Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaIn 1958 Nebraska 19 year old garbageman Charles Starkweather goes on a murder spree with his 14 year old girlfriend Caril Ann Fugate killing 11 people in three months, introducing America to... Leggi tuttoIn 1958 Nebraska 19 year old garbageman Charles Starkweather goes on a murder spree with his 14 year old girlfriend Caril Ann Fugate killing 11 people in three months, introducing America to spree killing.In 1958 Nebraska 19 year old garbageman Charles Starkweather goes on a murder spree with his 14 year old girlfriend Caril Ann Fugate killing 11 people in three months, introducing America to spree killing.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
William Frederick Knight
- Robert McClurg
- (as William Knight)
Recensioni in evidenza
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.
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.
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.
The story line was fine, and followed the real events fairly close to reality. HOWEVER, I have to wonder if the director and producer EVER visited Nebraska before filming. I have lived in Nebraska my entire life, and have spent much time in Lincoln. My home is in the western part of the state, near the Wyoming border, where the chase took place. I live in the town where Charlie spent his first night in jail on the way back to Lincoln. No where are there MOUNTAINS. No where between Lincoln and Wyoming is there a desert- like landscape with tumble weeds and cacti. The setting was so far off from the reality of Nebraska, it was laughable for a Nebraskan to watch. Also, they gave the actors a Southern hick accent, and had them use words like "I reckon" and "ain't." People don't talk like that here, and they didn't in the 1950's either. It could've been a much more disturbing picture, if they had used the quiet beauty of the Nebraska prairie-type lands juxtaposed against the brutality of the crimes. It was too cheesy with the Arizona landscape being passed off as Nebraska, and the fake Southern accents passed off in the dialogue. What a disappointment.
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.
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.
Lets look at the plot outline to start with, which refers to 16 year old Starkweather and his 14 year old girlfriend. Whilst I thought Brent Taylor and Shannon Lucio played their roles adequately, they do not pass as these age groups. If you research the facts of the film you find that Starkweather was actually 19 and Caril had just turned 13 therefore, I don't understand why they cast two obviously older actors. There should have been more of a 'Lolita' scenario. The poster refers to Natural Born Killers, etc and suggests this is the story that inspired these films. This film inspires no one. It dwells on the 11 killings but at the same time does nothing to broaden our understanding of the characters. The events leading up to the first murder are brushed over. 'Lets just give an idea of who they are and move on to the gore!' But the violence is just lame and it becomes monotonous seeing Starkweather moving on to the next kill. The character who stood out was the Sheriff but for all the wrong reasons. If he smokes in real life then he has a funny way of holding a cigar. His dialogue was laughable and every time he came on screen I cringed. Don't go out of your way to watch this film, you'll regret it.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizLance Henriksen's voice as the dark man mentor was added in post-production , and Henriksen embellished on the original dialogue the dark man said by adding some profanity.
- BlooperWhen Charlie is stabbing Caril-Ann's father, the knife becomes bloody after a few stabs. The camera turns to Caril-Ann's little sister for a while, and when it turns back to Charlie, the blood on the knife is gone.
- ConnessioniFeatures The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet (1952)
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Starkweather?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
Botteghino
- Budget
- 1.000.000 USD (previsto)
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti