Topic: Don't Fuck With Cats

[Utter Shit]

Anyone seen this? Netflix documentary about a guy who killed a couple of cats. It gets more and more mental as it goes on. Completely insane and utterly riveting.

[icehaven]

The mention of cats attracted me, watched the trailer for it and it went straight on the list, right up my street, will probably watch it over the weekend.
There's another documentary on Netflix at the mo called Hail Satan! about modern day piss-taking "Satanists" (basically hipster goths) vs. the encroachment of Christianity into state institutions in America. It's only an hour or so long so it's a bit flimsy but I found it quite funny.

[PlanktonSideburns]

I'm interested in this, but don't want to watch a cat getting snuffed out, do you have to see the cat expiration?

[Utter Shit]

Na, it's not especially graphic. It does a good job of 'tastefully' showing you the scene without giving any of the grisly detail.

[Al Tha Funkee Homosapien]

Were the cats baby Hitlers?

[PlanktonSideburns]

Na, it's not especially graphic. It does a good job of 'tastefully' showing you the scene without giving any of the grisly detail.

nice, will get it down me

[Pseudopath]

They don't actually show you the animals being killed, but you do see a fair bit of the preparation and the aftermath (along with the squeals of the animals being tortured). Enough that I'm not going to recommend it to a couple of animal-obsessed friends as I know how much it will upset them (despite their love of true crime documentaries).

[Jim Bob]

(along with the squeals of the animals being tortured)

Yeah, I won't be watching this.

[DukeDeMondo]

I watched the first episode of this through gritted teeth, for its existence renders a fair old chunk of the conclusion of the book I'm working on absolutely fucking redundant. I spent a lot of time rehearsing the particulars of Luka Magnotta's deranged bid for immortality and now I'm going to have to delete near the whole fucking lot, for I didn't say very much that isn't said in a more immediate and more arresting way in this. I can keep some of it, the most important bits, the stuff about the videos themselves, but there's still a good 4500 words that are now for nothing but the bin.

Anyway that aside I thought the first episode was really good. I dunno how original its approach is. The bits where they just filmed people watching or not watching the videos reminded me of Grizzly Man, and other bits reminded me a lot of Catfish - the film, not the series - and even that 3 part BBC documentary about paedophiles. But it's undoubtedly well put together, and I was captivated for the duration even though I knew the ins and outs of the case. Still had me gripped.

I'm not sure that it wasn't having its icepick and eating it a bit, far as the footage itself goes. It seemed to derive a bit too much pleasure from taking you right up to the edge of the unwatchable, teasing you with what it might show or it might not. A sadistic sort of bent to it, at times.   

But, I'm going to watch the last two episodes tonight, see what else I have to delete over the head of the fucking thing.

Also, I'll second the Hail Satan? recommendation above. One of my favourite films of the year. I wanted to join them immediately after watching it but there's no chapter around here, had to make do with signing up for a weekly email. Which isn't quite the same, somehow.

[ZoyzaSorris]

I like the idea of cats being killed but as it doesn’t sound like it was done humanely I’ll give this a miss.

[icehaven]

Also, I'll second the Hail Satan? recommendation above. One of my favourite films of the year. I wanted to join them immediately after watching it but there's no chapter around here, had to make do with signing up for a weekly email. Which isn't quite the same, somehow.

Yeah I wanted to join them too! I just painted my house black instead. And not to be shallow or anything but Lucien Greaves is the most attractive man with a prominent facial anomaly I've ever seen.

[Dewt]

They don't actually show you the animals being killed, but you do see a fair bit of the preparation and the aftermath (along with the squeals of the animals being tortured).

That's worse, I'll just imagine something that's more horrible than the actual event.

[Moribunderast]

This is a difficult show for me to rate. The story it tells is one I was unaware of and it is totally compelling and twisted so I watched the whole thing in one sitting. HOWEVER, I think it's fair to argue the show shouldn't exist as it makes the point that the killer was just after fame and this show hands it to him. More than that, it then has the gall to turn directly to the viewer and try to make them complicit. "Are you complicit in making this man famous?" Nah mate, that'd be you and yer three-part Netflix documentary dedicated to making him famous, that would. Left a really sour taste for me. I'd also agree that the show seemed to delight in showing the torture/murder footage up until the real gory stuff started. There absolutely should be a warning at the start explaining that the real graphic stuff won't be shown but the creators clearly want you to be fearful of just how much you'll see, which is a gross and unnecessary touch.

Years ago I made a thread here about whether true crime shows and shows based on real murders are morally okay and I think this documentary is a perfect example for that debate. Compelling story, interesting and uncomfortably entertaining viewing but should it have been made?

[PlanktonSideburns]

yea that sounds like some grubby true crime nonsene there.

anyone seen Casting John Benet on netflix? almost feels like a challange to the sort of problems you describe with voyeristic crime reporting Moribunderast

[willy crossit]

didn't like those internet people much i have to say. right tone on the pair of them, if i was canadian old bill i wouldn't have paid any attention to them either, too busy riding round on my big husky like Due South

[Replies From View]

Does it include the Aesop’s Fable about the woman who plunged a cat into a wheely bin?

[Bazooka]

This is three parts? There's been a ton of documentaries about this case over the years.

[JamesTC]

Some of it was interesting. As with seemingly all Netflix documentaries, it was too long.

What an almightily shit ending. Yeah mate, I'm really complicit in a murder a decade ago by watching a documentary about it.

[imitationleather]

The first episode was really interesting, although I agree it didn't need to play a game of chicken with us about how much animal abuse it would show. It kind of fell down a bit as it went on and once I realised it was about an actual murder I wondered why they'd chosen that narrative to tell the story.

The ending can fuck off. No, it's you two who devoted years of your life to this who are the sick ones, not me. It was a proper "No this is not an aaaah situation" situation!

[JamesTC]

They go to the whole trouble of pointing out how the victim was forgotten in favour of all talking about the murderer and show his family mourning him and looking all sad and it is a really poignant moment that makes you think...

...then market the whole documentary about some cats being killed.


I've just watched a 3 hour documentary about a cat/human murderer and now I am watching Jingle All The Way.

[Goldentony]

watched this and the Netflix doc by numbers plus comedy credibility destroying last 5 seconds mad it partly a slog but lucky for the people making it the story on its own cannot be made boring.

One thing though - the second pair of hands in one of the videos. They never mention this again

[BritishHobo]

Yeah that is an absolutely dogshit cake-and-eat-it ending. I wouldn't take that 'oooooh are you complicit?-' bullshit from the creators of the documentary, but I'm especially not taking it from the internet vigilante that the documentary itself is saying literally could be. They undercut an interesting question with a bollocks one. It's like Bruce Willis turning to camera at the end of The Sixth Sense, and going 'are you a ghost?' No Bruce, I'm not.

[icehaven]

I'm about half an hour into the first episode and it's annoying me already. After the first video emerges they go to great lengths, the bloke particularly, to explain how they started trying to locate the guy by creating 'schematics' of the room, analysing the furniture and trying to find out where he could have bought his bedspread etc., and only then do they mention ''oh, and there's people babbling in Russian in the background too'' then proceed to make a big deal out of 'realising'  the voices are a recording even though that's blindingly obvious. Maybe it's just the way it's edited or something but it's grating.

[Rolf Lundgren]

Echo a lot of what's been said. The name 'Don't Fuck With Cats' is totally inappropriate for this. It sounds like a twee calendar with cats dressed up as action heroes or something. It's a brutal documentary and I found it really gratuitous how they play around with showing you the videos. My finger was hovering over the control for whenever those bits came up and once they'd given you a hint of a couple of them I could have done without having them reappear.

The ending is bollocks as well. I'm not quite sure what the point they were trying to make is. Are we glorifying psychopaths by watching documentaries? Are amateur internet sleuths a good or bad thing? Could this person have been found more quickly? It seemed to be suggesting a fair amount but without real conviction. Either way I got the impression I was being criticised for having watched it.

[Sin Agog]

To be fair to that groansome ending, I am probably voicing the evil voice inside a lot of True Crime doc viewers when I say that a part of us hopes the killers can squeeze in a couple of more victims before the end to spice up the narrative a little.  That is the kind of territory almost all of them operate in.

[chveik]

To be fair to that groansome ending, I am probably voicing the evil voice inside a lot of True Crime doc viewers when I say that a part of us hopes the killers can squeeze in a couple of more victims before the end to spice up the narrative a little.  That is the kind of territory almost all of them operate in.

I thought that the complexity of the case was what really entertains true crime fans . people say that The Staircase is the best one, and there's only one death in it.

[Moribunderast]

Yeah, can only speak for myself but the aspects I look for in true crime shows are complexity, the psychology and the 'whodunnit' aspect if that's part of the show. I can happily do without grisly crime scene photos or extreme body counts.

The more I think about this show, the more it pisses me off. To have such a fucked up, intriguing story at your fingertips and make THIS out of it is rubbish. Someone else touched on an aspect I forgot to pillory it for: decrying everyone for forgetting the human victim in all this while simultaneously both paying no attention to him AND ranking his death as less important than the death of some cats. Genuinely offensive to both the viewer and the man who died.

And yeah, what about that third hand in one of the cat killing videos? They introduce that while going for the "Is his accomplice real?" tangent and then completely abandon it.

This really is a 5 star story handled with 1 star production. Cack.

[Jim Bob]

Yeah, can only speak for myself but the aspects I look for in true crime shows are complexity, the psychology and the 'whodunnit' aspect if that's part of the show. I can happily do without grisly crime scene photos or extreme body counts.

Another true crime fan here and I too can vouch for those aspects being what I personally find to be fascinating, with the mystery of a case (and the resulting theories) and an insight into the psychology of a killer being the main draw for me, not a high body count, or any kind of celebration of a sick individual taking the lives of innocent people.

[icehaven]

And yeah, what about that third hand in one of the cat killing videos? They introduce that while going for the "Is his accomplice real?" tangent and then completely abandon it.

Yeah this. And unless I missed it's never established who sent the initial message telling the internet sleuths it was Luka Magnotta they were looking for, which was by far the most important development in their search. If it's supposed to be implicit that it was Luka himself then that's significant in itself, and if it isn't then surely, seeing as prior to that they were literally looking for a needle in a haystack, whoever worked out he was their man would at least be worth a mention.

[Moribunderast]

Haha, I’d forgotten about that. An entire documentary about a gang of intrepid websleuths taking a murderer down... but for all their effort and time it was only when an anonymous stranger popped in and literally gave them the name that they actually got anywhere. Again, if you wanted to make a documentary highlighting the danger of websleuthing, this factor may be something you’d spend some time on.