Benutzerrezensionen

MANHUNT: SEARCH FOR THE NIGHT STALKER

Aspect ratio: 1.33:1

Sound format: Mono

The search for serial killer Richard Ramirez, who committed a string of horrific rapes and murders in Los Angeles between June 1984 and August the following year.

It looks a little dated now, but Bruce Seth Green's detailed examination of the facts surrounding the Night Stalker murders - filtered here through the viewpoint of the two detectives (Richard Jordan and A Martinez) who supervised the case - still packs a solid emotional punch. Green's no-nonsense approach to the material results in a couple of voyeuristic crime reconstructions which may strike some as unnecessary (Ramirez had only just been convicted when the movie first aired), but these grotesque details go a long way toward establishing the randomness and savagery of this man's gruesome rampage. Joseph Gunn's wide-ranging script covers all relevant bases, including the desperate attempts by city officials to prevent sensational media coverage driving the killer underground, and the personal toll exacted on law enforcement officers involved in pursuit of the maniac. The climactic sequence - depicting the bizarre events surrounding Ramirez' eventual capture - is ripe with irony, and well-staged by actors and filmmakers alike.

This was way above what I had expected for a TV movie of this subject, and much more accurate and true to the material also. I recall that period when the "night stalker" was committing crimes, as I lived in Los Angeles and was house-sitting for some friends. It was a heat wave as portrayed in the film, and I always had the windows wide open at night. Then eventually, some of my lady friends who noticed became almost hysterical with anxiety that I might become a victim. Before that moment, I didn't really consider this killer with much interest, but then realized what effect he had on most of the city, especially the women and those with families. Well, the film portrays this exactly correctly, as it portrays the principle persons involved in a true manner, including the killer himself. It is also great to see then Frisco mayor Dianne Feinstein get taken down a peg for her stupid remarks that released confidential police information to the public. That really happened, but she still got to be a senator eventually.

I live in El Paso, Richard Ramirez's (The Night Stalker) hometown, so this story has a special interest for me. But I was disappointed in the very poor acting throughout this movie. The only acting that was at all believable was that of one witness, an older lady who discovered one of the bodies. It's a shame they couldn't have found some better actors, as this could have been a decent movie if they had.

On the bright side, I commend them for making this film without the blood and gore that we usually see. I guess that's because it was made for TV, but it was a refreshing change.

I wish they would have focused more on Ramirez and his crimes (absolutely nothing was said about his background or motives). This movie was really only about the two detectives who investigated the crimes and not about the crimes or suspect at all.

This is a very well done made for tv movie. It's the true story about one of the most notorious serial killers ever! The acting in this film is top notch. I am so glad that this movie was made for tv and not for the big screen. It's shocking & disturbing but it's a story that had to be told, and it was done with the utmost respect to the victims families. My prayers go out to them all...

Looks like they spent 100K tops on this banal unimaginative.borefest. Some well known actors going through the motions with a script that only a teenager could love. Night stalker story is actually interesting but this 95 minute snoozer doesn't come close to having any worthwhile action/suspense to keep your eyes open.

I know the story is simplified, but of course it had to be to make a 95 minute movie.

I'm no expert on the case, but it looks like they got the gist right, and more than that. It was just boiled down.

The East LA takedown of Richard Ramirez was very very close to accurate. To my understanding, Ramirez actually ran across the freeway. Here, he takes a bus. That's an understandable compromise for a TV budget.

The lead actors (A Martinez and the late Richard Jordan) never quite made A list, but that has a lot to do with luck. Their performances are great.

The actual focus on the lives of the detectives, well that's soap, but not terribly soapy.

Overall, a necessarily simplified, but basically an accurate depiction of this history.

From a purely movie/directing standpoint, the takedown of the Stalker was gripping and well done.

Sometimes TV movies about real events can be engaging, possibly because the producers don't have to worry about whether their 40 million dollars will be returned at the box office. The treatment of crimes on TV can be truly engaging. The films about Ted Bundy and Charles Manson were fairly well done, especially "Helter Skelter." The story of the so-called Nightstalker, Richard Ramirez, doesn't have quite the potential of the Manson story. It's simply not as intrinsically interesting. But this is more than just uninteresting. It's plain dull.

I've been trying to figure out why. The best proposal that I can come up with is that the fault lies in every aspect of the production. The photography is cloudy, the score done by the numbers. And, as another commenter pointed out, the acting is at best routine. The actors seem to be reading from cue cards half the time. Even Richard Jordan, whose work elsewhere has been quite good, is almost embarrassing to watch. His voice seems slurred and the sound man has picked up every intake of breath, as if Jordan were asthmatic. The role of Richard Ramirez is a key one, and they've used an actor who has a single expression -- a kind of bug-eyed sneer, like an evil Harpo Marx, distinctly wicked. The real Ramirez was angelic, as handsome as a movie star. Girls flocked to him, whereas no one would flock to this guy except flies. The director does nothing to help matters. Camera placement, role enactment, blocking, micromovements -- all are strictly routine. Given all the other weaknesses in the production, the director really needed to punch things up.

Maybe the script is the worst part. I wonder if the writers, while setting the dialogue down on paper, ever really imagine hearing a living human being speaking their words. Jordan "feels" things several times. He calls his partner late at night and tells him, "I have a feeling about tonight. He's going out again." When they're closing the ring around the perp, Jordan tells his partner, "This is it. I can feel it." When the perp is finally safely locked away, Jordan tells his partner solemnly, "We're going to be living with this a long time." This coming from a seasoned detective on the LAPD. Does the line ring false to anyone else? And then there is the squabble between one of the cops and his wife. It seems he's been spending too much time away from home, on the job, and she's worried and frightened, and they have an argument. "I didn't marry your work!" she yells at him tearfully. "What do you want me to do?" he shouts back. (She packs up the kids and leaves him for the duration of the case, but don't worry -- there's a lachrymose reunion at the end.) All straight out of a thousand stories about cops (or military men, or dedicated doctors). No one is really given a believable line. The characters are cartoons, none of them in any way individuated. They don't have twitches or neuroses. They don't joke. They don't make mistakes, although Diane Feinstein does.

The movie is a big long unrefreshing yawn. Too bad. It would have been interesting to know more about what happened, particularly inside Ramirez's head. But that's something we'll never know anyway. Even Ramirez doesn't know. So maybe it's just as well nobody tried to probe his brain and pin it all on the conjecture that he and his Dad were not close enough or something. Anyway, as it stands, I've read more interesting abstracts for articles in Psychiatric Quarterly, and that's saying a lot.

I can say it always amazes me when true stories are changed when made into a movie. Television is notorious for this and this movie follows suit. Certain aspects are glossed over or not even explained. The acting at best is average with more bad then good. Overall if you know nothing about the night stalker and want to know there are way better to see then this. Its a film that should be skipped.

this movie is based on the true story of Richard Ramirez,dubbed The Night Stalker,who terrorised California in the summer of 1985 with a series of brutal crimes.the story focuses mainly on the two main detectives who try to identify and capture him.the movie is a very well done TV movie,but is not only disturbing,but terrifying,all the more so,because it is based on a true story.the movie does a great job of capturing the fear people felt during The Night Stalker's reign of terror.the acting is superb.it would have been nice if the movie had delved into why Ramirez committed those awful crimes,but there is only a vague hint given by Ramirez himself at the end of the movie.for me,Manhunt:Search for the Night Stalker is an 8/10.

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 31 January 2015 There are TV true crime movies that can be intriguing like Ted Bundy, the Deliberate Stranger, or John Wayne Gacy, to catch a Killer.

However, I once owned this TV movie of Manhunt: search for the Night Stalker and it is very dull, it is trying too hard to be a "Chiller-Thriller" and trying its best to exude feeling of suspense, but it fails to do that because of hammy performances and lack of reality in the script.

The black-clad Killer in the movie made so much noise, and used too much flashlights in the dark, you would think people would wake up when he enters in their residence, when in real life, the Killer is suppose to be militant and work in darkness, hence the moniker; "Night Stalker".

The script was terribly careless, for example, one of Gil Carrillo's Daughters was called Rene, but 43 minutes into the movie, Gil's Wife, Pearl called the same girl "Mica"- this erratum could have been corrected. The worst part is the rest of the dialogue, which is not convincing to match the real life characters, their personal experiences and personality backgrounds from this movie, it fails to represent their personalities altogether.

Richard Jordan, who plays a "seasoned" Detective, Frank Salerno always "feels things" in this case, he tells Sheriff Grimm as he proves one Serial Killer is operating the crimes "This is one Guy doing this - I can feel it" and to his Partner, Gil, "I have a funny feeling about tonight - he is going out again" and when they pursue Ramirez prior to ID him in the Newspapers, Jordan says " I can feel it Gill it is all over".

Also Frank goes on about how "great" things are, there is a scene Gill solemnly says "oh no! He switched guns on us! He used a .25 instead of a .22" Salerno replies "that's Great, Phil (the Forensic Scientist) can give us a positive make on the 25, if we get him with this Gun, he is nailed!" and another ridiculous scene is when a cop goes "Hey Frank, we found the shoe, it is a special shoe made by Avia and there are thirteen thousand and fifty-six distributed", and Salerno's response is "that is Great Washington!! It is going to be that much easier for you to trace every bit of sale today" and Washington laughs "How do I know you are going to say that!!" - this was suppose to be an amusing line, but there is no ring of truth to it. Why did Washington NOT mention there is ONLY one pair of avia 440 modal that is size 11 and a half twelve, which is the same one at the scenes from the series of murders and just 'one' man is wearing this 'rare' shoe?

The Movie Writers did miss out conspicuous details of not illustrating Diane Feinstein's elocution slip up of mentioning the rare Avia shoes of a "particular size" that made the Killer change his footwear. So there was loose research to these "true-crime" accounts of what actually happened, and lack of realism in the script.

The writers probably never put their heads together to think about the "real" lives of these Detectives, because when Richard was caught and put into custody, Jordan turns to Gill and says "we will be living with this for a long time!" For an experienced Detective who also worked on the Hillside Strangler case, mentions an unrealistic line - I am sure other Viewers will find this line quite false.

All the Actors were given unrealistic lines, the acting was bad too. The visage of the killer was dramatically revealed near the end. Richard Ramirez should be portrayed by a talented actor, but NOT Gregory Norman Cruz, he was equally bad, and does not resemble Ramirez! Greg had a single bug-eyed sneer, distinctly wicked expression, The Real Richard was Handsome as a Movie Star, possessing a dangerously seductive streak and the combination of looking Angelic with a mysterious air- Guys and Girls flock to him. It was too politically correct for my taste.

If I had to have a personal opinion, Jsu Garcia formally known as Nick Corri of A Nightmare on Elm Street and Wildcats fame would suit to Play Ramirez better.

It is a predictable movie with bad enactment, terrible humour, and bad music score with a song that is a rip off of Night Prowler by AC/DC, Bruce Seth Green should instead produce the feel of Los Angeles in 1985, like show statistics of Guns and burglar alarms sold by the hour, or vast amount of people being alarmed when staying up at night and being jumpy to every a nuance of sound thinking the Stalker is there, because the minds plays tricks on the people, and the brutal heat did not help much that summer; the paranoia was insurmountable, the scary aura of the city at that time was absent in this film, it is not a convincing thriller.

Anyway! I read Philip Carlo's book and that is miles better, and showed the truth about real-life events and situations. Read the book instead.