Ed Gein: The Butcher of Plainfield

With a catchy title like the Butcher of Plainfield this Ed Gein variation and Kane Hodder playing him will no doubt fly off the shelves for a couple of weeks.Most viewers will be bored silly with this latest take on the life of Ed Gien.

The movie focuses on Ed's rampage and gives us a(few)glimpses into his Psycosis and dwelling in Plainfeild.Its these scenes that give the movie a much needed jolt.

What ruins this is the constant focus on other characters lives and focuses less on Eds.Big mistake here.

Kane Hodder is a strange choice to play Gein,but He does pull it off quite well,and deserves more acting credits than he gets these days.Prascilla Barnes and Micahel Barryman also show up.

3/10

I stopped watching this film half way through. It was just terrible! Boring, contrived subplots. A complete lack of the pathos seen in Norman Bates, Buffalo Bill, or Steve Railsback's portrayal of Ed Gein. A movie doesn't have to be historically accurate, but the true story of Ed Gein is so much more interesting than this third-rate melodrama that was completely made up for no good reason! Ed Gein as portrayed by Kane Hodder is a cartoon sadist. The attempts to show the trauma inflicted on him by his mother are just weak exercises in recycled style. And this movie wanted to be stylish, but it even screwed that up. Fortunately, there is a better film of this story. 2001's Ed Gein told the story efficiently, and offered a few real chills as we watched a sick man not in control of himself. Steve Railsback, who played Ed Gein that time, was already famous for memorably portraying another famous serial killer: Charles Manson. His Ed had pathos. His film is the one to see. Avoid this mess.

I agree with the first reviewer. The real Ed Gein was nothing like the one depicted in this movie. In the first place, the real Ed Gein was NOT aggressive. He was a shy, quiet man. The guy in this movie got mad real easy and when he got mad, he LUNGED at people. There was a scene where he went to the graveyard to dig up a body and the night watchman was there. All it took was a couple of lines and Ed got mad and killed him. That did NOT happen in real life. There are a lot of serial killer movies being made these days and quite frankly, NONE of them are accurate. Either the makers of the movie are lazy and don't research the real story enough, or they are calling themselves "spicing up" the movie for interest purposes. Whatever the reason, they just kill the story by adding a bunch of made up stuff. I think the worst one i've seen to date was the BTK Killer by Uli Lommel. Man talk about a waste of celluloid. That movie was so bad i will deliberately AVOID any Uli Lommel movies in the future.

***May contain spoilers***

I had very high expectations for this film, based on the trailer. I knew a bit about the real Ed Gein, so I figured this was a medium-budget Hollywood version of the real events. Man was I wrong.

First, the writing apparently came from an eight-grader who barely knew anything about Ed's history and cranked out the script in about 20 minutes. The movie completely passes over the most interesting facets of Ed and his relationship with his mother (not to mention what the real police found in his house) and decides to focus primarily on the young deputy who looks like he just wandered onto the set. Likewise, all of the male characters seem to be ad-libbing their dialog throughout the entire movie. I'm not exaggerating.

Don't even get me started with the historical goofs in this movie. Seriously, who the hell directed this? This movie is supposed to take place around 1957, but the cops are carrying modern side-handled batons, some of the stuff in the hardware store look like they came from Lowes, and when the cop gets to a payphone he dials 9-1-1 (didn't exist back then). Also, Ed was a small guy, scary like Anthony Perkins' character in Psycho (who was supposedly based on real-life Ed), not this burly dude who ended up looking way too much like the bad guy in Men In Black.

Another thing that really bugged me was the appearance that the makers of this film shot the whole thing in an abandoned, 3 building set. Because of the "clever" camera angles, you never see any actual town, and the interior of the sets looked like old, long-abandoned shacks. Pop a cash register on a saw-horse and bam!--instant hardware store.

I'm usually pretty forgiving of low-budget horror films, but this one just begs for it. All you had to do was include most of the real events (even embellish them!), pay five good actors instead of 15 crappy ones, and for Pete's sake take 5 minutes and think about the time period once in a while. My advice: Google Ed Gein, you'll be far more entertained.

I was interested in seeing this film, because I was hoping to see a reenactment of the actual story that inspired so many of the all time classic horror movies, but what we got was a low budget spin on the acts of Ed Gein, not the story of Ed Gein. Kane is a large presence, but Ed wasn't. He flew bellow the radar because he was quiet, slow, and unnoticed, yet this movie shows him as a bully? I also wanted to know why they stuck Michael Berryman's character in the movie? Ed Gein didn't have help digging up body's, and the truth would have been much more twisted then the fictional situation. It may be a silly observation, but we know that the Gein house was basically a rats nest, and only the room his mother lived in was clean, yet there's an early scene where Ed's in the hall, and the carpet looked like it had never been left longer then an hour, without cleaning. I didn't hate the movie, but it was just another spin on a true serial killer, yet somehow they decided the truth wasn't as good as the fiction? It's worth a watch, but not if you want a true account of the gruesome truth of Ed Geins rampage.