Killer: journal d'un assassin

Tim Metcalfe's 'Killer: A Journal of Murder', which is based on the life of serial killer Carl Panzram, and uses passages of his biography, works because of one particular reason: James Woods. He plays Panzram, with terrific understanding & amazing ease. Woods, undoubtedly, was the Marlon Brando of the 1990's.

'Killer: A Journal of Murder' explores the journey Panzram. Panzram was a multi-faced person, he was unpredictable, unforgivable & very different, if I may say so. 'Killer: A Journal of Murder', though, not the most efficient take on a person so multi-faced, it at least tries to explore his vision.

However, this film isn't as no-holds-barred as I thought it should have been. I thought there was a lack of emotional connect. Though it makes up for a viewing, thanks to Woods's terrific act, but as a whole of a motion-picture, it doesn't reach the level it could've.

I was engaged at times, but Woods, well his performance left me thinking about what Panzram must've been thinking before he was hanged. Woods is a genius actor and 'Killer: A Journal of Murder' proves that fact right.

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.

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.

Carl Panzram was a viscous creep with a real life bite-your-face-off attitude. Woods played him to smithereens.

Sure he overacted a bit, but Panzram was not the most laid-back guy.

The problem with this film is that it couldn't decide if it was a character study or a condemnation of prison conditions. They also managed to throw in religious bigotry and left-wing politics. It did it better than some films would have, but the ending left too much open.

Woods owned the film. He had Carl as both Genius and loose cannon. The real Panzram was similar. And many quotes contributed to him are scattered about the film. ("I wish you all had one neck..." "I could hang a dozen men...") Leonard did an adequate job as Henry Lesser but played him a bit to "nice." Most of the guards kept their distance from ol' Carl. With good reason too.

Woods fans see this now. Anyone else...your call.

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