The Night Stalker

I'm going to agree with most of the written reviews here, and go against the overall score this movie got. I am usually very critical of TV movies, but this one was as good, or better, than most feature films.

I thought the acting was first-rate, and the direction was excellent, too. The movie had an aura of danger and suspense about it that most thrillers do not. Of course, that was aided by the foreboding music that lay beneath many of the scenes. But that's OK.

It also helped that the hero, if you want to call her that, was nearly as damaged as the bad guy. She had her own demons, and acted out in ways harmful to herself as a result of them. You don't often see that in these movies; usually the good guy is, well, good, and not nearly defined in depth as the one here was.

This was a good psychological thriller, with both main characters exhibiting deep flaws that are examined nicely.

I know the basic story of the Night Stalker was accurate; I don't know if the plot of the movie was, though. But still, it is very good.

My only complaint is regarding the credits, and has nothing to do with the movie itself. Here on IMDB Annalisa Cochrane as "Mary" gets top billing. That makes no sense; she is only in the movie for one brief scene. She isn't even close to being a main character. So why put her at the top of the cast credit?

Richard Ramirez, the Satan worshiping "Night Stalker", was someone whose crimes and life I was required to study years ago, one of other serial killers for a criminal justice class. He stood out at one of the more understandable, among the many I researched both from personal and academic interest, because of his background: traumatized in several ways from an early age. Ultimately, however, his crimes were horrendous, extreme and effectively should end any sympathetic tendencies towards him as a convicted criminal who confessed to many of his crimes.

Engrossing, chilling and brilliantly acted by Phillips, Ramirez was "Brought to life" with all his cold intelligence and vulnerabilities in place. The subtle expressions, or at times lack thereof, the shift of eyes, the sudden violence. I felt his performance wasn't quite matched by Bellamy Young, but she was entirely believable. She played the lawyer Katherine "Kit", trying to get a confession from him about a crime another was wrongly accused of. The film revolves around the conflict between the two, as she seeks to gain his trust to draw more details of his crimes, which he astutely ascertained, and he to gain something from her he was denied in prison: a female victim he could exploit for his own needs. He sensed vulnerabilities beneath her cool self-assured facade, and sought them out, whether from simple curiosity or true malignancy is for the viewer to decide.

Ramirez' history, his background and the traumas and events directly influencing what he became were shown through flashbacks, a wise choice considering Phillips age, and since he was portraying the killer shortly before his death. The young Ramirez' performance was okay, and the vaguely seen crimes and his eventual capture were understated but at the same time dramatic.

Though many details were left out about the crimes, and the most atmospheric part of the events: the intensity of the hot weather when most occurred was mostly absent, just references or dialogue. I felt that should have played more of a factor in filming, but overall "The Night Stalker" was well done. Rewatchable at least once, to catch nuances one may miss, a quick scene or glance from the characters eyes, I feel most viewers may be left with the truth of the matter. That it was a tragedy all around, absolutely for the victims, but also for Ramirez as a child and young teen. Sympathy for the terrorizing adult, a cruel rapist and murderer? No way.

It's like someone wrote a fanfiction based on Silence of the Lambs using Richard Ramirez as the bad guy. Clarise has demons in her past which affect her adult life; same with Kit in this movie. Kit's demons are somehow tied up with Ramirez's brutal murder spree. Like the fictional Hannibal Lechter, this fictional Ramirez senses that. I doubt the real Ramirez would have cared enough. That said, Lou Diamond Phillips was incredible in the role and the movie was mildly entertaining when it didn't make me roll my eyes. I wasn't surprised the movie was associated with Lifetime, though. Rating - 6/10.

Lou Diamond Phillips stellar performance as the serial killer Richard Ramirez was simply wasted playing opposite actress Bellamy Young who plays a fictional lawyer named Kit (Katherine) whose own life was supposedly haunted by the real Richard Ramirez's 1980's killing spree as the infamous Night Stalker as she lived in the California area.

Yes, the majority of incidents described as happening in Richard Ramirez's teens and the film's killings outlined in this fictional biopic actually occurred and are attributed to Richard Ramirez's murderous spree. However, this film focuses on Ramirez's time in captivity and his interactions with the female lawyer Kit, who meets with Ramirez over four (4) consecutive days in an attempt to record a confession for a double murder that another man will be executed for committing if Ramirez will not admit to being the actual perpetrator.

The fictional drama occurs as Kit is reliving her own teen years while the Night Stalker is all over the news during his late evening robbery, rape and vicious murder spree. Kit has her own demons to live with and the interview scenes between Kit and the shackled Richard Ramirez (Lou Diamond Phillips) are worth watching the film if for nothing else.

I hope the now 56 year old Lou Diamond Phillips is provided an opportunity to star in a few dramatic major motion pictures based on this outstanding role as the Night Stalker, because he has certainly paid his dues carrying more than one film on his own broad shoulders and raising the bar on his fellow actors/actresses to follow his lead. "Lead" being the key word.

I rate The Night Stalker a high 7 out of 10 on Lou Diamond Phillip's outstanding performance.

The guy(s) who play Ramirez, both young and old, are pretty damn good. They don't quite glorify the man. The actor portrays a melodramatic vainglorious narcissist who is full of his own self-importance, intelligent but not the genius he imagines himself to be. That pretty much seems like the real Ramirez you see in interviews. The back-story is pretty accurate in terms of what happened in Ramirez's life. This isn't enough though to save it.

It was the chapter parts with the female lawyer that were kind of irritating. Found myself asking repeatedly "what does this have to do with Ramirez? She is in the park playing on the swing with her boyfriend - why!?!? And, um, she slept all night with her hand restrained in a leather cuff? Really. I get they are trying to give her character complexity and depth, ie "she has a dark side too!" but who cares, the movie is not called "Sexually Confused Female Lawyer", it is called "The Night Stalker".

The interview parts were like an attempt at a poor man's "Clarice vs Hannibal Lecter", not sure the point - the scenes were not as compelling or intelligent or insightful as the script writers or directors intended them to be. Boring stuff. Kept thinking "get on with it already".

I'm getting more convinced with time that there'll never be a better serial killer than (the original) Henry: portrait of a serial killer. They did that on a shoestring budget too.

The "Born to Kill" documentary on Ramirez is far more chilling (and insightful) than this film, but I hope it can serve as a break for Lou Diamond Phillips, he is a talent.