With so many incredible documentaries available on streaming platforms, finding your next watch can be a challenge. That’s why each month, we hand-pick three exceptional nonfiction films—from timeless classics to hidden gems—guaranteed to captivate and reward your viewing time.
‘Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills’ (1996)
Available to stream and rent on major platforms.
Considered one of the most chilling true-crime documentaries ever made, Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky’s “Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills” launched the powerful trilogy about the West Memphis Three case. In 1993, three Arkansas teenagers—Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley Jr.—faced charges for the brutal murders of three 8-year-old boys: Christopher Byers, Stevie Branch, and Michael Moore. The film’s profound impact is only deepened by the knowledge that Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley were eventually exonerated and freed years later. The tragic awareness of the time they unjustly spent behind bars amplifies an already horrific narrative. Decades later, the original murders tragically remain unsolved.
What truly distinguishes “Paradise Lost” from typical courtroom dramas is its multifaceted approach. It’s not merely a chronicle of legal proceedings but a deeply human portrait of how overwhelming grief and raw anger can consume everyone involved. The film introduces us to both the victims’ and the accused’s parents, granting them ample screen time to reveal their complex, genuine humanity. In a memorable sequence, Christopher Byers’ stepfather, John Mark Byers, is first seen angrily vowing to defile the teenagers’ graves. Later, he appears composed, leading his church choir with a surprisingly beautiful and resonant singing voice, showcasing the profound emotional shifts within the story.
The specter of a wrongful conviction looms large throughout the film. The initial case heavily relies on questionable statements from Misskelley, who is portrayed as having a low I.Q. and a documented susceptibility to suggestion. During the trial of Baldwin and Echols, a forensic pathologist meticulously dismantles the prosecution’s crime scene theory, raising significant doubts. A truly unforgettable scene occurs late in the film when a prosecutor interrogates a detective about a crucial piece of evidence, only to have the detective point to the camera and state it was received from “Joe and the people with HBO productions.” This powerful moment underscores that Berlinger and Sinofsky were not just documenting but actively present as the events unfolded, a testament to how deeply this haunting case impacted them for years.
‘Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.’ (1999)
Available to stream on AMC+.
Errol Morris’s “Mr. Death” introduces us to one of his most unsettling subjects: Fred A. Leuchter Jr., a Massachusetts engineer specializing in execution equipment. Even as he details his work, Leuchter casually remarks, “Nobody should have to place his life in jeopardy because an execution is being conducted.” (He refers here to the prison guards, who risk electrocution in the event of an inmate’s bodily fluids.) The film subtly suggests a disturbing truth: a gradual desensitization to the act of killing can profoundly alter one’s perspective.
This desensitization likely played a role in the event that cemented Leuchter’s enduring notoriety. In 1988, Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel commissioned Leuchter, supposedly an expert, to examine the gas chambers at Auschwitz. Leuchter traveled to Poland, where Morris’s footage shows him covertly chipping away at the camp’s structures. He controversially concluded that no gas chambers existed. While other experts in the film decisively debunk his “science” as utterly flawed, his fabricated findings were readily embraced by Holocaust deniers.
“Mr. Death” stands as a chilling illustration of an individual who embarks on “independent research” only to find himself entangled with conspiracy theorists. It’s a recurring motif in Morris’s work, which frequently explores humanity’s astonishing capacity to compartmentalize and rationalize away any evidence that contradicts their fixed beliefs. This theme is further explored in his later films, yet Leuchter’s late-film exchange with Morris provides perhaps the most concise articulation of the director’s fascination with such tunnel vision:
“Have you ever thought that you might be wrong, or do you think that you could make a mistake?” Morris asks him.
“No, I’m past that,” Leuchter replies.
‘The Devil and Father Amorth’ (2018)
Available to stream and rent on various platforms.
If it weren’t for the Halloween season and its alignment with our “chiller” theme this month, I might hesitate to wholeheartedly recommend this rather questionable documentary from William Friedkin. However, Friedkin himself is the star here: acting as an on-screen host, he navigates the proceedings with the dry wit of an “Unsolved Mysteries” narrator, delivering an hour of delightful, brusque guidance through what is undeniably a heap of hokum.
One hopes that Friedkin intended “The Devil and Father Amorth” to be viewed with a healthy dose of irony. The acclaimed director, who passed away in 2023, explains that he set out to correct a past oversight: during the making of his iconic 1973 film “The Exorcist,” he had never witnessed a real exorcism. Years later, while writing for Vanity Fair, he encountered Father Gabriele Amorth, a priest from the diocese of Rome who had gained notoriety as a modern-day celebrity exorcist. (Notably, the documentary omits some of Amorth’s more eccentric claims, such as blaming the Devil for Harry Potter.) According to Friedkin, Amorth even considered “The Exorcist” his favorite movie, to which the director wryly adds, “I guess, of course.”
Before his passing in 2016, Amorth granted Friedkin permission to film the ninth exorcism performed on one of his clients (the previous eight having been unsuccessful). While the client’s contortions and seemingly altered voice might not strike everyone as convincing, Friedkin presents this footage to medical professionals at U.C.L.A. and Columbia, who, surprisingly, treat the incident with gravity. The Columbia psychiatrists, though skeptical of actual demonic possession, resist Friedkin’s suggestion of fraud. Instead, they offer a plausible medical diagnosis and even propose that the ritualistic nature of an exorcism could, in some cases, provide a beneficial placebo effect.
However, the filmmaker isn’t particularly interested in such nuances. He clearly desires a dramatic, spooky climax within a church setting. We are ultimately left to trust his account of what transpired: “I didn’t take my camera inside,” he explains in voice-over, “so this is my memory of what happened.”