|Page 1 of 5:||    |
|Index||42 reviews in total|
I'm not usually one to slam a movie,but WOW!!!I know it was made for TV or whatever,but still....there's no excuse for this type of crap to be out there.What a bad,bad,bad movie.Terrible acting,filming,plot layout.....really nothing positive to say at all.I love most of the serial killer movies like Bundy,Dahmer,Hillside Strangler....etc,but this is NOTHING like those at all.I don't know what kind of filming it is that has the look that this film has,but it should be stopped immediately.It has that look like maybe someone filmed it on a $300 digital camera and took it home and made it on their computer overnight or something.The beginning credits is a long panning scene of a river with a crappy font coming up ever so slowly showing the credits.Then it goes into a montage of "arty" shots of dead body's around the river as the credits roll on before the movie even starts for 5 minutes.Sooo dramatic for such a crappy flick.Do yourself a favor and AVOID THIS LIKE THE PLAGUE!!!!
This is the lamest piece of crap I've ever seen. It sounded pretty good
and having heard of this serial killer, thought maybe it was worth
watching. First clue was the total unknown actors, directors and
filmmakers doing this film. I sat through the whole painful experience
and left thinking WTF? Any accuracy is out the window. Ridgeway was not
even suspected until fiber strands were found on some of the victims
and under their nails leading them to Ridgeways 1980s Corvette which he
conveniently sold several years prior. There was no proof that he took
any of the victims to his home and he freely admits that he had sex
with most if not all of them in his car, in remote areas, or at cheap
motels. The worst part of this film is the audio overlay with the
visceral video images of autopsy's being preformed in the background.
What did this have to do with the story? If I wanted to watch autopsy
films I'd have rented Faces of Death or some other such garbage thats
I was expecting a semi documentary style film talking about Ridgeway, his motives if any, and how he did what he did for so long. Over his 20+ years of killing, he changed jobs and victim pickup spots several times and there was no discernible pattern nor did he fit the serial killer profile. This was never mentioned in this stupid film. It appears that the student film maker, its that bad, had such a small budget that he got the local exotic strippers to play the part of the victims so that the viewer can have some gratuitous nudity, interspersed with morgue films, some wacked out cuts to some guy Ridgeway claims started him on his career and anything else they wanted to shove on screen to make this film.
It plain out sucks. Don't waste your time or money on this real winner of a loser. Go to the library and get the real documentary if you want to know about this guy, this film could take lessons from that and so could the director, producer, creator and actors, all of whom are terrible at what they do. My advice to them is don't quit your day job.
This movie was worse than a porn dialogue/story line. I didn't know that was possible, but amazingly it succeeded with flying colors in sucking ass. The lighting/acting/camera work/plot/dialogue were terrible. We honestly decided to watch the director's commentary because we couldn't possibly see them saying nice things about their own movie. Of all of this, though, the "special features" was flippin' hilarious - an "interactive menu" and optional subtitles! YAY! ... Wait. Doesn't ever movie come with that?? I could go on, but this movie doesn't deserve any more of my time. And this is all said from the point of view of an avid serial killer nut, and I love GOOD serial killer movies. This just wasn't one of them - please, for the love of everything holy, throw this movie in the trash and BURN it.
The director Ulli Lommel studied under the great Rainer Werner
Fassbinder, but it has become increasingly apparent that none of
Fassbinder's magnificent edge and insight has rubbed off on Lommel.
With no true sense of the outrageous and satirical elements that made
Fassbinder's melodramas so provoking, Lommel is nothing more than a man
who endeavors to be controversial simply for the sake of
This was just a horribly directed and told story, I'm pretty sure the history you would get say on A&E would be much better than the stuff Ulli is shoveling here. Please, don't waste your time on this film....
Having survived Guy Ritchie's Revolver recently, I thought it would be months to find a worse movie than that, but nope. Fate had thrown a friend's copy of GREEN RIVER KILLER my way. Having never heard of it, I checked the rating on IMDb. 2.2. Pathetic. Even Uwe Boll's movies score better! But reading the few comments made me laugh out loud, so I decided to watch the beginning to see if it was as bad as the reviewers said. I became hypnotised by the atrocious acting and awful video-8 (it seems) camera work. I could not believe my eyes, it was so bad. I don't know where they found the "actors" but they didn't seem very experienced to say the least LOL! It was probably their first appearance in front of a camera. That would explain the overacting, particularly the killer's two work colleagues, both hilariously bad! It looks like the worst made for TV movie ever. I was shaking my head in amazement. So will you.
The Green River Killer, directed by Ulli Lommel, was highly
disappointing to say the least. A Blockbuster employee was insistent
when stating I should not spend the four dollars to rent this movie. I
decided to rent the movie anyways, for I have interest in The Green
River Killer story; as I was raised near Auburn, WA, where the killings
occurred. I can honestly state, this was the worst movie, overall, that
I have ever seen.
My boyfriend is a director, and even his older, low budget films he had made in film school were much, much, much better quality than Ulli Lommel's film. I can almost be certain that Ulli Lommel has never had film training or schooling based off the lack of direction in film. Ulli needs to be more objective and see his films as they are- completely flawed. I only hope Ulli will read the reviews and either decide to pursue proper training for this craft, or quit the business; this business is not for everyone. A director's level of success is based off his past works, and the reputation he has created for his name. Though Ulli may be pleased with the revenue his film is bringing in (due only to the film's title, the quickly cut/misleading trailer, and the fancy case/cover art which misleads the audience into thinking they're about to watch a high budget film), I fear he has not considered that he is committing career suicide. For many of us, he has ruined his name as a director.
It is a pity that Ulli chooses such great stories that have the potential for a great film, and still only manages to disappoint his audience. This seems to be a continuing trend.
There are several examples of poor film making in this recently released movie. The lighting was poor, the picture quality- poor, the sound- poor, the character development- poor, the music- poor as it honestly mirrored the music in cheap porno films, the acting (not to mention a dozen other poor qualities or choices he made). If I got into that, I would honestly be writing an additional three pages.
I did not learn anything about The Green River Killer in this film. Literally, not anything. It was not informational, not completely accurate, and painful to watch.
In short, I would not recommend this movie to anyone, nor any of Ulli Lommel's other films. Horrible, horrible, horrible. Keep your four dollars and rent yourself a more entertaining selection.
My wife and I always seem to be suckered in by packaging of an
unpopular title. From it's cover Green River Killer looked somewhat
interesting having been based on a true story about a real serial
killer. The moment we saw the first scene that it was on video and not
film, the lead actor's (if you can call him an actor at all) stumbling
through his lines to the awful cinematography and boxy audio we knew it
was a terrible stinker and realized the watch ahead would be painful
and excruciating. There were flashes of scenes that looked like they
spliced from another awful film, probably one that was too bad to
complete so they used the bits for whatever effects they were going
after. You even could hear that the gun was plastic! If there's any
good in the movie it was some actual police confession footage of the
real killer, even he was a better actor than the guy they got as the
lead. Someone should have just used the real killer's confession video,
hired Bill Kurtis and let A&E or Discovery make a decent documentary
instead. I should have checked IMDb first because all of its reviews
from other victims (watchers) were dead on accurate.
I have to hand it to its marketing and artwork, however I suppose that's where the entire budget was spent on and the best part of the movie but not worth the four-dollars wasted. I can't say if I've seen worse movies than this, some were at least equal, like comparing a skunk's smell to a dead fish. Even those by Ed Wood or others from B movie directors at least provided laughter, this was too bad to be funny. A film as bad as this deserves an award, its awfulness just can't go unnoticed.
Here is another product of the digital age, when cameras and equipment
are cheap enough and easy to use, that we are now getting an influx of
these straight-to-video "movies" made on video by amateur filmmakers. I
use the term "filmmaker" loosely because the people responsible for
this didn't use film and have no idea what they were doing.
They can't decide if they're doing a slasher flick, documentary, sex romp, America's Most Wanted episode or what here. Gary Ridgway's actual police interview is sprinkled in between scenes from the movie which is odd, since the "actor" playing him looks and sounds nothing like him. When we hear audio of the real Ridgway being interviewed, then the audio of the "actor" doing him, it's like night and day and reinforces the complete lack of acting ability by the lead.
Of course, reality is also not a factor in this "movie" as the "director" would have you believe Ridgway got all his victims at one sleazy dive bar, would take the girl out in front of numerous people each time, kill the girl and leave her body by the river and no one could figure out, despite the fact he was the last person seen with all these women, taken from the same dive bar in front of the same people, who the killer is.
We also get out of the blue, an "actor" playing his lawyer who is being interviewed by the "director" I assume, in one of the turns where it goes from being a "movie" to a documentary many times.
"Pacing" is not a trait the "director" is familiar with as the "movie" moves at a snails pace. For some reason, the "director" thinks showing every possible angle in each scene adds to the "entertainment value" (another term the "director" is not familiar with). This is why, the movie has been going for 30 minutes and there have only been three scenes so far. We have to see every angle on and on and on.
Another common trait I have found with these bad "movies shot on digital" that we're seeing a lot of now, is "actors" playing mentally challenged people. I don't know if they think it's easy to play this or it shows of their "acting" ability, but in this movie, we get two talentless people doing it and it magnifies the fact there isn't an actual actor in this entire production. Everyone is awful and because it's shot on video, it looks like a porn (you even get soft porn). This is of course why I use the term "actor" and "director" in parentheses since none of them are actually skilled in any way at their respective jobs in this movie and it would be in an insult to real actors and director to refer to them as such.
The most amazing thing of all, was at the end, the lengthy credits that display the numerous people involved in this production. The "movie" seems like a guy with a video camera and we're supposed to believe there was a crew working this production? They want us to believe there was an actual cinematographer? Check out the lighting in the bedroom scenes. It's high school bad.
In conclusion, I'm sure people like the makers of "Manos: Hands of Fate" are happy these days. There are so many of these types of bad, straight-to-video type movies made by talentless hacks that soon, there will be a whole new slew of the worst rated movies in the IMDb and this production is bound to be one of them. If it's not in the top ten lowest rated movies ever, I'll eat a bug.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I own a video store so I got a screener of this film..
I am sorry to insult the gentleman who made this film...but what the hell.. I have seen many poorly done serial killer flicks, and some have been worse than this one but, boring..
for those who just wanna see some boobs and girls getting strangled during long unexciting sex scenes maybe this one is for you. this film was full of long slow montage shots of unimportant crap.. the acting was okish the script could have used a little more useful dialog... I did like the interview parts with the real killer (asuming that that was the real killer) and the general setup was OK...
I think they just needed to spend a lot more time and energy on this one..
needless to say I will not be bringing in a copy for my store.
Along twenty years, the deranged serial-killer Gary Ridgway (George
Kiseleff) has killed at least forty-eight prostitutes and dumped their
bodies in Green River.
It seems to be wrong, but that is the storyline of this cheesy and lame movie. The screenplay and the shooting seem to be home-made soft porn, with bad acting, awful lighting and poor dialogs entwined with footages of the real killer. The breast and naked bodies of the prostitutes and the art of the cover of the DVD are the only worthwhile thing in this crap. My vote is three.
Title (Brazil): "Morte em Green River" ("Death in Green River")
|Page 1 of 5:||    |
|Ratings||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|