Speck

RELEASED IN 2002 and directed by Keith Walley, "Speck" stars Doug Cole as the real-life mass murderer, Richard Speck, who savagely terrorized nine nursing students at a townhouse functioning as a dormitory in south Chicago, 1966. He murdered eight of them one-by-one. The ninth woman (Beverly Sotelo) only managed to survive by hiding under a bed while Speck was out of the room. In his drug-addled state the killer probably lost count. The woman's witness was key in capturing the man with the crude forearm tattoo that read: "Born to raise hell."

The topic is distasteful, to say the least, but the movie effectively chronicles the events of late night July 13, 1966. Although this is a low-budget independent flick, it's competently made with quality actors. The score is one-note disturbing and haunting while the tone is dream-like, thoroughly austere and horrific. The murderer's narration throughout by Cole is akin to Willard's narration in "Apocalypse Now" (1979). It's based on the real-life Speck's blatherings combined with that of other renown murderers (e.g. Dahmer) and no doubt the writers' imagination. Regardless, the well-written sociopathic verbiage successfully puts you in the mind of the slayer and doesn't cop-out in regards to psychological scrutiny. In short, the narration boldly unveils the awful truth and is expertly delivered by Cole; the movie should be commended for this.

The only thing that holds "Speck" back is the one-dimensional story itself. The first hour is comprised of the thug's invasion of the townhouse, his terrorizing of the girls and their systematic murders. The compelling final act records the aftermath and ultimate apprehension. It's all thoroughly convincing, but not entertaining in the manner of, say, the Friday the 13th flicks, probably because the producers intended "Speck" to be a wholly realistic account of the true murders; and it is. The Friday the 13th movies are sometimes fun and the murders can even be amusing; not so here.

A life-long prisoner, Speck died of a heart attack 25 years after his crime in 1991 (WAY too long of a wait for justice). Concerning his murderous transgressions he said: "I had no feelings at all that night. They said there was blood all over the place. I can't remember. It felt like nothing ... I'm sorry as hell; for those girls and for their families, and for me. If I had to do it over again, it would be a simple house burglary." He was a thoroughly sick bastage who unfortunately descended into depravity in prison, a sad waste of human potential, but at least he honestly admitted that he was sorry for what he did.

THE MOVIE RUNS 79 minutes. The script was written by Don Adams & Aaron Pope.

GRADE: B/B- (6.5/10)

I rented the Rated R version of Speck, and i can only imagine what the Director's unrated version is like. To call this is a disturbing movie is an understatement. This is not a film to be entertained by, it is rather slow-paced at times. I am not saying this is a bad movie, it serves it's function very well. The acting is very well done. I say this because the women who play the nurses truly made themselves believable in their performances in sheer terror.

I am no expert on the actual story of Richard Speck, so i can't say just how accurate this film really is. I do know that he was surely a complete psychotic in every meaning of the word. Not everyone will enjoy this film, or even like it. Some will be turned off simply due to the fact that it is so dark and depressing. It's a coin toss, but i would recommend it for fans of the genre.

I watched the unrated version of this movie and as a person who has studied the life and crimes of Speck closely, I must say this movie is a flawed but ambitious take on the real story. While capturing the true horror of Speck and the murders this film makes the following factual errors. 1. Speck did not inject drugs at the crime scene as depicted in the movie. In fact he was mainly an alcoholic and pill popper who rarely took drugs via syringe. 2. The Asian nurse who survived Speck's massacre did not squirm her way down stairs and under the couch in the living room as depicted in the movie. This would have been impossible. In real life she hid under a bed while Speck methodically eliminated his 8 victims. 3. The movie depicts Speck as being violent and brutal with the women as soon as he meets them. Not true. In reality Speck was at first calm and gentle, reassuring the women he wasn't going to hurt them. This is how he was able to tie each of them up. 4. The real Richard Speck was not the deep thinker the movie depicts him to be. FBI profiler Robert Ressler interviewed Speck in the 80's and said that Speck not only DID'NT know why he committed the murders but that he wasn't interested in learning why nor could he shed any light on why. Speck was known to be of below average intelligence and not the philosopher king who narrates this movie. If the story wasn't so tragic and horrifying, the voice over would be laughable. All in all, Doug Cole's performance is adequately menacing and cold-blooded even though I don't think the real Speck was so forward in his violence. No doubt he was a very violent person when under the influence but he was also known, after all, for being a fairly slick con man who was able to put people at ease before victimizing them. Beverly Ann Sotelo's performance as the surviving nurse is the finest in the film. She is a very good actress. If you are at all squeamish, do not see this film. It's very graphic and disturbing.

Richard Speck was always one of the most scary true-life serial killers so I was hoping to be frightened by this picture.

It starts off with a warning saying that the film has been edited so it could gain an "R" rating. So I'm thinking this is going to be some nasty gore-fest.

If there was any gore, it was all edited out, and badly.

Richard Speck is one terrifying dude, but this film comes across as something you might see on UPN.

Wait for "Great Trials and Crimes of the 20th Century" to re-air on PBS and look for the Richard Speck segment. It will scare the pants off of you.

This is pretty bad

2/5 stars.

My girlfriend and I enjoy the serial killer bio pics that have been coming out recently. We've seen "Dahmer" and "Bundy", both of which were released last year. I found both of those movies to be disturbing and realistic portrayals of the mindset of those men and the events surrounding their crimes.

"Speck" by contrast was highly stylized and contained absolutely no substance. I only watched the first hour and saw only the suggestion of violence along with a laborious soundtrack. The director wanted it both ways, he wanted you to be disturbed by this man but no *show* you anything disturbing. The acting was mediocre and the plot moved at a snail's pace. I am not a proponent of gratuitous violence, but if you're going to make a movie about a serial killer, especially a REAL one, then at least give us some sense of his rituals and behavior. They made Speck out to be a disgruntled cowboy that flashes his knife and does little else. yawn.

If you want to see a real dramatization of a serial killer and his mindset, see either "Dahmer" or "Bundy".