Starkweather

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.

The story line was fine, and followed the real events fairly close to reality. HOWEVER, I have to wonder if the director and producer EVER visited Nebraska before filming. I have lived in Nebraska my entire life, and have spent much time in Lincoln. My home is in the western part of the state, near the Wyoming border, where the chase took place. I live in the town where Charlie spent his first night in jail on the way back to Lincoln. No where are there MOUNTAINS. No where between Lincoln and Wyoming is there a desert- like landscape with tumble weeds and cacti. The setting was so far off from the reality of Nebraska, it was laughable for a Nebraskan to watch. Also, they gave the actors a Southern hick accent, and had them use words like "I reckon" and "ain't." People don't talk like that here, and they didn't in the 1950's either. It could've been a much more disturbing picture, if they had used the quiet beauty of the Nebraska prairie-type lands juxtaposed against the brutality of the crimes. It was too cheesy with the Arizona landscape being passed off as Nebraska, and the fake Southern accents passed off in the dialogue. What a disappointment.

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

Lets look at the plot outline to start with, which refers to 16 year old Starkweather and his 14 year old girlfriend. Whilst I thought Brent Taylor and Shannon Lucio played their roles adequately, they do not pass as these age groups. If you research the facts of the film you find that Starkweather was actually 19 and Caril had just turned 13 therefore, I don't understand why they cast two obviously older actors. There should have been more of a 'Lolita' scenario. The poster refers to Natural Born Killers, etc and suggests this is the story that inspired these films. This film inspires no one. It dwells on the 11 killings but at the same time does nothing to broaden our understanding of the characters. The events leading up to the first murder are brushed over. 'Lets just give an idea of who they are and move on to the gore!' But the violence is just lame and it becomes monotonous seeing Starkweather moving on to the next kill. The character who stood out was the Sheriff but for all the wrong reasons. If he smokes in real life then he has a funny way of holding a cigar. His dialogue was laughable and every time he came on screen I cringed. Don't go out of your way to watch this film, you'll regret it.

Setting aside all aspects of accuracy of story or landscape or props or whatever, and any problems with boom mics this is plain and simply just very bad. The script is the worst offender, truly awful, after Charlie's first murder when he tells Caril-Ann that he did it for her I couldn't believe the response. I actually mouthed to myself verbatim what a corny line would have been in that situation but she actually said it. For a film dealing with a serious subject with a purported serious tone was the sheriff's assistant comic relief or just atrociously written. The car-chase scene near the end was pure farce.

This film is lazy on many fronts but none worse than the character of the mentor. This is the sole justification for why Charlie Starkweather would embark on a killing spree, although at least this is more justification then for why Caril-Ann would go along with it. This seems to me the biggest of corners cut to tell a story, surely there must have been more to Starkweather's background than this, and how accurate is this sub-conscious cloaked man as a part of Charlie's personality anyway? I think better analysers than me will be able to give a whole load more reasons not to see it, all I can do is tell you it's bad, very bad, and despite the occasional flirtation with so bad it's good, it doesn't even merit that.