Plenty of interest here especially for those new to his story.
All, yes he evades a lot of direct answers but heck, those interview segments are only a small part of the film. Plus in many cases he simply vacillates before giving a form of answer that while legally non-committal, it's still obvious what he is indicating. When he does this it's about as subtle as a house brick through you window so you won't miss it (unless your a little intellectually stunted). To expect anything other than that also indicates a lack of understanding that answering some of these questions directly would put Fred in Jail.... so no he is not going to answer, he was never going to answer and he won't be answering in the future. The documentary makers highlight this when they include information on the repeal of the Double Jeopardy legislation in 2005. So for those that do not understand this, anything he said before 2005 admitting involvement in crimes he was already prosecuted for is inadmissible in a re-trial because he said them before 2005 when the law of double jeopardy protected him. Now it's possible to be re-tried for specific high profile crimes you were already acquitted of he is being a lot more careful what he says. Because after 2005 anything he says about these crimes can be used against him in a court of law again. So he doesn't want to directly answer certain questions and who can blame him. If you understand this properly before watching the documentary then his evasiveness on certain topics is not irritating, if's fascinating, as you can stitch together for yourself from the things he finds it uncomfortable to speak about exactly what he was and wasn't involved in.
Beyond that this documentary has much else to offer providing a strong historically telling of Fred's upbringing, the environment that formed the teenage boy and young man. Additional commentary from Biographers, Crime Writers and close personal friends are all interesting and well edited.
I'm not sure why anyone would mark this down as amateur other than it does not provide the salacious details or new information about old crimes some viewers crave for. However as a complete documentary piece about an old London hard man who ended up involved with some of the most notorious gangsters and crimes of the last 70 years it's pretty darn interesting and totally watchable.
0 of 1 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this