Opiniones de usuarios

The story about two lovers travelling around and killing people has been done already, and a lot better I might add. I know this is a recollection of a true story, but that shouldn't be an excuse, all these bases have already been covered. It has also been brought up before, but this movie has quite a lot of bothersome mistakes. Especially the fact that it's summer in January is really an eyesore, sometimes it seems like they just really didn't care. However, I can't say this movie is all bad. It has a very good pace to it, which makes it feel short and to the point. The movie also captures the cruelty of its main characters pretty well, especially the scene with the parents is pretty effective. And then the little girl walks into the room. The actors are also pretty good, except for a hilariously cheesy performance by the guy who plays the devil who has to show way too much of his face. Of course the girl is also way too pretty, but it's Hollywood, what did you expect? This movie is not bad, but gives me a lot of déja-vus.

I have studied Charles Raymond Starkweather for the past six months. I was excited when I saw that it would be on Showtime. Not being able to order Showtime, I picked up a copy at Blockbuster. The review is as follows: In the winter of 1958-1959, Charles Starkweather murdered 11 people with his girlfriend Caril-Ann Fugate as his accomplice. Their symphony of murder is told through this movie inaccurately. The hour-and-a-half runtime it has is too short to tell a story of this magnitude. They could've done so much more with the material they had. They could've explored Charlie's personality. What they produced is a film lacking depth and any reason. The psychological effects that Starkweather's crimes had on the public was not displayed at all. And Starkweather's murders are not portrayed accurately.

This movie could've been great given a longer running time and an accurate portrayal. But what the viewing public is left with is a Lifetime Movie on a different channel.

4/10

This movie was better than i thought it would be but the movie was still a little bit crap the movies about a true story about how a man and his girlfriend go on a killing spree killing 11 people in 1958.The movie stars actors like Shannon Lucio from the t.v show the o.c,Brent Taylor,Jerry Kroll and Lance Henriksen.The acting in this film is OK but it could of been better and the movie is entertaining from start to finish and i recommend this film to rent but save your money and do not bye this movie.Shannon Lucio does an OK acting job in this movie and so does Brent Taylor and over all this movie was OK and my rating is 5 out of 10.

First off, I have lived in Lincoln most of my life and I lived through the days of the killings. I know what went on. Now let's get down to the film. This is a very low budget film and it shows in every way possible. You are forever seeing microphones and set people on the screen. The cars are the wrong years. The killings started in December of 1957 and ended in January of 1958, yet the trees and other plants all have green leaves on them even though Nebraska is very cold in winter. They have Lincoln in the desert of what could be Arizona or Nevada while Lincoln is in fact located in typical Midwest farm country and is hundreds of miles from the nearest desert. They show Lincoln as a very small town when it was around 100,000 or more people at the time of the killings. The one real picture of Lincon in the film shows the capital building with fountains in front of it, even though the fountains were put in on what was once 15th street and is now called Centennial Mall many years after the killings. It shows Starkweather being captured in Nebraska by the Lancaster County Sheriff when in fact he was captured near Douglas, Wyoming by local Wyoming law enforcement. I could go on and on. There are just too many mistakes in this movie to list. To it's credit they did get the names and order of events right, but that's about all they got right and that's why I gave it two stars.

The story of the killings does deserve to be told in a movie and one that would be factual and show the fear the killings put in the people who lived though them, but this is not that film. If you want to learn about the killings and what they did to the city just do a web search for the name Charles Starkweather and you will learn the real story. If you want to watch a movie with so many mistakes you'll be laughing at it from beginning to end then watch this movie.

Setting aside all aspects of accuracy of story or landscape or props or whatever, and any problems with boom mics this is plain and simply just very bad. The script is the worst offender, truly awful, after Charlie's first murder when he tells Caril-Ann that he did it for her I couldn't believe the response. I actually mouthed to myself verbatim what a corny line would have been in that situation but she actually said it. For a film dealing with a serious subject with a purported serious tone was the sheriff's assistant comic relief or just atrociously written. The car-chase scene near the end was pure farce.

This film is lazy on many fronts but none worse than the character of the mentor. This is the sole justification for why Charlie Starkweather would embark on a killing spree, although at least this is more justification then for why Caril-Ann would go along with it. This seems to me the biggest of corners cut to tell a story, surely there must have been more to Starkweather's background than this, and how accurate is this sub-conscious cloaked man as a part of Charlie's personality anyway? I think better analysers than me will be able to give a whole load more reasons not to see it, all I can do is tell you it's bad, very bad, and despite the occasional flirtation with so bad it's good, it doesn't even merit that.

I lived in Lincoln during the Starkweather era & couldn't believe this movie. First off, there are no cacti & mountains in Nebraska. Even in the 50's Nebraskans didn't talk with southern hick drawls. Also, I've never seen a '48 Ford described as a '55 Chevy. Starkweather was a short (5'8") bow-legged red head that wore very thick glasses. He was a real loser. So was his girl-friend. I thought this might be a good movie but have changed my mind since seeing it. It had the possibility to be one, but was really messed up. I had never heard that Starkweather heard "voices" or saw a "devil" when he was on his rampage. I don't know where that came from. Don't bother watching.

Well, I can't work out all the people mooning over this movie. I was told the wrong version contains some boom mikes, etc. Well I've got the right version and I still see boom mikes. Never mind that, this is Nebraska, right? Then why are the characters talking with redneck hillbilly accents? Why does the scenery look like Arizona, not Nebraska? Are we presumed too stupid to notice? And the best one of all, the time-frame is 1957-58, right? Well then why are all the cars from the 1940s? OK, a couple are from 1950-51, but not a one newer than that. Again, I have to suppose we are credited with being unable to pick the difference. Old cars are old cars, what's the big deal? And just to ice the cake, several characters are wearing 2004-style eyeglasses. I'm sorry, but these stick out like dogs' balls. Any one of these items fatally damages the film's credibility. Put them all together and it becomes a joke.

Sorry, guys, sort out your backdrops, authenticate your props, localize the dialog and most importantly, get the cars right. I'll give it a 3 anyway, because the actors did a pretty good job. They even managed to keep straight faces.

Where to begin?

-0- The location of the actual events was Nebraska, but the scrub, cacti, mountains, and other vegetation indicate a desert environment (Arizona perhaps?).

-0- The dialog was trite and often bizarre (during a "car chase" on a two-lane highway, in which Starkweather is being pursued by only one cop car, Starkweather won't pass another driver -- even though there are NO OTHER CARS on the road. "He's going to kill somebody," says the cop to his partner. LOL!)

-0- The "evil phantom" who speaks to Starkweather is inaccurate and ludicrous.

-0- There are too many instances of the boom mic's appearance to count (literally, too many).

-0- The acting was stilted.

I watched this because I'd paid for it, and by God, I was going to see it through. It was like a Batan death march.

I have seen other comments about visible mics etc. in the picture here. The version I have seen and which was released in UK has none of these problems so I am unsure whether this is the same film.

The actors are unknown but very vibrant. The story follows very closely the true events, which I kind of prefer, and is quite gruesome.

But the production itself is beautiful and compelling, and as far as I can tell there is no film-making equipment visible anywhere in the film.

The attempts to mimic 1950's Nebraska were largely successful especially the vehicles. Looked like they had a whole fleet of 50's Cryslers in mint condition. Neato.

I saw this movie and the current rating probably has to do with cast members or production team members rating the movie with a 10 out of 10. At best I give this movie a 5-10.

The movie was OK, especially because it probably was a low budget movie. The acting was so-so.

The most annoying thing though was the microphone appearing on-screen countless times. This really annihilates the illusion of being a transparent observer and immediately makes you part of the recording crew. Would it be that much trouble editing it out digitally if absolutely necessary? Or cropping Mic-scenes or whatever. This is really a drag.

I suggest you give the microphone guy a raise next time. (preferably a vertical one)

First of all, Starkweather and Fugate were from Nebraska. So what's with the Southern hick accents and the country music?

Starkweather fancied himself another James Dean. I don't think he listened to country music.

What's with the "devil" character?? Added nothing to the plot. Im fact, the movie could have done very well without it.

Charlie loved animals - much better than he liked people; he wouldn't have killed the toad.

Charlie Starkweather was a very short, red-headed kid with bow-legs and thick glasses and a bad stutter. He also wasn't very bright.

Caril Ann Fugate was NOT the stunner she was portrayed as in the movies. By all accounts, she was a very snippy, arrogant child.

Both roles were miscast...badly.

If they're going to do a story on a mass murderer like Charles Starkweather, at least get it right.

"Badlands" was a much better account of the Starweather-Fugate crime spree than this mess.

I have seen already some movies based on Starkweather, for example Natural Born Killers was loosely based on that theme. Not so known but a good story about him is Badlands, and then came this flick. Should tell the story as it was, but after 5 minutes into the movie I already know that it would be bad. Charles had some voices in his head, The Mentor called in this flick, played by Lance Henrikson. But he appears in the movie and that is already one of the mistakes, it has nothing to do with the story about Starkweather. The Son of Sam had also voices but in the movie, Summer of Sam, you hear the voices you don't see a real person. Here it does and it annoys. Further on the killings are mostly off camera especially those with the stabbing. The gore is far away and the blood flows but not that it is scary as does the movie, it is never scary. As far as I know the dates are correct, but still it is a worse movie. You better watch Badlands instead. Luckily the performance of Charles is believable, ashame, good have been better.

Bad acting. Bad script. Wildly inaccurate. I am slightly surprised that Charlie Starkweather hasn't risen from the grave and hunted down the makers of this so-called film. This is the kind of worthless movie you would expect to see on late night TV, probably on one of the cable channels that specializes in bad movies. Unfortunately it's not bad in a good, goofy, campy kind of way - it's just generically bad.

Let's start with the script, since that is the greatest offense. The dialogue contains phrases that no one in 1950's Nebraska, much less Charlie Starkweather and friends, would ever say. I doubt anyone today would spout out such ridiculous lines. It's the kind of stuff you might find in a Harlequin Romance from the 1970's. Where does Hollywood find such talentless writers who come up with nothing but clichéd hacks? If that weren't bad enough, the script is full of inconsistencies: one minute a character will say something, the next minute he will contradict what he said before, as if he didn't remember what he just said. It's just plain dumb writing.

The acting is as bad as you would expect. I've seen better acting in worse films, but bad acting is bad acting - no further explanation necessary.

It's so inaccurate you wonder if the writer and director read even the sketchiest accounts of the events covered. They assign Charlie's motives in killing to a shadowy character (Lance Henricksen) who talks him into murdering people for the dumbest reasons you've ever heard. No attempt is made at historical accuracy - if you think you're going to learn something about the Starkweather-Fugate case from this film, then think again. All it will do is lead you astray. I wonder that Caril Fugate hasn't sued the makers of the film for portraying her in this manner.

So there you have it: lame all around, from the script to the final credits. Thankfully there has been a decent movie made about these events, check out "Badlands" with Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek. It's over a decade older, but much better done, if still not very accurate.

In conclusion, if Charlie were to rise up and kill the director, script writer, and everyone involved in this movie - I doubt a jury would convict him.

Yeah, well i saw this movie and i was thinking, "movie about spree killing. cool. it's got a high IMDb rating" (i didn't realize at the time only 24 people had voted. I watched it and noticed how cool the opening scene was. And you could even see just a little bit of the microphone in the top of the screen no big deal. Now beyond the acting just being awful (cept for the guy in the hat, i rather liked him) you can see the microphone in every other scene!!!! It got to the point where i began thinking that the people who made this movie never watched it and just threw it in a can and shipped it out to whoever could bare the awfulness. so please, only see this movie if you want to make fun of it.

For all those who complained about killer boom mikes the copy I saw didn't have any but then I wasn't looking for them.

There was a comment from someone in Oz that stated that they all sounded like southerners not mid westerners. In post-depression Nebraska and Kansas out in the country they were poor and uneducated for the most part and thats what they sounded like to me.

Now for the good stuff. There is a very nice set of articles amassed by Court TV in their crime library. All you have to do is a Google search on Charles Starkweather. It's under mass and spree murderers. I only looked at this movie to see if it had stayed true to the facts. And as far as I can see it has. (except for the mentor appearing every now and then). They didn't glorify his deeds or anything like they did in the "loosely based" movies like Natural Born Killers etc. They pretty much stayed with the facts and what I remember reading in the newspapers back in 1957-1959. So like the rest of the U.S. we read about it in the morning and evening papers when all of this was happening.

When I saw the American Justice documentary on this a few years ago it was stated that when she got to prison a kindly matron took her under her wing and made sure she got a proper education and turned her into a nice young lady so if she ever got out she would have something to work with on the outside. At her parole hearing in 1977 (at which members of the families also testified) The matron and the wardens testimony must have carried a lot of weight because she was paroled after spending over half of her life in prison. And from what I understand from that documentary she is leading a useful and productive life.

Caril Ann Fugate is only 18 months younger than me.

So if anyone really cares about the facts and not just the content and acting in the movie what I saw was good.

When I watch a movie like this, I am hoping to learn or get some insight into the kind of person that would commit these crimes. OK. there are some technical problems with the movie: the scenery, southern accents and all. But I have to disagree with the bad acting comments. The actors were convincing in their roles. It impossible to empathize with a conscience-less murderer but you do get a sense of his lack of compassion for human life. His girl friend is in the same boat - completely amoral. I think the scene where they fall asleep in the same room as one of their bloody victims is a great statement. My sense of the directing is that it was meant to convey a 50's B-Movie style which reinforced the time and sense of these two losers. Inspite of the drawbacks, I did gain some sense of the their personalities which is (to me) far more important than exact historical placement and correctness. Other good movies in this vein: Elephant and Deliberate Stranger (about Ted Bundy). Not so good: Ed Gein, Dahmer.

This movie is full of holes. It takes place in Lincoln, Nebraska and we see tall mountains in the background. I've been to Lincoln and there are no mountains there. It also shows cactus growing along the highway. There are no cactus there either.

The police radio says they found the killer's car (a 1955 Chevy) by the side of the road near the farmhouse. I don't know what that car was, but it sure wasn't a 55 Chevy.

The Lincoln Sheriff was chasing Starkweather into Wyoming (near Douglas). He has no juristiction there and certainly can't make an arrest in another state.

Fellow Nebraskan here, I couldn't finish the trailer on this movie because they had southern accents. WE DON'T HAVE SOUTHERN ACCENTS IN NEBRASKA!! If you are going to make a movie about someone in a certain state you should at least know we aren't southern or speak in southern tongue.

watched this movie recently. The production is amateurish, the storyline is rife with inaccuracy and the acting is more a parody than a serious effort at portraying a role. The cast and director of the movie should be ashamed of themselves and the writer should take an introductory course in reading comprehension so that he is better able to appreciate facts before writing his next plot. All in all, an absolute waste of time to watch this movie. There are a bunch of bloomers that have been pointed out in other sections and it merely illustrates the absolutely incompetence, and tardiness of the the group of less than intelligent people who took it into their hearts and mind that they were actually capable of making a movie.