detectable, even when diluted due to the crushing of large samples.Further, the archives were misrepresented as evidence. The items claimed as evidence were normally ordered and used in all camps in the delousing chambers, even the dozens of camps in Germany which have since been proved to have never had any homicidal gas chambers at all. The homicidal gas chamber lie originally included camps in Germany and several other occupied countries, but over time as more research has been completed, claims of homicidal gas chambers have been dis-proved in nearly all camps except for the remaining few in Soviet captured Poland that Leuchter tested. See the controversy about Leuchter? With his testing, the last bit of the homicidal gas chamber lie is laid to rest. That embarrasses many people. The documents in the archive are nothing but evidence of materials for normal delousing chambers that were used in all camps to actually keep prisoners alive by treating clothing and buildings to eliminate Typhus carrying lice - the real killer in the camps. Many thousands continued to die of Typhus even after the camps were liberated. The film goes further in deceiving people by claiming that "Vergasungskeller" used in the archives is evidence of homicidal gas chambers, since it means gasification chamber, but this is actually what the delousing chambers were referred to. Homicidal chambers would be called "Gaskammer."For those more knowledgeable about the actual lack of evidence, it's clear this film was made for one reason; to attack Fred A. Leuchter because he's a threat to the homicidal gas chamber lie being dis-proved in the last few camps. The film relies on opinionated slander from Holocaust Museum employees calling Leuchter names like, "Neo-Nazi," lying through omission and distortion of evidence, clips of Hitler mixed in to stir emotion, and even weird camera angles, dark lighting, and odd music all in an attempt to attack Mr. Leuchter.One positive about the film is that it probably backfires on some, stirring their interest to do actual research into the subject. However, because the film is clearly designed to protect a lie and slander someone, I cannot give it more than one star. Lies and slander about such an important subject are unacceptable.If you want to see a good film watch David Cole's actual tour and interview of the curator of the main Auschwitz camp. The curator admits there were no homicidal gas chambers found after the war. Obviously, the Soviets created them out of regular buildings in order to fabricate evidence to match the war propaganda they had spread. David Cole is a Jew by the way, and his film is called David Cole Interviews Dr. Franciszek Piper.We've all been told a tremendous lie. There never were any homicidal gas chambers.

MartinHafer In recent months, I've really grown to love documentaries--having seen some truly exceptional ones. As a psychology teacher, these sort of films make great fodder for discussions with my students. I haven't shown them MR. DEATH, but might consider doing so in the future since the main character is so bizarre and difficult to comprehend.The film is unusual in that the first third of the film is amazingly different than the rest of the film. It seemed as if the man who was the focus of the film (Fred Leuchter) was an entirely different person in the final 2/3 of the movie. This was very clever film making--throwing the audience a curve-ball, so to speak. As a result, the audience which initially probably felt somewhat sympathetic towards this very odd man, are now transformed into charter members of the "I hate Fred Club"! As the film begins, you'll notice that there is no traditional voice-over narration--instead, Fred and a variety of others talk on camera as narration. It seems that Fred has become a bit of an authority on how to humanely execute criminals (an interesting oxymoron). Oddly, while he has some advanced training and is obviously very bright, he seems way overconfident in himself and his abilities. He also seemed quite ghoulish in his excitement about his trade (building and remodeling all types of death equipment), but on the other he also seems pretty decent as he talks about how its wrong to make people feel pain or make the executions too grisly. He felt his job was a positive thing in order to make the execution as easy on the recipient as possible. While this may or may not have been the purpose of the film, the overall message did a lot to make me think twice about the death penalty--especially when he talked about how messy and disgusting the process actually was. Television and movie portrayals are WAY too sanitized and hearing Fred talk about the process is very disturbing.Then, almost completely out of the blue, the film discusses Fred's involvement in a court battle in Canada concerning "hate speech". A holocaust denier was going on trial for publishing booklets saying that there wasn't any widespread killing of Jews by the Nazis. Fred was hired as an "expert witness" to testify for the defense even though he really didn't have formal training in executions or mass exterminations (it was more a hobby or he was a semi-pro in the field). The film then follows him to Auschwitz as he illegally takes samples to prove that no gassings occurred there. While Fred seems very confident of his methodology, the film makers later reveal that in many ways he had no idea what he was talking about nor did he know how to take proper samples.The sad part about the film is not just how he was used by the neo-Nazis but how Fred was so dogmatic and narcissistic that he could not allow himself to question his methodology or objectivity. As a result, Fred's life was destroyed and at the same time, he became a celebrity, of sorts, on the neo-Nazi talk circuit. So on one hand, he's lost his job,wife and home, he's hated by practically everyone---and on the other, he's the darling of pinheads all over the world! By the end of the film, Fred is as dogmatic as ever--even as his life goes down in flames! As far as how the film was constructed, it was excellent. Fortunately for the film maker (Errol Morris), there was film of a young Fred cavorting about prisons with his father (who worked there) and when sampling the death camp for evidence of cyanide, there was also a film crew of his own documenting the process. Morris was able to integrate these into present day video to produce an intriguing but highly confusing and disturbing film. While this film is definitely not for everyone, those who have a high tolerance for the weird and a desire to learn about odd personalities are strongly encouraged to give this one a try. Just be prepared to feel that Fred is quite the enigma and answers won't be very easy to find. Also be prepared to both hate the man and yet feel a tad sorry for him at the same time--a truly odd and jarring experience for me.For more information about Fred, try the following link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_A._Leuchter). Unlike some Wikipedia articles, this one seems rather sound--with decent documentation. I particularly was surprised to see that Fred was not even an engineer but had a BA in history and he was definitely practicing as a trained engineer!! Even the Errol Morris documentary didn't catch that!

Predator-11 The smartest thing for Fred Leuchter to do when confronted with the notion of providing proof as to the reality of the Holocaust would've been to simply say no. But since he was clearly unwilling to do so, the next best thing would be to would be to approach the situation objectively and scientifically. In the film he says several times that he was looking for evidence to prove the existence of gas chambers in Auschwitz, and was unable to find any. He also states that the sites were exactly the same as they were back in the 1940s, although he offers no evidence to back-up this assumption. He has absolutely no way of knowing what has happened to the chambers over the course of 40-50 years. A scientist would've realized this and come to the conclusion that the evidence he was gathering could potentially be flawed. Instead he approaches his task with the assumption that any information he gathers is 100% correct and that no tampering is possible, which is a fatal mistake. The fact of the matter is that Fred Leuchter has absolutely no idea what he's talking about, the way in which he gathered evidence and conducted his investigation was fundimentally flawed. He should've understood this and testified to that effect. For whatever reason he decided to jump to the conclusion that he was correct under any circumstance and propagated lies because of it. For this reason he is deserving of any repricussions that resulted from his actions. I have no sympathy for a man that is blinded by his own ego, or whatever it was that caused him to close his mind to many legitimate possibilities.