The story about two lovers travelling around and killing people has been done already, and a lot better I might add. I know this is a recollection of a true story, but that shouldn't be an excuse, all these bases have already been covered. It has also been brought up before, but this movie has quite a lot of bothersome mistakes. Especially the fact that it's summer in January is really an eyesore, sometimes it seems like they just really didn't care. However, I can't say this movie is all bad. It has a very good pace to it, which makes it feel short and to the point. The movie also captures the cruelty of its main characters pretty well, especially the scene with the parents is pretty effective. And then the little girl walks into the room. The actors are also pretty good, except for a hilariously cheesy performance by the guy who plays the devil who has to show way too much of his face. Of course the girl is also way too pretty, but it's Hollywood, what did you expect? This movie is not bad, but gives me a lot of déja-vus.
40 Reviews
Two Much Information With So Little Time
asam312219 May 2006
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
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
OK film
monkey-man10 July 2005
This movie was better than i thought it would be but the movie was still a little bit crap the movies about a true story about how a man and his girlfriend go on a killing spree killing 11 people in 1958.The movie stars actors like Shannon Lucio from the t.v show the o.c,Brent Taylor,Jerry Kroll and Lance Henriksen.The acting in this film is OK but it could of been better and the movie is entertaining from start to finish and i recommend this film to rent but save your money and do not bye this movie.Shannon Lucio does an OK acting job in this movie and so does Brent Taylor and over all this movie was OK and my rating is 5 out of 10.
Very low budget film with too many mistakes
cymru-829 December 2005
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.
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.
Truly awful
sscsgh26 April 2005
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.
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.
Really Bad!
katheegriffith6 July 2005
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.
They can't be serious, can they?
bernie11 March 2005
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.
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.
Decent effort
3-D16 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Starkweather was an enjoyable watch for me, as a person who has interest in tales of true crime. This movie was fairly accurate to what really happened, despite several minor differences here and there.
The actor who played Charles Starkweather was funny to me, unintentionally. Whenever he yelled or tried to sound "tough" at any point in the movie, I had to laugh. It was pretty funny. It's not that he's a bad actor, but, I don't know, there's just something funny about him.
The movie could have used a tad more gore, but had enough blood to justify it's R rating, so it's alright.
The dialogue was fairly bad, however. Lance Henricksen's character, the evil Elliot Ness who convinces Charlie to kill people then scolds him when he does it, was pretty silly. This should not have been in the movie. In reality, there was no indication that Starkweather had a scary man who followed him around and had him kill frogs and mechanics.
Starkweather stands as a moderately enjoyable watch, a horror movie better than average, but not quite golden. It tells a good story, and while not entirely accurate, it entertains. As far as the serial killer movies go, it's much better than the last one I saw, which was the rather lackluster Gacy.
The actor who played Charles Starkweather was funny to me, unintentionally. Whenever he yelled or tried to sound "tough" at any point in the movie, I had to laugh. It was pretty funny. It's not that he's a bad actor, but, I don't know, there's just something funny about him.
The movie could have used a tad more gore, but had enough blood to justify it's R rating, so it's alright.
The dialogue was fairly bad, however. Lance Henricksen's character, the evil Elliot Ness who convinces Charlie to kill people then scolds him when he does it, was pretty silly. This should not have been in the movie. In reality, there was no indication that Starkweather had a scary man who followed him around and had him kill frogs and mechanics.
Starkweather stands as a moderately enjoyable watch, a horror movie better than average, but not quite golden. It tells a good story, and while not entirely accurate, it entertains. As far as the serial killer movies go, it's much better than the last one I saw, which was the rather lackluster Gacy.
Beyond Description
rmax30482329 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
There is a fine movie about the serial murderer Charlie Starkweather and his hostage/girl friend Karil Ann Fugate out there. Its title is "Badlands." There is also a very good TV movie on the subject, starring Tim Roth.
This thing is so bad that no words can describe it. Everything about it is less than poor.
It's not just the low budget. With imagination and talent that kind of obstacle can be overcome -- "Mean Streets", "The Honeymoon Killers," "The Littlest Fugitive," "The Savage Eye," "Detour." But this abortion lacks not just money but everything.
The acting, or rather its absence. Not only isn't there a decent performance from anyone in the cast. Some are so bad that I've seen better in high school productions of "Our Town." The sheriff is probably the worst, but they're all bad, about as reactive as a noble gas.
The editing. Continuing with the sheriff's disarticulation, please note what happens on the screen when he has a line. ("A line" because he reads them as if they didn't come in packages.) The camera shows us the sheriff's grim and uninteresting face. Seconds pass. Finally he speaks. "If they want to go out in a blaze o' glory, this is their chance." The camera lingers for a few seconds more on his face although he has nothing more to say and the muscles of his face remain marmoreal. After a few scenes like this the effect on the viewer is that of a hypnotic drug -- and not even a good HIGH first, but a precipitate drop in consciousness of the sort you get from chloral hydrate.
The direction. Abominable. Nobody can hold a gun still. It must be jerked around or waved from side to side, or jabbed as if shoveling dirt. Even when a lawman takes a bead on a window he waves his rifle as if it were a magician's wand.
Location: Not Nebraska farmland but clearly the Mojave Desert in California.
I can't go on with this, really. I hate to dump on people and this is no fun. It's more embarrassing than anything else. Reminds me of a professor who once told us that when we wrote our term papers we should do our very best. Then he paused for a moment and mused out loud, "What if you did your very best and it turned out pedestrian?" Okay. Fair and balanced, right? There are two valuable things in this movie. There are some nice shots of vintage 1940s and 1950s cars, though sometimes mislabeled. And this film would serve as a very good bad example in any film school.
This thing is so bad that no words can describe it. Everything about it is less than poor.
It's not just the low budget. With imagination and talent that kind of obstacle can be overcome -- "Mean Streets", "The Honeymoon Killers," "The Littlest Fugitive," "The Savage Eye," "Detour." But this abortion lacks not just money but everything.
The acting, or rather its absence. Not only isn't there a decent performance from anyone in the cast. Some are so bad that I've seen better in high school productions of "Our Town." The sheriff is probably the worst, but they're all bad, about as reactive as a noble gas.
The editing. Continuing with the sheriff's disarticulation, please note what happens on the screen when he has a line. ("A line" because he reads them as if they didn't come in packages.) The camera shows us the sheriff's grim and uninteresting face. Seconds pass. Finally he speaks. "If they want to go out in a blaze o' glory, this is their chance." The camera lingers for a few seconds more on his face although he has nothing more to say and the muscles of his face remain marmoreal. After a few scenes like this the effect on the viewer is that of a hypnotic drug -- and not even a good HIGH first, but a precipitate drop in consciousness of the sort you get from chloral hydrate.
The direction. Abominable. Nobody can hold a gun still. It must be jerked around or waved from side to side, or jabbed as if shoveling dirt. Even when a lawman takes a bead on a window he waves his rifle as if it were a magician's wand.
Location: Not Nebraska farmland but clearly the Mojave Desert in California.
I can't go on with this, really. I hate to dump on people and this is no fun. It's more embarrassing than anything else. Reminds me of a professor who once told us that when we wrote our term papers we should do our very best. Then he paused for a moment and mused out loud, "What if you did your very best and it turned out pedestrian?" Okay. Fair and balanced, right? There are two valuable things in this movie. There are some nice shots of vintage 1940s and 1950s cars, though sometimes mislabeled. And this film would serve as a very good bad example in any film school.
Was this a high school project?
paulgall5523 April 2005
Where to begin?
-0- The location of the actual events was Nebraska, but the scrub, cacti, mountains, and other vegetation indicate a desert environment (Arizona perhaps?).
-0- The dialog was trite and often bizarre (during a "car chase" on a two-lane highway, in which Starkweather is being pursued by only one cop car, Starkweather won't pass another driver -- even though there are NO OTHER CARS on the road. "He's going to kill somebody," says the cop to his partner. LOL!)
-0- The "evil phantom" who speaks to Starkweather is inaccurate and ludicrous.
-0- There are too many instances of the boom mic's appearance to count (literally, too many).
-0- The acting was stilted.
I watched this because I'd paid for it, and by God, I was going to see it through. It was like a Batan death march.
-0- The location of the actual events was Nebraska, but the scrub, cacti, mountains, and other vegetation indicate a desert environment (Arizona perhaps?).
-0- The dialog was trite and often bizarre (during a "car chase" on a two-lane highway, in which Starkweather is being pursued by only one cop car, Starkweather won't pass another driver -- even though there are NO OTHER CARS on the road. "He's going to kill somebody," says the cop to his partner. LOL!)
-0- The "evil phantom" who speaks to Starkweather is inaccurate and ludicrous.
-0- There are too many instances of the boom mic's appearance to count (literally, too many).
-0- The acting was stilted.
I watched this because I'd paid for it, and by God, I was going to see it through. It was like a Batan death march.
This is a beautiful film but very violent
jamiesooth2 February 2005
I have seen other comments about visible mics etc. in the picture here. The version I have seen and which was released in UK has none of these problems so I am unsure whether this is the same film.
The actors are unknown but very vibrant. The story follows very closely the true events, which I kind of prefer, and is quite gruesome.
But the production itself is beautiful and compelling, and as far as I can tell there is no film-making equipment visible anywhere in the film.
The attempts to mimic 1950's Nebraska were largely successful especially the vehicles. Looked like they had a whole fleet of 50's Cryslers in mint condition. Neato.
The actors are unknown but very vibrant. The story follows very closely the true events, which I kind of prefer, and is quite gruesome.
But the production itself is beautiful and compelling, and as far as I can tell there is no film-making equipment visible anywhere in the film.
The attempts to mimic 1950's Nebraska were largely successful especially the vehicles. Looked like they had a whole fleet of 50's Cryslers in mint condition. Neato.
so-so at best
legacyoblivion22 February 2005
I saw this movie and the current rating probably has to do with cast members or production team members rating the movie with a 10 out of 10. At best I give this movie a 5-10.
The movie was OK, especially because it probably was a low budget movie. The acting was so-so.
The most annoying thing though was the microphone appearing on-screen countless times. This really annihilates the illusion of being a transparent observer and immediately makes you part of the recording crew. Would it be that much trouble editing it out digitally if absolutely necessary? Or cropping Mic-scenes or whatever. This is really a drag.
I suggest you give the microphone guy a raise next time. (preferably a vertical one)
The movie was OK, especially because it probably was a low budget movie. The acting was so-so.
The most annoying thing though was the microphone appearing on-screen countless times. This really annihilates the illusion of being a transparent observer and immediately makes you part of the recording crew. Would it be that much trouble editing it out digitally if absolutely necessary? Or cropping Mic-scenes or whatever. This is really a drag.
I suggest you give the microphone guy a raise next time. (preferably a vertical one)
So many inaccuracies
TCall200410 December 2006
First of all, Starkweather and Fugate were from Nebraska. So what's with the Southern hick accents and the country music?
Starkweather fancied himself another James Dean. I don't think he listened to country music.
What's with the "devil" character?? Added nothing to the plot. Im fact, the movie could have done very well without it.
Charlie loved animals - much better than he liked people; he wouldn't have killed the toad.
Charlie Starkweather was a very short, red-headed kid with bow-legs and thick glasses and a bad stutter. He also wasn't very bright.
Caril Ann Fugate was NOT the stunner she was portrayed as in the movies. By all accounts, she was a very snippy, arrogant child.
Both roles were miscast...badly.
If they're going to do a story on a mass murderer like Charles Starkweather, at least get it right.
"Badlands" was a much better account of the Starweather-Fugate crime spree than this mess.
Starkweather fancied himself another James Dean. I don't think he listened to country music.
What's with the "devil" character?? Added nothing to the plot. Im fact, the movie could have done very well without it.
Charlie loved animals - much better than he liked people; he wouldn't have killed the toad.
Charlie Starkweather was a very short, red-headed kid with bow-legs and thick glasses and a bad stutter. He also wasn't very bright.
Caril Ann Fugate was NOT the stunner she was portrayed as in the movies. By all accounts, she was a very snippy, arrogant child.
Both roles were miscast...badly.
If they're going to do a story on a mass murderer like Charles Starkweather, at least get it right.
"Badlands" was a much better account of the Starweather-Fugate crime spree than this mess.
Ludicrous movie...
paul_haakonsen27 December 2015
As much as I enjoy movies based on real killers and psychopaths, then "Starkweather" just never managed to impress in any way. And to be bluntly honest, then it was an unfathomably boring movie.
The story started out at a slow, monotone pace and never really got up into a pace where it became enjoyable or interesting.
As for the acting, well it wasn't particularly impressive. However, it was not the fault of the actors and actresses, it was because they had absolutely nothing to work with from the script and director Byron Werner. And not even Lance Henriksen could manage to salvage this train wreck.
With a slow paced storyline, a movie about serial killers should at least have some interesting things to offer in the macabre. But even here "Starkweather" didn't deliver. There was just no feeling to the movie that you were dealing with an actual serial killer.
If you enjoy movies about serial killers, stay well clear of "Starkweather" because there are far better movies available.
The story started out at a slow, monotone pace and never really got up into a pace where it became enjoyable or interesting.
As for the acting, well it wasn't particularly impressive. However, it was not the fault of the actors and actresses, it was because they had absolutely nothing to work with from the script and director Byron Werner. And not even Lance Henriksen could manage to salvage this train wreck.
With a slow paced storyline, a movie about serial killers should at least have some interesting things to offer in the macabre. But even here "Starkweather" didn't deliver. There was just no feeling to the movie that you were dealing with an actual serial killer.
If you enjoy movies about serial killers, stay well clear of "Starkweather" because there are far better movies available.
nothing to tell
trashgang10 July 2009
I have seen already some movies based on Starkweather, for example Natural Born Killers was loosely based on that theme. Not so known but a good story about him is Badlands, and then came this flick. Should tell the story as it was, but after 5 minutes into the movie I already know that it would be bad. Charles had some voices in his head, The Mentor called in this flick, played by Lance Henrikson. But he appears in the movie and that is already one of the mistakes, it has nothing to do with the story about Starkweather. The Son of Sam had also voices but in the movie, Summer of Sam, you hear the voices you don't see a real person. Here it does and it annoys. Further on the killings are mostly off camera especially those with the stabbing. The gore is far away and the blood flows but not that it is scary as does the movie, it is never scary. As far as I know the dates are correct, but still it is a worse movie. You better watch Badlands instead. Luckily the performance of Charles is believable, ashame, good have been better.
don't waste your time
notamoviefan24 June 2012
watched this movie recently. The production is amateurish, the storyline is rife with inaccuracy and the acting is more a parody than a serious effort at portraying a role. The cast and director of the movie should be ashamed of themselves and the writer should take an introductory course in reading comprehension so that he is better able to appreciate facts before writing his next plot. All in all, an absolute waste of time to watch this movie. There are a bunch of bloomers that have been pointed out in other sections and it merely illustrates the absolutely incompetence, and tardiness of the the group of less than intelligent people who took it into their hearts and mind that they were actually capable of making a movie.
Couldn't even finish the trailer
kaylawhite-2247330 March 2017
Fellow Nebraskan here, I couldn't finish the trailer on this movie because they had southern accents. WE DON'T HAVE SOUTHERN ACCENTS IN NEBRASKA!! If you are going to make a movie about someone in a certain state you should at least know we aren't southern or speak in southern tongue.
Just plain lame
slake0927 March 2005
Bad acting. Bad script. Wildly inaccurate. I am slightly surprised that Charlie Starkweather hasn't risen from the grave and hunted down the makers of this so-called film. This is the kind of worthless movie you would expect to see on late night TV, probably on one of the cable channels that specializes in bad movies. Unfortunately it's not bad in a good, goofy, campy kind of way - it's just generically bad.
Let's start with the script, since that is the greatest offense. The dialogue contains phrases that no one in 1950's Nebraska, much less Charlie Starkweather and friends, would ever say. I doubt anyone today would spout out such ridiculous lines. It's the kind of stuff you might find in a Harlequin Romance from the 1970's. Where does Hollywood find such talentless writers who come up with nothing but clichéd hacks? If that weren't bad enough, the script is full of inconsistencies: one minute a character will say something, the next minute he will contradict what he said before, as if he didn't remember what he just said. It's just plain dumb writing.
The acting is as bad as you would expect. I've seen better acting in worse films, but bad acting is bad acting - no further explanation necessary.
It's so inaccurate you wonder if the writer and director read even the sketchiest accounts of the events covered. They assign Charlie's motives in killing to a shadowy character (Lance Henricksen) who talks him into murdering people for the dumbest reasons you've ever heard. No attempt is made at historical accuracy - if you think you're going to learn something about the Starkweather-Fugate case from this film, then think again. All it will do is lead you astray. I wonder that Caril Fugate hasn't sued the makers of the film for portraying her in this manner.
So there you have it: lame all around, from the script to the final credits. Thankfully there has been a decent movie made about these events, check out "Badlands" with Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek. It's over a decade older, but much better done, if still not very accurate.
In conclusion, if Charlie were to rise up and kill the director, script writer, and everyone involved in this movie - I doubt a jury would convict him.
Let's start with the script, since that is the greatest offense. The dialogue contains phrases that no one in 1950's Nebraska, much less Charlie Starkweather and friends, would ever say. I doubt anyone today would spout out such ridiculous lines. It's the kind of stuff you might find in a Harlequin Romance from the 1970's. Where does Hollywood find such talentless writers who come up with nothing but clichéd hacks? If that weren't bad enough, the script is full of inconsistencies: one minute a character will say something, the next minute he will contradict what he said before, as if he didn't remember what he just said. It's just plain dumb writing.
The acting is as bad as you would expect. I've seen better acting in worse films, but bad acting is bad acting - no further explanation necessary.
It's so inaccurate you wonder if the writer and director read even the sketchiest accounts of the events covered. They assign Charlie's motives in killing to a shadowy character (Lance Henricksen) who talks him into murdering people for the dumbest reasons you've ever heard. No attempt is made at historical accuracy - if you think you're going to learn something about the Starkweather-Fugate case from this film, then think again. All it will do is lead you astray. I wonder that Caril Fugate hasn't sued the makers of the film for portraying her in this manner.
So there you have it: lame all around, from the script to the final credits. Thankfully there has been a decent movie made about these events, check out "Badlands" with Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek. It's over a decade older, but much better done, if still not very accurate.
In conclusion, if Charlie were to rise up and kill the director, script writer, and everyone involved in this movie - I doubt a jury would convict him.
My recollections of that era
Don362026 August 2005
For all those who complained about killer boom mikes the copy I saw didn't have any but then I wasn't looking for them.
There was a comment from someone in Oz that stated that they all sounded like southerners not mid westerners. In post-depression Nebraska and Kansas out in the country they were poor and uneducated for the most part and thats what they sounded like to me.
Now for the good stuff. There is a very nice set of articles amassed by Court TV in their crime library. All you have to do is a Google search on Charles Starkweather. It's under mass and spree murderers. I only looked at this movie to see if it had stayed true to the facts. And as far as I can see it has. (except for the mentor appearing every now and then). They didn't glorify his deeds or anything like they did in the "loosely based" movies like Natural Born Killers etc. They pretty much stayed with the facts and what I remember reading in the newspapers back in 1957-1959. So like the rest of the U.S. we read about it in the morning and evening papers when all of this was happening.
When I saw the American Justice documentary on this a few years ago it was stated that when she got to prison a kindly matron took her under her wing and made sure she got a proper education and turned her into a nice young lady so if she ever got out she would have something to work with on the outside. At her parole hearing in 1977 (at which members of the families also testified) The matron and the wardens testimony must have carried a lot of weight because she was paroled after spending over half of her life in prison. And from what I understand from that documentary she is leading a useful and productive life.
Caril Ann Fugate is only 18 months younger than me.
So if anyone really cares about the facts and not just the content and acting in the movie what I saw was good.
There was a comment from someone in Oz that stated that they all sounded like southerners not mid westerners. In post-depression Nebraska and Kansas out in the country they were poor and uneducated for the most part and thats what they sounded like to me.
Now for the good stuff. There is a very nice set of articles amassed by Court TV in their crime library. All you have to do is a Google search on Charles Starkweather. It's under mass and spree murderers. I only looked at this movie to see if it had stayed true to the facts. And as far as I can see it has. (except for the mentor appearing every now and then). They didn't glorify his deeds or anything like they did in the "loosely based" movies like Natural Born Killers etc. They pretty much stayed with the facts and what I remember reading in the newspapers back in 1957-1959. So like the rest of the U.S. we read about it in the morning and evening papers when all of this was happening.
When I saw the American Justice documentary on this a few years ago it was stated that when she got to prison a kindly matron took her under her wing and made sure she got a proper education and turned her into a nice young lady so if she ever got out she would have something to work with on the outside. At her parole hearing in 1977 (at which members of the families also testified) The matron and the wardens testimony must have carried a lot of weight because she was paroled after spending over half of her life in prison. And from what I understand from that documentary she is leading a useful and productive life.
Caril Ann Fugate is only 18 months younger than me.
So if anyone really cares about the facts and not just the content and acting in the movie what I saw was good.
Movie was very Inaccurate
rangerfan6618 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I live in Lincoln, Nebraska and am very familiar with the history of the Starkweather murders. The movie was terrible.....it did not tell you that Charlie was made fun of and ridiculed as a kid. The "Ominous Prescence" was very misleading, and did not begin to portray why Charlie Starkweather chose to go on a killing spree. There was so many factual errors that I do not have time to include them all....save your money and buy the book if you wanna learn about Starkweather and the murders. It seemed like they did not do a very good job providing accurate details and plausible scenarios. The most outrageous was during charlie's high-speed chase in Wyoming. I could not believe that they had Lancaster county law enforcement personnel on the scene when Lancaster county is a whole state away from Wyoming, and local law enforcement had no idea he was in Wyoming. The movie might make for decent drama (maybe) but anyone who knows anything about the real story had to have a hard time sitting through this movie (as I did).
so awful
lizeckery4 June 2011
Warning: Spoilers
this movie is so inaccurate, growing up in Lincoln Nebraska I can assure you that there are no Cactus or Mountains. this movie is as if the writer never even researched the actual Starkweather murders. It was very frustrating watching this movie because of all the inaccuracies. Charles Starkweather was my grandparents garbage man, so i heard all the stories growing up and i have read many books on the subject and this movie is very inaccurate in the details. For Instance in real life the Maid Mrs Lillan Fencil was Deaf and did not hear Starkweather and fugate enter the house, yet in the movie she is not deaf and she answers the front door? Both women were tied up and stabbed, yet in the movie the wife was shot in the head and only the maid was stabbed? the other frustrating thing was the shadowed figure that is telling Starkweather to kill?, there is no record that Starweather heard voices or was psychotic. there are so many reasons to hate this movie, if you want to see a good movie about Starkweather check out "The Badlands" with tim roth. Do not waste your time on this piece of trash movie.
Film Lacked Research and Realistic Setting
lfuhrman3826 February 2005
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.
This could have been good... but it's not.
regular1430 January 2005
Yeah, well i saw this movie and i was thinking, "movie about spree killing. cool. it's got a high IMDb rating" (i didn't realize at the time only 24 people had voted. I watched it and noticed how cool the opening scene was. And you could even see just a little bit of the microphone in the top of the screen no big deal. Now beyond the acting just being awful (cept for the guy in the hat, i rather liked him) you can see the microphone in every other scene!!!! It got to the point where i began thinking that the people who made this movie never watched it and just threw it in a can and shipped it out to whoever could bare the awfulness. so please, only see this movie if you want to make fun of it.
Things that make you go hmmm....
evanne-118 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I have to wonder at the completely opposing reactions this film has garnered here, people seem to either love it or hate it. While I didn't hate it, I have to chime in with a few of the things that they've been talking about. I grew up in the Belmont neighborhood of Lincoln, Nebraska, only a few blocks away from Caril Anne Fugate's house. Understandably my childhood was literally steeped in the mythology of the crimes depicted in this film and as I grew older I began to do my own research about them. I've had extensive conversations with older relatives who were living in Lincoln at the time and read an entire book about the crimes based on contemporary newspaper stories about the events as they happened (Headline: Starkweather by Earl Dyer, much better than the movie, if a little dry).
Firstly, anyone who says that this is an accurate depiction of the events is fooling themselves. There are parts that are accurate but many that are not. The sad part is that the things that are accurate are the kind of things you would learn after doing a Google search. In fact, as I watched this movie I kept telling my husband that I suspected that was the extent of the research done for this film, which is a sad testament to the people that died in these events, the filmmakers couldn't even be bothered with an in depth examination of the crimes. It's not hard to get the dates and body positions of the dead right, what's hard is making a picture that tries for the truth based on a melange of forensic evidence/psychology and police statements. In this case, where Fugate and Starkweather gave such conflicting stories, it could have been so interesting, but instead we have the gimmicky "Devil" character...please!
Now I'll get nit-picky. I will pretty much guarantee you that there is only one shot in this movie actually filmed in Nebraska, and that is the brief beauty shot of the state capitol building. Everything else was clearly in California, my husband and I had that pegged before the Bartlett's even appeared on screen. Where is the snow!? There is a reason we used to call Nebraska winters "Ragnorok". There is also a crepe myrtle in bloom behind the Bartlett house, which I have to say, cracked me up. There are no cacti around Lincoln, and the landscape has _no_ mountains of any type, only rolling prairie and the occasional line of trees as a windbreak. I also enjoy that Lincoln literally seemed like a non-city, with no real shots of streets, traffic, or even any of the houses still exactly like they were in that time period. The southern, stereotypical, hick accents were annoying me before the movie got going. Nebraska has it's own dialect, why ignore that in favor of something so pedestrian? There were other little anachronisms here and there, and other little things that only matter to me; like the fact that there is no Lincoln Gazette (never has been as far as I know), just the Lincoln Star and the Lincoln Journal that covered the events in question.
But who cares about all that junk, right? Well, those things are only a barometer that indicates the general level of production value achieved on this movie. You can literally see the actors working their butts off to turn this load into something worthwhile, and I commend them for that. The two leads accurate portrayal of the couple too vacant to stay out of trouble seemed genuine. In fact, the only thing I liked about this movie is the choice to make Charlie to hopelessly dense, violent and romantic all at once.
Firstly, anyone who says that this is an accurate depiction of the events is fooling themselves. There are parts that are accurate but many that are not. The sad part is that the things that are accurate are the kind of things you would learn after doing a Google search. In fact, as I watched this movie I kept telling my husband that I suspected that was the extent of the research done for this film, which is a sad testament to the people that died in these events, the filmmakers couldn't even be bothered with an in depth examination of the crimes. It's not hard to get the dates and body positions of the dead right, what's hard is making a picture that tries for the truth based on a melange of forensic evidence/psychology and police statements. In this case, where Fugate and Starkweather gave such conflicting stories, it could have been so interesting, but instead we have the gimmicky "Devil" character...please!
Now I'll get nit-picky. I will pretty much guarantee you that there is only one shot in this movie actually filmed in Nebraska, and that is the brief beauty shot of the state capitol building. Everything else was clearly in California, my husband and I had that pegged before the Bartlett's even appeared on screen. Where is the snow!? There is a reason we used to call Nebraska winters "Ragnorok". There is also a crepe myrtle in bloom behind the Bartlett house, which I have to say, cracked me up. There are no cacti around Lincoln, and the landscape has _no_ mountains of any type, only rolling prairie and the occasional line of trees as a windbreak. I also enjoy that Lincoln literally seemed like a non-city, with no real shots of streets, traffic, or even any of the houses still exactly like they were in that time period. The southern, stereotypical, hick accents were annoying me before the movie got going. Nebraska has it's own dialect, why ignore that in favor of something so pedestrian? There were other little anachronisms here and there, and other little things that only matter to me; like the fact that there is no Lincoln Gazette (never has been as far as I know), just the Lincoln Star and the Lincoln Journal that covered the events in question.
But who cares about all that junk, right? Well, those things are only a barometer that indicates the general level of production value achieved on this movie. You can literally see the actors working their butts off to turn this load into something worthwhile, and I commend them for that. The two leads accurate portrayal of the couple too vacant to stay out of trouble seemed genuine. In fact, the only thing I liked about this movie is the choice to make Charlie to hopelessly dense, violent and romantic all at once.
Dumb Movie
r-e-studley5 September 2006
This movie is full of holes. It takes place in Lincoln, Nebraska and we see tall mountains in the background. I've been to Lincoln and there are no mountains there. It also shows cactus growing along the highway. There are no cactus there either.
The police radio says they found the killer's car (a 1955 Chevy) by the side of the road near the farmhouse. I don't know what that car was, but it sure wasn't a 55 Chevy.
The Lincoln Sheriff was chasing Starkweather into Wyoming (near Douglas). He has no juristiction there and certainly can't make an arrest in another state.
The police radio says they found the killer's car (a 1955 Chevy) by the side of the road near the farmhouse. I don't know what that car was, but it sure wasn't a 55 Chevy.
The Lincoln Sheriff was chasing Starkweather into Wyoming (near Douglas). He has no juristiction there and certainly can't make an arrest in another state.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
