उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

I suppose it's a bit trendy to do so, but Tartan films certainly does take advantage of the direct to DVD/late night cable market. The books recounting the ill deeds of Gein, Dahmer, Gacy and Buono/Bianchi are well documented. Cram as much shock into 90 minutes as possible and if you can effectively capture the pathos and motivation of these grandiose sickos all the better. I love a challenging film, one that leaves me a bit mentally drained without long-term ill effects.

I'd say this is one of the better ones, due mostly to the benefit of having two protagonists with anti-social manias to capture instead of one. And the casting of fairly well known actors doesn't hurt either, although the roles actually could have been reversed physically speaking. What I remember from the book's photos is that Bianchi was much more vital and really did look like a cop, not the skinny smarmy John Watersy used car salesman-y figure Howell presents. And Angelo Buono was tall and lean and the book described him as incredibly fastidious and anal, whereas Turturro is a bit too cliché Italian. Either way, the formula works and I think their chemistry is still effective.

This is definitely the hardest of this series of movies by the producers. The language, the real-time realism, the fear of the victims are all very palpable.

Is there anything more inscrutable and unfathomable than the mind of a serial killer? Probably not, yet, year after year, undeterred filmmakers attempt to come to grips with this elusive subject matter, usually with unsatisfactory results.

Generally, serial killer stories are placed in the context of a police procedural, in which a crack homicide investigator searches for clues in the hopes of finding the culprit before he can claim his next victim. But, once in awhile, filmmakers will take a more serious approach to the topic, focusing more on the killer himself, his methods and his madness, as a means of trying to "open up" the psyche of such a person in the hopes of finding answers. "The Hillside Strangler" is in the second category.

The so-called "Hillside Strangler" actually turned out to be TWO serial killers who, working in tandem, terrorized Los Angeles in the early 1970's. Kenneth Bianchi and Angelo Buono were "cousins" who acted out their hatred of women by kidnapping, raping and slaughtering an assortment of innocent victims they picked out at random (they started with streetwalkers, then branched out to women in general). Bianchi was a loser "nobody" who found murdering helpless young women and terrorizing a whole city (albeit in anonymity) the only way in which he could achieve the status of a "somebody." Buono was a smalltime auto repairman who, through the murders, finally got the opportunity to act out his sadistic sexual fantasies on an epic scale. In fact, as portrayed in the movie, both men use the killings as the ultimate orgasm, confusing the destruction of the helpless with sexual fulfillment.

The problem with a movie like "The Hillside Strangler" is that, no matter how serious it is in its intention and approach, the film is bound to feel exploitative in its darkest moments. Although this is definitely no sensationalistic rabblerousing gore-fest like "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," after we've watched a half dozen or so innocent terrified young girls being essentially tortured to death, we still wind up asking ourselves what the purpose of the movie really is. Director Chuck Parello adopts a cool, detached, documentary-style tone throughout, but it still isn't enough to smooth us past the emotionally disturbing rough patches.

That being said, there are a few quality elements in "The Hillside Strangler" provided one has a high tolerance for depictions of disturbing violence. The movie effectively shows just how easily two utterly amoral individuals can pass for rational and normal in the eyes of the outside world. Bianchi is particularly adept at leading a double life, going so far as pulling the wool over the eyes of his very own wife who has no clue about her husband's deadly nocturnal activities. C. Thomas Howell and Nicholas Turturro give complex, chilling performances as Bianchi and Buono, keeping us on the knife-edge of suspense through much of the movie. The film also does a good job capturing the look of the '70's, right on down to the polyester clothes, perms and ubiquitous moustaches that helped to define the era. The poorly lit, slightly grainy photography also gives the film the look of one of those low budget exploitation pictures of thirty years ago. (There is at least one inadvertent anachronism in the film: the skyline we see in some of the establishing shots is of Los Angeles today, not three decades ago).

The screenplay by Parello and Stephen Johnston pays little heed to the detection aspects of the story, so much so that we never find out what it is that made the police suspicious of Bianchi in the first place. We see him being apprehended but have no idea what the clues were that led to his capture. This is a frustration oversight on the part of the filmmakers.

"The Hillside Strangler" deserves credit for at least trying to bring a more controlled, less sensationalistic approach to a topic that often gets thrown onto the trash heap of two-bit police dramas and slasher horror films. But, for all its good intentions, the film doesn't wind up revealing much about the psychotic mindset that we didn't already know before. Thus, the rewards are not sufficient compensation for the unpleasantness of sitting through so much of the movie.

Except for victim names, this true-life story of the infamous serial killings in Los Angeles in the late 1970s is mostly factual, and is told from the POV of the two killers: Kenneth Bianchi (C. Thomas Howell) and Angelo Buono (Nicholas Turturro). As such, the film functions largely as a character study of these two criminals. The script is structured as a series of events, in chronological order, beginning with Bianchi's life in upstate New York, where he started out as a petty thief.

Although he apparently tried to live a reasonably normal life, Bianchi felt constantly rejected, especially in his repeated, unsuccessful efforts to join the police force. He tells his mom: "Whatever I do, nothing ever turns out right; sometimes I just want to find some tall building and take a big fall".

His hook-up with Angelo Buono in Los Angeles proves fatal. Buono, a domineering, unctuous brute who haunts the tawdry, seedy areas of LA, persuades Bianchi to go into the hooker business. But that effort backfires as a result of one particular prostitute and as a result, the two men lose their "business". Seeking "payback", they lure into their presence, and then kill, a whole series of women, mostly street hookers, as a way to "settle the score".

Their murder partnership calls to mind the symbiotic relationship between Perry Smith and Dick Hickock, in the film "In Cold Blood" (1967). It was the liaison, the merger of mindsets that ultimately led to the killings.

Some of the scenes in "The Hillside Strangler" are quite graphic. They are hard to watch because the victims are portrayed as real people who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. I think the Director could have spent less time showing us the nude bodies of the victims, which strikes me as gratuitous and unnecessary.

Both C. Thomas Howell and Nicholas Turturro give performances that are credible. Allison Lange, as Bianchi's girlfriend in LA, provides about the only semblance of humanity in this dark story. Toward the film's end, an effort to enact a copycat killing renders an interestingly strange plot twist that presumably really happened.

The entire story is very depressing and disturbing. However, visual shock value notwithstanding, the film's presentation of that story is realistic and credible. It's not for the faint of heart. And the film's story has greater breadth than depth. But as a general overview of events and of the mindset of the two criminals, "The Hillside Strangler" is certainly worth watching.

In the end of the 70's, the dysfunctional Kenneth Bianchi (C. Thomas Howell) lives with his mother and is obsessed to join the police force. When his application is refused, his mother suggests him to go to Los Angeles to live with his sadistic and perverted cousin Angelo Buono (Nicholas Turturro). Kenneth unsuccessfully tries to join LAPD, and Angelo convinces him to start a prostitution business with him. They force two girls from Tucson to work for them, but their competitors destroy their business and steals their money. The frustrated Kenneth and Angelo decide to revenge against a whore, and Kenneth strangles her, feeling a great pleasure with the act of killing. The two cousins become addicted in death, initially killing whores and then attacking single women, dumping their bodies on the hills of LA.

"The Hillside Strangler' is a low budget movie based on a true event that happened in 1977 in Los Angeles, with the police chasing one serial killer when actually they were two. The disturbing and violent story has many strong moments with the explicit sadism of the two cousins, and sex exploitation with many nudism, but it is well acted and attractive. This movie is not recommended for sensitive persons due to the psychopathic violence, but for those that like a cruel and credible story, it is a good choice. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "O Estrangulador" ("The Strangler")

The Hillside Strangler's audience demographic would be the lesser intelligent side of men who have committed violent sex crimes. I saw this film in Cannes at a market screening, thinking it might be some art film about the infamous Hillside Strangler. What I found instead was a production of the lowest standards on virtually every level. I got up and left the theatre when Nicholas Turturro and C. Thomas Howell(may these two never work again) were threatening a girl into getting gangbanged by a couple of old men.

The Hillside Strangler is one of those rare pieces of crap that are so fundamentally repugnant that any and all members of the cast and crew should feel a deep shame for being any part of this revolting project. And one added note, it is pretty hard to offend me. I'm not a church goer or a censor. This film is really just too low to not hate! Mostly I think I hate it because in Cannes, where I saw it, there are so many better things you can do with your time.

If you've seen the other serial killer movies by Tartan films, you'll get exactly what you expect from this film: actors you haven't seen in awhile steeped in extreme violence with not a whole lot of emphasis on the facts. There are some gruesome scenes here, though tamer than the actual crimes of the Hillside Stranglers. Pretty good performances all around, but not excellent. Some interesting camera work, better than you'd expect from a film with so low a budget.

I was concerned by the casting of Turturro and Howell, having had a fondness for the earlier portrayals by Dennis Farina and Billy Zane. Plus, C Thomas Howell just seemed too cute to play Ken Bianchi. But once I got a look at him, I was shocked by his gaunt, creepy appearance. I sincerely hope he looks better than that in real life.

To conclude, this is by no means the movie of the year, but if you liked Tartans Gein, Gacy or Bundy, give this one a watch.

Well, not bad but by no means not great. What is missing from this telling of The Hillside Strangler story is what is usually important to making a good serial killer movie: "police involvement". The fact that what really stumped the LAPD for so long is that they didn't know they were looking for two people was key in the real-life story and not even mentioned here. Also the film makers failed to really show (only in some quick snippets) just how sick and twisted these two were and some of the really gruesome things they did to their victims. I'm not saying it needed to be shown but it should have been at least mentioned. But there again that would call for police involvement. That being said I would mention that C. Thomas Howell turns in a pretty good performance here. With his gaunt appearance, silly thin mustache and pathetic shleprock mannerisms he gives his character, he almost channels the spirit of an icky Willem Dafoe performance. Almost. I'll be kind and give this a C-.

Kenneth Bianchi and Angelo Buono were two cousins who were convicted of the rape, torture and murder of 10 females of various ages in LA 1977/78. This film is an interpretation of their reign of terror.

Unpleasant. If you are going to do a serial killer movie, one based on real life perpetrators, then you surely have to make the characterisations of fascination value away from their despicable crimes. Unfortunately director Chuck Parello and co-writer Stephen Johnston fail to do this, leaving the film with a paucity of worthwhile human story moments. It's not helped by the fact Nicholas Torturro as Buono is badly miscast, he's just impossible to take serious in a role that calls for the ultimate seriousness.

On the plus side, C. Thomas Howell as Bianchi hits the right notes. Howell is something of an undervalued actor in dark roles, as far back as 1990 where he played a vengeful killer in a film called Kid, he's been doing good moody work in thrillers. Elsewhere John Pirozzi's cinematography is on the money, keeping the murky tones of the film in harness, while Gregg Gibbs' production design has all the late 1970s requisites. 5/10

This movie is not for the faint of heart. These two men were sadistic, woman hating thugs but it transcends the genre by presenting them as human and bad, not as stereotypical Hollywood killing machines or some victim of uncontrollable compulsions. It was certainly better than earlier flicks that only hinted at their lifestyle. C.T. Howell's Ken Bianchi is a little overdone but he does a good job as portraying him as a liar, geek, sadist, weakling and a con man with a smidgen of humanity. Nick Turturro stole the show with his over-the-top Angelo Buono who was a real goon in the Soprano style of "lovable" Italian sadists. The movie takes a slap at Italian macho man culture but in the case of these two goons, it isn't offensive or unwarranted. Even before they slapped their first women, you got to really dislike them as Nick took his weaker cousin on a journey through the tawdry sexual night life of LA. The way they duped the small town girls with their phony modeling agency spiel then forced them to be whores was a good warm up to their later murder spree. Good late night flick, but definitely not for your date or the sensitive type!

This was a very poor serial killer movie. It was very lightweight. It was not scary or disturbing in the slightest. It kind of jumped around a lot and didn't keep you "in the moment." "Manhunter" was a thousand times better than this pulp. There was very little character development to show you what was inside the heads of these killers. The movie should have shown more about why the liked to do this so much. In fact, they were drawn as such cartoons, it was hard to believe this was a true story. Also, the victims were not believable at all. I seriously doubt that whores in downtown LA look like this! This didn't even qualify as a "guilty pleasure." Just pass on by this one.

Hillside Strangler stands out as hands down one of the all time great true crime films. Chuck Parello plunges the viewer headfirst into the acid guts of sexual sadism, familial dysfunction, and spree killings.

The basic plot follows the rampage of Kenneth Bianchi and Angelo Buono, two cousins who committed some of the most perverted acts of torture and homicide recorded in the annals of American crime. What makes this film stand out so well is how mundane the circumstances provoking their spree happen to be. The murders are presented as a simple, reflexive response to a single act of humiliation.

Parello perfectly captures the tacky, sexually saturated milieu of the mid-1970's. The world in which these crimes occur is one of female objectification, sexual dysfunction, and brazen immorality. By spending some time charting the vapid nature of the cousin's lives - petty existences comprised of orgies, drugs, and non- stop cruising - the eventual segue into murder feels almost natural.

There are some extremely disturbing scenes of rape, humiliation, and murder. However, the story emphasizes psychological and environmental factors just enough that Hillside Strangler approaches the precipice of exploitation without teetering over. It's a delicate balancing act that pushes the film to a level of repulsion it would not have reached if treated as a garden-variety serial killer flick (see Mike Feifer's EXORABLE shot on HD garbage cheapies for an example of the worst case scenario of the latter).

For those who feel that this type of movie trivializes the real pain experienced by real victims, I'll point out that this film only scrapes the surface of Bianchi and Buono's evil. Parello re-stages the crimes to avoid some horrifying details (like, for example, the fact that close to half of their victims were teens - some as young as 12), and allow the audience to empathize with the killers enough to maintain interest.

Hillside is a gem of indie true crime.

It's hard to believe that this film was made so recently - it comes off like a very bad 70s TV movie, only with more graphic violence. Because there is no depth to any of the characters & no attempt to shed any light on the psychological state of the 2 main characters & what led them to commit the murders, the repetitive scenes of degrading sexual attacks on vulnerable young women seem gratuitous bordering on misogynistic. It's miscast too - Howells is a good actor but he's not a natural bad guy & his performance isn't enough to redeem such a bog standard film. On the upside, there are some classic moments of unintentional comedy resulting from the ridiculous script, so if you have to sit through it look out for those.

The tagline ‘reprise of the video nasty' was inspired by the comments of Edinburgh International Film Festival (EIFF ) Artistic Director Shane Danielsen when introducing its world premiere. The Director Chuck Parello said that in previous serial killer movies the killer was often likeable or funny or sexy, so he had to show the creepy, nasty side and make the audience hate him. The killings are graphic. The lighting is always such as to show off the stripped women's breasts. If it were a good film that might simply be part and parcel of the genre, but Hillside Strangler is a poor film with an absence of tension or skill. It has the quality of a soft porn movie shown on late night tv, where the only incentive that can be offered to the audience to keep watching is the next gratuitous display of flesh. If it were part of a horror film festival (say Edinburgh's ‘Dead by Dawn') I would perhaps feel more charitable towards it – presented in that manner it would be part of a gore fest that accepts such trashiness as part of the fun. That it is included as part of the EIFF raises other questions. If EIFF defends its choice for inclusion on the grounds that it wants to greatest possible diversity, I would like to have seen it advertised as a video nasty style movie.

The Hillside Strangler feels, at first, like it wants to be taken seriously. When it started I found myself expecting another 'Henry, Portrait Of A Serial Killer' but, as the film progressed I found myself changing my opinion. I initially thought that the flat style was meant to make the film look like a 70's TV movie and reflect the type of thing people were watching at the time the film is set but it wasn't long before I started to think that perhaps it was just the lack of imagination and the low budget that gave it the small screen look.

Like 'Henry' the film unflinchingly shows violence but, where as Henry took the viewer into the dark recesses of revulsion and then stood back to let the viewer think about what they were just watching, 'The Hillside Strangler' seems to enjoy the violence too much and doesn't question the nature of violence on film. The film bludgeons the viewer with its brutality but doesn't seem to know where it is going or why. By the end I found myself bored and irritated by yet another mindless serial killer movie

"The Hillside Strangler" is a seedy, hard-hitting and unflinching serial killer movie, based on true events that occurred in '70s Los Angeles.

C. Thomas Howell plays a role very distant from Jim Halsey in "The Hitcher". His portrayal of true-life serial killer Kenneth Bianchi is very convincing, to say the least. I was genuinely taken aback by his gaunt appearance in this film - he isn't instantly recognisable.

Nicholas Turturro is splendid as the psychotic, cruel other half of the serial killer duo, Angelo Buono.

The Tartan-funded film contains some hard-hitting sequences but despite these it remains an entertaining experience. You won't feel like you need a shower after watching this movie but you may feel a little guilty for viewing some of its seedier content. Definitely recommended for fans of true-life crime.

"Hillside Strangler" tries to given a realistic portray of two cousins who became one of the most notorious mass murder duo ever. First up, the actors were quite good - in C. Thomas Howells' case, it's hard to recognize him when keeping his teenage roles from the 80s in mind. But as far as acting goes, he obviously improved. Lots of good looking girls share the scenes, but when the viewer is shown were it all leads to (as if we didn't already suggest from the title), the more disturbing the story becomes. Not only do Kenneth and Angelo rape, torture and kill these girls on the screen - they did it in reality. What we see is, of course, an "alternate version" to the real world, but still one that sticks to the actual events quite closely. Even though many people may feel uneasy when watching both the explicit sexual scenes and the even more graphic murder moments, it seems that some gruesome details have even been left out. Other parts, such as a female writer who fell in love with Kenneth while he already in prison and who tried to commit another murder in order to install arguments for him being innocent, have been changed, though not entirely made up - that woman really existed (and seemingly, still does exist in some jail). In total, the movie gives a very realistic insight in the late 70s Californian suburban atmosphere and it's darker sides, with the Hillside Stranglers minds being the pinnacle of darkness.

This is certainly a weird bag of mixed "sweets", and about 4 fifths of it tastes like manure, and by that I do not mean the murder-sequences. The director, Chuck Parello, doesn't seem to have a clue about what a good script entails, and he is extremely eager to consult "The Great Book of Clichés" at almost every turn. While the real life Angelo Buono and Kenneth Bianchi probably were quite simplistic and pathetic, however under the ever watchful eye of Parello, they come off most of the time, as nothing but ridiculous caricatures. It is not a good sign when you actually find yourself laughing your head off at lines obviously meant to be menacing, but which on the contrary becomes truly great, unintentional comedy. There is so much hilarious dialogue going on here, that it's unfathomable, and it goes without saying, that this in the end will ruin the deep and unsettling impact Parello probably would have liked it to have. It could almost seem that Parello was hoping, in the future, that the film could get some sort of turkey-award, because many of the images on display here, are just beyond belief. After a woman has been strangled, and Buono checks for life-signs, confirming that she is gone, if you look closely, you can see clearly that she is still breathing! Now, that is what I call good acting, it's truly a feat of accomplishment not being able to do the simplest thing, to play dead. The Royal Shakespeare Company next, I assume? Then you have sequences that seem over-the-top unlikely(And trust me, they are many!!), like fex. when they lure one of the first girls to do some hooking for them. At first she seems genuinely scared, and the whole scene is quite believable, but after a little while she seems quite content being the whore of the house! How are we to interpret this, I wonder? Is she still in a state of massive shock, with the result that numbness has set in, leaving a deadened impression on her face, that could be mistaken for serene calm? Or has she really come to her senses, realising after some serious contemplation, that this new line of work really is the best carriere option for her? That these two psychotic madmen really were heaven sent? You are left with one last alternative, and in this context it is most likely the most plausible one I fear, that Mr Parello simply doesn't have a clue how to piece together images in a concise and believable manner. And concise is probably a foreign word for him, because he doesn't seem to quite know which type of film he is directing; am I directing a Italian gangster movie? Is it a comedy? Is it a movie about dancing? No, wait I'm actually directing a movie about two real-life serial killers!! Well, what the hell, let's just mix them altogether, it probably will turn out more believable that way! Since I've actually given it a 3, that could only mean that there actually were a few sequences that I found to be intense, compelling and disturbing. One of the first murders, I actually found to be one of the most unsettling I've seen in quite a while, and after watching horror films for about 16-17 years now, it goes without saying that I can watch almost anything. So congratulations Mr Parello, for having that brief moment of clarity! I also found some rewarding intensity in the scene where Buono is arguing with his mother, and for the most part I think the women playing the victims did some good acting, in that they seemed genuinely scared, and that they managed to evoke some pity on my part. As a conclusion though, the film is quite simply manure, with just a few bits of candy strewn on it for good measure. And of course, that is far from good enough. See "Bundy" or "Dahmer" instead.

This film turned out to be much more than I thought that it was going to be, most notably, it was extremely disturbing and at times I found myself not able to watch - particularly the rapes and deaths of the poor women. The Hillside Strangler(s) played their roles well, both utterly convincing and rather frightening. Allison Lange was fantastic as the long-suffering Claire. I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone who is faint-hearted. It was a good film, but so disturbing. There was plenty of nudity, offensive language, drug use and violence splashed throughout the movie, but the treatment of the women was so shocking. For that reason, I cannot give this film a rating.