Rampage: The Hillside Strangler Murders

Do you have any idea how wretched a film has to be for me to consider it the worst "true" serial killer-themed movie ever? Well, this one gets that honor. How it was humanly possible to make a movie worse than SPECK boggles my mind. But this crew did. Oh wait, I know why: 1. Here's a movie whose title suggests it will only appeal to true crime buffs. So let's alienate the only possible fan base this movie could have by changing EVERYTHING factual about the case. Nevermind the fact that the real Ken Bianchi was a slick BS artist. Nope, this movie turns him into Kevin Spacey from THE USUAL SUSPECTS. And what's with that title, you ask? Weren't there two Hillside Stranglers? Yes. Yes, there were. But Angelo Buono is a minor character in this piece. Forget the fact that he was the actual brains behind the crimes and was in effect Ken's mentor in murder. Angelo gets one brief scene and then falls off the face of the earth. Interestingly, Angelo's criminal trial was the longest in United States history up to that point. Do they even see fit to give us little slices of information like that in the closing credits? Nah. Because research is hard.

2. There's this wonderful new invention out there called a tripod. It allows a camera to be placed in a fixed position for a steady, undistracting shot. Our cinematographer hasn't heard of this invention. Therefore, he shoots every scene in a circular dolly shot. No, seriously. EVERY scene. Sometimes to break the monotony of the circular dolly shots, we get a circular dolly shot superimposed onto ANOTHER circular dolly shot. Yay.

3. Our psychiatrist Samantha is such a model of professionalism that she keeps candid nude pictures of herself hanging on the wall in her study. I guess this is to provide a conversation piece to visiting patients and law enforcement personnel. She's also apparently so absorbed in her casework that she can never seem to fasten the top 6 or 7 buttons on her blouse. It's impossible to give a tinker's squat about Samantha because her only character development consists of her having increasingly half-hearted sex with a parade of drugged-out strangers.

4. When the story lags, cut to another drug-fueled orgy! Not that you'll be able to see much, because for these sequences they seem to have strapped a camera onto a hummingbird. A hummingbird with a penchant for annoyingly long dissolves. And because recutting a film to meet an R-rating costs money, let's just digitally fog certain props and naked characters that the MPAA finds offensive. Ah, digital fogging. It's not just for Japanese pornos anymore! Classy.

In conclusion, this movie fails as a serial killer biopic. It fails as a character study. It fails as a procedural. It fails as a horror film. It fails as a suspense film. But if you look at it as an Impassioned Plea for Tolerance and Acceptance of the Circular Dolly Shot, you'll find no better example.

Fisher's film about the Hillside stranger killings, is not a homage to the 70s or a realistic film by any means. Actually its a pretty horrible softcore porn like crap put out by Hollywood that i wish i didn't waste my time on. I don't get how it cost a whole million dollars to make a crappy film like this. I mean thats not too much for a budget, but even that million is wasted here. The cast is not good, even clifton Collins was not impressive while i blame the screenplay and weird direction. The atmosphere was nonexistent, dialogues just stupid. the cinematography didn't help, quite confusing unimpressive work from Eliot Rockett. The film is not recommended by me by any means, skip it big time.--- IMDb Rating: 4.0, my rating: 5/10

I have read the books and case studies on the Hillside Stranglers and this film has little to nothing to do with the true events. How can they even call this a "serial killer" film and not show any (oh, OK part of one) of the killings? The rating hypes up violence and there really is not any in this piece of crap. This "film" is so pathetic it's like some kind of soft-core, made for cable fake porn. If all I wanted to see was naked broads, I would rent a real porn. Where is the killing? Where is the blood and carnage promised on the box? There's no amount of c-level actress t&a that could save this waste of celluloid. Real fans of violent, exploitive cinema beware: This movie blow's it big time. Save your money and avoid this crappy flick.

When I first picked this movie up I feared it to be another cheap, poorly written real-life serial killer movie such as 'Gacy'. I was happy to find while watching it that it was actually a well done movie. Clifton Collins Jr. delivers a strong performance as Kenneth Bianchi, one of the two men responsible for the 1977 murders of many young women. His eerie resemblance to the real Bianchi really gives the film an extra boost of realism. Brittany Daniel gives a convincing performance as well, playing Samantha Stone, a psychiatrist who specializes in determining if a suspect is truly insane.

The movie lacks, though, when it tries to add an additional sub-plot in the story. This being Samantha's troubles with her partying, druggie, cheating boyfriend. This non-conclusive aspect of the story tends to use up time that could have been better used to develop Clifton Collin's character. Also, a factor that I felt was unneeded was the amount of nudity and sex in the film. Many shots of naked Daniel and other random couples having sex got a bit excessive at times, and tended to become redundant.

Over-all, the film was not badly done. I enjoyed a few neat filming effects and techniques in the beginning and other parts of the film. Good dialog, clever ending, and a good plot. 7/10.

*Word of warning- If you're looking for historical accuracy in this film you are not going to find it. It's very loosely based on the Hillside Strangler. The timeline is very far off and the events that occur are mostly made up for dramatic reasons.*

As an genre fan and director is somewhat as old as I am, I had some hope to see new talent to show off here. Sadly that didn't happen.

First thing what kicks in is noticing that these kids have seen that french movie Irréversible. What means dizzy camera rotating around and buzzing sound from lights. Too bad this doesn't serve any purpose on this movie and shows off the low budged and lack of talent of filmography and editing. On Irréversible all that well done camera trickery served an purpose to tell story from end to beginning seamlessly, but on this its just to cover dull story whit "exotic" 70s' setting (clothing) and predictable story. On acting wise, only one who shows any talent on this flick is Clifton Collins Jr., who seems to be stuck in 2nd class movies since his last notable appearance on mindhunters (and it's director has too, who was called in to remake original unwatchable Exorcist: The Beginning to proper old school horror). Not to mention, this has some lame "blurred out" scenes, where people are having sex and one injection, is as annoying like wathcing some mtv show where all the official logos are blurred out. Haven't seen this on "movies" ever. I guess the only kicker in this one is to see "Dawson's Creek" appearance star butt naked coupe of times (amazing they didn't blur that out), what I never missed because I have only seen that series only couple of times by force. Showing off complete lack of talent, she kind of reminded me of Paris hilton on House of Wax.

So shortly: Lack of talent on movie-making and acting, arty low budged crap, what struggles to be full lenght film. Only question is how could somebody waste money to release this kind of *bleeeeb*. Perhaps this would have been acceptable in 1980 but...