Speck

Richard Speck was always one of the most scary true-life serial killers so I was hoping to be frightened by this picture.

It starts off with a warning saying that the film has been edited so it could gain an "R" rating. So I'm thinking this is going to be some nasty gore-fest.

If there was any gore, it was all edited out, and badly.

Richard Speck is one terrifying dude, but this film comes across as something you might see on UPN.

Wait for "Great Trials and Crimes of the 20th Century" to re-air on PBS and look for the Richard Speck segment. It will scare the pants off of you.

This is pretty bad

2/5 stars.

I rented the Rated R version of Speck, and i can only imagine what the Director's unrated version is like. To call this is a disturbing movie is an understatement. This is not a film to be entertained by, it is rather slow-paced at times. I am not saying this is a bad movie, it serves it's function very well. The acting is very well done. I say this because the women who play the nurses truly made themselves believable in their performances in sheer terror.

I am no expert on the actual story of Richard Speck, so i can't say just how accurate this film really is. I do know that he was surely a complete psychotic in every meaning of the word. Not everyone will enjoy this film, or even like it. Some will be turned off simply due to the fact that it is so dark and depressing. It's a coin toss, but i would recommend it for fans of the genre.

I watched the unrated version of this movie and as a person who has studied the life and crimes of Speck closely, I must say this movie is a flawed but ambitious take on the real story. While capturing the true horror of Speck and the murders this film makes the following factual errors. 1. Speck did not inject drugs at the crime scene as depicted in the movie. In fact he was mainly an alcoholic and pill popper who rarely took drugs via syringe. 2. The Asian nurse who survived Speck's massacre did not squirm her way down stairs and under the couch in the living room as depicted in the movie. This would have been impossible. In real life she hid under a bed while Speck methodically eliminated his 8 victims. 3. The movie depicts Speck as being violent and brutal with the women as soon as he meets them. Not true. In reality Speck was at first calm and gentle, reassuring the women he wasn't going to hurt them. This is how he was able to tie each of them up. 4. The real Richard Speck was not the deep thinker the movie depicts him to be. FBI profiler Robert Ressler interviewed Speck in the 80's and said that Speck not only DID'NT know why he committed the murders but that he wasn't interested in learning why nor could he shed any light on why. Speck was known to be of below average intelligence and not the philosopher king who narrates this movie. If the story wasn't so tragic and horrifying, the voice over would be laughable. All in all, Doug Cole's performance is adequately menacing and cold-blooded even though I don't think the real Speck was so forward in his violence. No doubt he was a very violent person when under the influence but he was also known, after all, for being a fairly slick con man who was able to put people at ease before victimizing them. Beverly Ann Sotelo's performance as the surviving nurse is the finest in the film. She is a very good actress. If you are at all squeamish, do not see this film. It's very graphic and disturbing.

Rented this from my local Blockbuster under the title SPECK - that may be the way to look for it if you still feel the need to see it after this review.

It's a movie about the serial killer Richard Speck, who killed several nurses in Chicago in the sixties. Watching the movie, one gets the feeling that it follows the crimes to the letter. Unfortunately, that doesn't make for a good movie.

Another problem I had was the near-constant music letting us know that this was a SCARY MOVIE, and some god-awful narration letting us know what's motivating Speck. The acting was average for this type of film; to give credit where credit is due, the movie is very beautifully photographed for my taste. Your mileage may vary.

Over all, if you're interested in the subject matter, it may be worth your time.

My girlfriend and I enjoy the serial killer bio pics that have been coming out recently. We've seen "Dahmer" and "Bundy", both of which were released last year. I found both of those movies to be disturbing and realistic portrayals of the mindset of those men and the events surrounding their crimes.

"Speck" by contrast was highly stylized and contained absolutely no substance. I only watched the first hour and saw only the suggestion of violence along with a laborious soundtrack. The director wanted it both ways, he wanted you to be disturbed by this man but no *show* you anything disturbing. The acting was mediocre and the plot moved at a snail's pace. I am not a proponent of gratuitous violence, but if you're going to make a movie about a serial killer, especially a REAL one, then at least give us some sense of his rituals and behavior. They made Speck out to be a disgruntled cowboy that flashes his knife and does little else. yawn.

If you want to see a real dramatization of a serial killer and his mindset, see either "Dahmer" or "Bundy".