Killer: journal d'un assassin

This movie seems more relevant today than ever. Prison conditions may have improved since the early part of the century, but prison populations are increasing exponentially and there seems to be no end in sight. Does punishment really prevent crime? Can harden criminals be rehabilitated? Is society to blame? Whatever your opinion, this is a short but must-see film.

The Australian biopic "Chopper" got all the hype in 2000, but the much lesser-known " A Journal of Murder" is actually a better film on a similar subject. For one thing, it gives you more of a background about (if not much more insight into) the killer, and for another it doesn't try to make him appear "cool". In fact, the script is quite uncompromising in the way it refuses to humanize Panzram, at least beyond the minimum degree required. But despite Woods' strong performance and a few nice directorial touches (especially in the use of black-and-white cinematography and newsreels from the period), the film is rather flat - almost like a TV production. (**1/2)

If you are into the genre, as I am, this is a perfectly acceptable film, Woods is fine in it, I feel people either love this guy, or hate him. Should not distract from the story and he is pretty good in it, I am in the love James woods camp. (Videodrome is awesome- all hail the new flesh-) But its not just Woods in this, all the supporting cast are good, it was filmed on a modest budget, but still retains that polished 90's edge to it, does not come across as cheap though. Give this ago if you have not seen it but do not be expecting something along the lines of silence or seven, you will be disappointed.I give it an 8, for the cast, the story and the time it was made in. And I will watch it again in another five years. On a side note, people should judge films a little better, rankings on this site are getting stupid, this is better than a lot of films getting a 9. And there are some film greats that are genre breaking that rank in below an 8, sort it out a little bit please, my fellow community.

I haven't read the novel, and if it's comparable to this, I have no intention of doing so. My father purchased this for me, on account of the name attached to it. I had never heard of it, and it's not surprising that this was pretty forgotten. It's uncompromising, that's for sure. However, it really doesn't "work" on us. We're not that engaged. This borders on propaganda for the death penalty and for the idea of some people just being "evil", or "bad seeds". Everything that Panzram is seen doing in this can be explained through psychology, even if his actions are not exactly admirable. When we first see Woods, he's mugging in extremis; this he fortunately stops, and gradually, we do come to understand him. His guard, too. Those are about it. Everyone else is there either to provide opposition, or because they were in real life. The only characters we get are a hateful one and a seemingly naive one(certainly by this movie's logic). Well, the Irishman is interesting enough. The acting is good. Editing and cinematography are average. This is close to being pure emotional porn for those who read/watch stories about serial killers. There is a lot of strong language, a bit of brutal, bloody violence and disturbing content including a rape in this. I recommend this to those who catch all of these, and big fans of James. 6/10

Don't get me wrong; this movie is worth at least one viewing. James Woods - as usual - is great in his performance, and the supporting cast is good, too.

Killer: A Journal of Murder is based on Thomas Gaddis' and James O. Long's fascinating 1970 book of the same name. It contains many of the letters Panzram wrote to Henry Lesser (who was a Washington, D.C. jail guard, not a prison guard at Leavenworth) while he was on death row in Leavenworth.

While it is a common practice for films to take artistic liberties when dealing with true stories, this film went a bit far in trying to make Carl Panzram (Woods) into a sympathetic character. True, Carl Panzram was the product of a barbaric prison system, but he stands out in history as one of the few arch-criminals who did not want sympathy, something this film ignores.

This was a film that needed to be made, but unfortunately, the story was mishandled in a maudlin attempt to get the viewer to care about one of the most reprehensible human beings who ever lived. If they had wanted to make a biographical film to convey their particular message, the people responsible for this movie should have made a film about Caryl Chessman, a criminal more eloquent, tragic and - most importantly - far more sympathetic than Carl Panzram.