Starkweather

I have studied Charles Raymond Starkweather for the past six months. I was excited when I saw that it would be on Showtime. Not being able to order Showtime, I picked up a copy at Blockbuster. The review is as follows: In the winter of 1958-1959, Charles Starkweather murdered 11 people with his girlfriend Caril-Ann Fugate as his accomplice. Their symphony of murder is told through this movie inaccurately. The hour-and-a-half runtime it has is too short to tell a story of this magnitude. They could've done so much more with the material they had. They could've explored Charlie's personality. What they produced is a film lacking depth and any reason. The psychological effects that Starkweather's crimes had on the public was not displayed at all. And Starkweather's murders are not portrayed accurately.

This movie could've been great given a longer running time and an accurate portrayal. But what the viewing public is left with is a Lifetime Movie on a different channel.

4/10

Well, I can't work out all the people mooning over this movie. I was told the wrong version contains some boom mikes, etc. Well I've got the right version and I still see boom mikes. Never mind that, this is Nebraska, right? Then why are the characters talking with redneck hillbilly accents? Why does the scenery look like Arizona, not Nebraska? Are we presumed too stupid to notice? And the best one of all, the time-frame is 1957-58, right? Well then why are all the cars from the 1940s? OK, a couple are from 1950-51, but not a one newer than that. Again, I have to suppose we are credited with being unable to pick the difference. Old cars are old cars, what's the big deal? And just to ice the cake, several characters are wearing 2004-style eyeglasses. I'm sorry, but these stick out like dogs' balls. Any one of these items fatally damages the film's credibility. Put them all together and it becomes a joke.

Sorry, guys, sort out your backdrops, authenticate your props, localize the dialog and most importantly, get the cars right. I'll give it a 3 anyway, because the actors did a pretty good job. They even managed to keep straight faces.

I lived in Lincoln during the Starkweather era & couldn't believe this movie. First off, there are no cacti & mountains in Nebraska. Even in the 50's Nebraskans didn't talk with southern hick drawls. Also, I've never seen a '48 Ford described as a '55 Chevy. Starkweather was a short (5'8") bow-legged red head that wore very thick glasses. He was a real loser. So was his girl-friend. I thought this might be a good movie but have changed my mind since seeing it. It had the possibility to be one, but was really messed up. I had never heard that Starkweather heard "voices" or saw a "devil" when he was on his rampage. I don't know where that came from. Don't bother watching.

First off, I have lived in Lincoln most of my life and I lived through the days of the killings. I know what went on. Now let's get down to the film. This is a very low budget film and it shows in every way possible. You are forever seeing microphones and set people on the screen. The cars are the wrong years. The killings started in December of 1957 and ended in January of 1958, yet the trees and other plants all have green leaves on them even though Nebraska is very cold in winter. They have Lincoln in the desert of what could be Arizona or Nevada while Lincoln is in fact located in typical Midwest farm country and is hundreds of miles from the nearest desert. They show Lincoln as a very small town when it was around 100,000 or more people at the time of the killings. The one real picture of Lincon in the film shows the capital building with fountains in front of it, even though the fountains were put in on what was once 15th street and is now called Centennial Mall many years after the killings. It shows Starkweather being captured in Nebraska by the Lancaster County Sheriff when in fact he was captured near Douglas, Wyoming by local Wyoming law enforcement. I could go on and on. There are just too many mistakes in this movie to list. To it's credit they did get the names and order of events right, but that's about all they got right and that's why I gave it two stars.

The story of the killings does deserve to be told in a movie and one that would be factual and show the fear the killings put in the people who lived though them, but this is not that film. If you want to learn about the killings and what they did to the city just do a web search for the name Charles Starkweather and you will learn the real story. If you want to watch a movie with so many mistakes you'll be laughing at it from beginning to end then watch this movie.

When I watch a movie like this, I am hoping to learn or get some insight into the kind of person that would commit these crimes. OK. there are some technical problems with the movie: the scenery, southern accents and all. But I have to disagree with the bad acting comments. The actors were convincing in their roles. It impossible to empathize with a conscience-less murderer but you do get a sense of his lack of compassion for human life. His girl friend is in the same boat - completely amoral. I think the scene where they fall asleep in the same room as one of their bloody victims is a great statement. My sense of the directing is that it was meant to convey a 50's B-Movie style which reinforced the time and sense of these two losers. Inspite of the drawbacks, I did gain some sense of the their personalities which is (to me) far more important than exact historical placement and correctness. Other good movies in this vein: Elephant and Deliberate Stranger (about Ted Bundy). Not so good: Ed Gein, Dahmer.