Movies on serial killers - the true story

SERIAL KILLER MOVIES IN HOLLYWOOD

Written By: Savieri (Me! Horror\\\\Buff)

Edited By: Nosferatuscreams

Lets face it; movies based on real-life serial killers are distasteful to so many people around the globe. But as much as they are distasteful, they are educational. These movies shed light into human capabilities that many of us will never encounter in our daily routines. We all know that to kill an innocent child or beat up an old lady is just…unspeakable. So what attracts us to read such stories or to watch movies where the events we are watching did actually happen? As humans we are curious beings, and as much as we feel so much for the victims, we can’t take our eyes off the screen either. Putting the concept of a serial killer into a successful motion picture is very difficult for film writers. It is hard to show the psychology of a killer and the way they think on camera. This is because not only are they psychotic, and their brains don’t work in a step-by-step logical pattern like yours and mine, but it is hard to capture why they kill and what led them to kill in the first place. Several movies over the years have made a fine attempt at capturing the essence of a killer. Some have even successfully gone through the stages of the killer and how he developed from a lost young man into a stone cold murderer. In this feature I will list some of the most notorious serial killer movies ever made and compare them to the killer’s real crime file, consider the actors, story line, development of the film and, of course, give an overall rating of how successful the overall production was. These guys deserve more credit than Michael or Jason, after all, these men were, and still are…real!

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986) Starring: Michael Rooker, Tracy Arnold Director: John McNaughton

The Movie:

Despite the low production budget to make this film, it is one of the best portrayals of a serial killer in all of Hollywood’s history. Micheal Rooker stars as Henry AKA Henry Lee Lucas and a fine job he does at that. The acting is above average in this movie, which is surprising for its dark and dreary dialogue. The movie cuts straight to the chase on its opening scene, as the credits role you see Henry hunting. He is let into houses all across the State and one by one bodies show up in rivers, gutters, bushes, etc. Henry spent many years in jail as a juvenile and as an adult. There he read a lot about how killers managed to kill for so long and also how they got caught. The reason why his victims showed up in all different places and were killed in all different fashions was because he knew if he changed his “signature of killing” then he had far less chance of getting caught. The beginning of the film does a fine job in giving us that variety as the bodies flash on the screen. The movie as a whole covers a small, but intriguing, section of Henry’s life. He meets Ottis Toole (played by Tome Towles) and his cousin, Becky Powell (played by Tracy Arnold). The movie invites you into the love triangle of Henry, Ottis and Becky. Showcasing their lives, their differences, and finally their deaths. There are scenes in the film that are true to life killing sprees that Ottis and Henry were said to have had. More than anything else, this movie really draws you into the life of a killer and what happens when someone gets in his way.

Crime File on Henry Lee Lucas:

If you have done your reading on Henry then you will know that this movie is based on his real life confessions. What is effective about the film is that it incorporates these confessions into the actual script for the film. This includes the killing of his mother and his time in jail, the changing of his killing signatures, how he felt about Becky and how easy it was for him to kill. I think the main thing about this movie that is so chilling and so effective is the sociopath side of it. A sociopath is a person who feels nothing for another. One theory is that the hypothalamus (or the part of the brain that regulates emotion) has been damaged which makes them lack feeling about other people and about themselves. Henry was beaten severely by his mother and suffered a few days in the hospital from a particularly bad blow to the head where she did manage to crack open his skull. Although this part of the story is missing from the film, his coldness, which developed after the incident, is not. There is one scene in the kitchen that briefly touches on his mother and you see very clearly he has no feeling about her death, and no guilt at all about killing her. Becky and Ottis were real people in Henry’s life but it is unsure as to how they died. There is speculation on location and circumstances due to Henry changing his confession so many times. So keep in mind, the ending is an opinion of the writer only.

Overall:

The movie is very well done. It is almost a psychological thriller with a body count. I literally laughed out loud when I saw this at Blockbuster under “drama” but in some ways I see Blockbuster’s reasoning. It focuses on the people more than the kills and that, I guess, is what dramas are all about. The movie does lack background in Henry’s upbringing, which is essentially why he is as cold as he is, but it makes up for it in portraying that in behaviour. The acting is just terrific and I honestly admire Rooker for tackling such a gruesome part and doing it so ferociously. He had passion for the role, you would have to, to pull it off the way he did. Henry Lee Lucas is a sad sad story. He was once a little boy that was made to watch his mother sleep with her clients and watch his invalid father get beaten and ridiculed. Henry was a victim of so much abuse that it actually brought tears to my eyes when reading his case file. He is one of the only killers that I have actually felt sorry for as a child. He was honestly starved by his mother when young, he was made into a criminal because he had to steal for food. His mother was worse than Henry in many aspects. She beat this little son of hers from every inch of his life! Not only that, the poor kid was made to wear a dress to school to “try and make a man out of him”. The movie lacks all this vital information but, as I said, it shows you what is left over, just a cold shell that has had every scrap of love beaten out of him. Overall it’s a fantastic movie and one the critics did try to ban for one simple reason – it is dangerously too close to fact rather than fiction.

Confessions of a Serial Killer (Made 1985 - Released 1992) Starring: Robert A. Burns, Dennis Hill, Berkeley Garrett, Sidney Brammer and Dee Norton Director: Mark Blair

The Movie:

Since this movie is not as well known as, “Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer”, people tend to automatically assume that this is some cheap rip-off of “Henry” but it was, in fact, made before “Henry” but released later. “Confessions” is another film made about the infamous Henry Lee Lucas. It seems there was so much of Henry’s life that it needed two films to cover it all. This movie, however, is a less personal statement about Lucas. The writer has taken the view that Lucas needed to kill, like a craving, and he also portrays Lucas as enjoying it. This is the main difference between “Henry” and “Confessions”, where “Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer” lacks in kills, this one lacks in depth. “Confessions of a Serial Killer” begins with a young female hitchhiker trying to catch a ride. Henry picks her up and predictably toys with her until he gets bored and kills her. Then he dumps her on some highway out in the middle of nowhere. The kill is interesting but it lacks reason and definition. After the opening scene you are introduced to Ottis and later Becky. “Confessions” develops the relationship between Becky and Lucas a little better but in a totally different style. This movie also selects a different part of Lucas’ life in which he meets up with Ruben Moore and Kate Rich who take him in, give him shelter, and employment. The film covers the time that Lucas, Ottis, and Becky stay at the Moore’s, up until Becky and Kate’s deaths.

Crime File on Henry Lee Lucas:

There is, admittedly, plenty more killings in this film. Some are even creative enough to use utensils such as chainsaws and old rusty knives but I don’t feel it gives the film any justice. There is no reasoning behind it, no development of the character. In this movie, Lucas does not come across as the cold hearted killer he was in “Henry” but rather a stupid clown that is killing for the hell of it. It is a much different perspective and not one that I necessary agree with. There are a couple of parts of the film that are found to be true. One is that Ottis and Lucas did lead police to evidence such as a box full of photographs of their “snuff victims” (They wanted to make their own snuff magazine one day). This is one of the only parts of this film that is based on any hard evidence. Another honourable mention is the confession scenes themselves. Lucas did help police solve many missing persons cases by taking police to the shallow graves of his victims. The rest of the movie is left open for much scrutiny. It is not clear how he killed Becky or Kate Rich and it is certainly not clear as to whether he took victims home to cut them into little pieces like he did in “Confessions”. The truth of Henry Lee Lucas is hard to determine, I mean, how could you possibly believe any word a madman had to say? Especially when the attention from police made him want to exaggerate his stories much further than the truth.

Overall:

The movie leaves me with too many questions. There is no mention of his mother, his father, or why he does what he does. It does not show you the sociopathic side that “Henry” does. It does slightly develop the paranoid schizophrenic tendencies but even this development is shallow and in need of much work. His dislike and distrust towards Kate Rich is an example of this. He mentions her nosiness and what he would like to do about it but his disorientation would have made the scene stronger. The movie also lacks to define why he won’t have a “sexual” relationship with Becky and it also puts Becky’s death down as accident, which is the first time I have seen or read this particular theory anywhere. The movie actually portrays Ottis and Becky more than it does Lucas. They were two lost and lonely individuals that got swept under Lucas’ wing by simply not knowing any better. Becky was said to have been involved in some of Lucas’ murders and I like the use of that idea in the film. Overall, I don’t think it is as psychologically sound as “Henry”, and the acting is pretty bad too. “Confessions” is a fast paced film that is most rushed in some places, “Henry” takes its time, gives you a taste of Lucas’ world from the inside. It makes a far better movie because of that. Either way, this one is definitely watchable if you prefer more blood and guts.

Ed Gein (2000) Starring: Steve Railsback, Carrie Snodgress Director: Chuck Parello

The Movie:

I am surprised at the amount of negative reviews I have witnessed regarding this film. I do admit, it wasn’t the best movie ever made but I do feel that the actors deserve more credit than they got and the story itself isn’t too bad, considering how much they crammed into one movie. I personally think it’s a nice broad history of Ed Gein. The movie jumps back and forth from adult to child a little, especially when his mother does finally die and Gein is left in a strange and lonely world without her. His childhood with his mother’s scorn is a key element in the film, along with his brother’s death, then his mother’s death, followed by his withdrawal and fascination with corpses. You see the making of a serial killer on camera, how he goes from a lost little boy into a pre-occupied mess that loses touch with reality completely. The gruelling adventure starts with the grave robbing at first then eventually leads to the murder of bar lady, Mary Hogan, then the hardware store owner, Bernice Worden. Keep in mind that this isn’t a movie for everyone. It may be slow and boring to some as it does take time to develop.

Crime File on Eddie Gein:

I believe there is a lot left out of this film. Many people went missing that Gein was suspected for and that received very limited mention. I also feel that the mother was given far too much credit. She tortured Eddie as a child by making him hold his arm over an open flame, by beating him severely, and she managed to convince him that sex was the work of the devil. I feel her character was too soft in the film compared to what really happened. The killing of Gein’s brother is another suggestion and not based on any real fact. I really don’t feel assumptions like these should be made for movies as it leads people into false beliefs. I also feel there was a poor portrayal of the delusions Gein was having and the use of his mother’s voice in his head. I don’t know if it was the film that made it seem corny or if it needed to be developed from a whole different angle. I also feel the writers gave Gein too much control over the killings. Gein was diagnosed as a schizophrenic and as a sexual sociopath. Much more is to be learnt about schizophrenics but basic signs are illogical thought processes, hallucinations, sometimes voices, paranoid tendencies, disorganised speech, and often short attention span. Experts say that schizophrenics don’t have the brain activity that normal people have that allows us to filter incoming information. Where you and I know how to unconsciously ignore the dog barking next door and the cars nearby, schizophrenics don’t because they cannot filter unwanted information. They go into an “information overload” state so they cannot distinguish between what is real and what is not. If Gein was in fact a schizophrenic, then I doubt his kills would have been so well planned and his thought processes so well organized. I feel that the movie labelled him as both crazy and as a calculating killer all at the same time, and that just didn’t quite sit well with me.

Overall:

Gein was an interesting character and it was very nice to see a movie based on him. The props used to show his house and the use of his obsession with death was cleverly drawn through out the film. I thought the acting was well above average. As much as the movie wasn’t completely accurate in portraying Eddie Gein, it wasn’t a bad attempt and it’s worth a look. I liked his man-made suit that popped up towards the end, and I certainly liked the use of colour in Gein’s house. It is fact that he had strips of flesh all over the place. He was completely dysfunctional without his mother there, and what better to do with your time alone than a little house re-decorating hey? I hate to say this but, Gein may have inspired “Psycho” and “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” but it wasn’t quite put together as well as the fictional movies, and considering Gein was real, that might just be a good thing. People are fragile beings and if the full truth was told it might just be powerful enough to break them.

From Hell (2001) Starring: Johnny Depp, Heather Graham, Ian Holm, Robbie Coltrane, Jason Flemyng Director: Albert Hughes, Allen Hughes

The Movie:

Well, I guess we all know what a treat this movie was. It had a strong cast, an eerie feel, and the props and costumes were a feast for the eyes. This is one of the few movies based on a serial killer that has made it to mainstream. “From Hell” took one of many theories of who Jack the Ripper was and successfully put it into a motion picture. A nice budget and well-known actors no doubt helped that happen. It tells the story of a small group of prostitutes that attended a wedding that should have never happened. Prince Albert Victor had gone mad with syphilis and married a woman without his Royal families permission. The only way they see how to cover it up is to kill all that attended the wedding but they really should have thought more carefully as to who should be the killer. Dr. Gull was put in charge of silencing the girls and, in doing so, his lust for murder came out in a trail of bloodied killings worse than any man had seen. Dr. Gull almost put the Royal family in more trouble than to begin with. Johnny Depp plays a detective put in charge of solving the case who then becomes romantically involved with the last murder victim, Miss Mary Kelly, played by the lovely Heather Graham.

Crime File on Jack the Ripper:

The problem in analysing this movie is that there are so many different theories. No man was ever caught nor convicted for the killings so how do you criticize a movie that is only based on speculation? I will do my best anyway…

This is not one of my preferred theories on Jack the Ripper. I don’t buy into the Dr. Gull theory at all, mainly because of the lack of reasoning behind it. Why would a man simply enjoy killing? There is a motive for everything, whether it is mental instability or his mother not loving him enough. I feel that this theory lacks any reason as to why he would kill so viciously. The main theories as to who Jack the Ripper was are as follows: The Maybrick Diaires, Montague Druitt, Aaron Kesminski, Michael Ostrog, George Chapman, Walter Sickett and, of course, The Royal Conspiracy in which “From Hell” was made. I would have preferred the butcher theory myself, something more traditional. I like the idea of a madman who just kills because he is sick rather than some calm calculated monster that lures his victims with grapes. I guess the whole meat clever image comes to mind, that’s what I like to see. The ending to the movie also disappointed many viewers. Back at the beginning of the 20th Century, there were no forensic laboratories like the ones we have now and evidence collecting was minimal. The crime scenes were rarely dusted for fingerprints and photos were not even taken of all the victims. Not only that but Mary Kelly was the worst of them all, some parts of her were cut right down to bone and her face was so mutilated that it made it impossible for facial identification. So, there is a small chance that the ending for “From Hell” is possible, but that chance is small.

Overall:

I guess you can’t really question that it did a great job in playing out the theory that it was meant to. As mentioned before, it had a very strong cast, a clever and sharp script and, visually, it was spectacular. Putting my opinions aside and taking it for what it really was, I did feel it was excellent. It portrayed the poverty problems at the time and the bullies feeding off other people’s small fortune. It made you take a step back and appreciate your life for what it is, especially for those of us not living out on the streets having to sell our bodies just to put food in our bellies. It also displayed the power that the rich had over the poor and to what lengths people would go to keep their reputation and their family name respected. I liked the lobotomy scenes the most as they were, in fact, very popular at the time for surgeons working in neurobiology. A lobotomy is to drill a hole in a part of the brain to change the behavioural patterns of the patients. Sometimes shock therapy was used for the same reasons and that too was highly used in those dark times. Finally, it reminded me of how far we have come today in analysing the mentally ill. “From Hell” was very well put together and I would recommend it to any horror buff.

Ted Bundy (2002) Starring: Michael Reilly Burke, Boti Ann Bliss Director: Matthew Bright

The Movie:

I have saved the best until last. Once again, this is a movie that didn’t do very well in reviews I have read all over the net but I personally liked it for several reasons. It is so hard to cover such a busy life like Ted Bundy’s in an hour and a half film but for what it’s worth, I honestly feel the writers did a pretty good job. The movie begins with Bundy’s early criminal life. It successfully develops the killer from starting out as a compulsive liar, to a spontaneous thief, and through his final stages, he turns into a peeping Tom and eventual serial killer. There is no other movie that has developed these stages quite as well as this film. Just about every serial killer starts off with a petty crime, mutilating small animals, peeping into girls windows or realising they cannot climax without pain or, even worse, death. This movie gives you a glimpse into Bundy’s hunt, his kill, his nature, and his addiction to necrophilia. To top it all off, the movie also shows you his girlfriend on the other side of his life, which gives you a look into what it’s like to live with a serial killer and have no idea what is going on. There are many good kills; there are some scenes that will shock you as he lures his victims into his Volkswagen Beetle with his fake broken arm. You will also see his hatred and intimidation towards attractive young women. It is a powerful film that leads right up to his electrocution in the electric chair.

Crime File on Ted Bundy:

My only major criticism with the movie is the lack of development as a child. You don’t really get a good clear understanding of the killer because his childhood is largely left out. Ted Bundy was not beaten like many other serial killers. Bundy was told at the tender age of 11 that the woman that had been posing as his older sister was, in fact, his mother. Psychologists say that he despised his mother after that and assumed that she was ashamed of him. This led to his over achievable nature and his desire to be perfect. Bundy had a well above average IQ and represented himself in court once captured because he had to prove, as always, that he was something and not just some kid that his mother didn’t want. There is no clear reasoning as to why he killed, some say he was a sociopath, but that lacks evidence due to his relationship with his real life lover. Others say he was so upset by what his mother had to say (his young, attractive, and intimidating mother) that he killed all women that looked like her or acted like her or even intimidated him the way she did. As I mentioned, all this is missing from the film but it makes up for it in the same way that “Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer” does, in his behaviour. The acting is fantastic, and with a body count of over 30, the movie did a good job of including as many deaths as possible but not boring us with them at the same time.

Overall:

This is a powerful film. There are so many things I have to say about it and so little words to put it all into. I really enjoyed the jumping from State to State, the escape, the manipulation and obsessive behaviour through out the whole film and, in particular, the “stinky” apartment and what he used to tell his girlfriend. The script was clever and well thought out. One part of the movie that touched me in particular was the ending. There are three or four children that come into the camera’s view and they all say such powerful words… “I am Ted Bundy!” This chilled me because the fact is, any one of them could be the next Ted Bundy of the future and we will have no idea until bodies start showing up in 10 to 15 years time. It’s the most chilling part of the whole movie, I think, and masterfully simple.

So what makes a serial killer then? Why do all these movies lack telling the tale of how they are made? The answer is simple, it is not yet known. From my own reading I can tell it is a mixture of several things… it’s the beatings from a young age and usually some sort of injury to the head. It’s the lack of a motherly figure or being humiliated by a mother enough to hate women or sometimes men from then on out. It may be partially genetic in the aspect that serial killers seem to be mostly white, with high intelligence but low social skills. They say it also has to do with diet and lack of nutrients that therefore prevent the brain from acting as a normal person’s would. Finally, it definitely comes down to socialisation. These young men are usually influenced by something to make them take their first baby steps in the murderous world of a serial killer. Either way, the disease of serial killing is on the rise, especially with alcoholism and drug abuse being at an all time high. These substances are not only linked to mental illness and damage to the parts of the brain that cause emotion but they also assist in parental abuse. It is a well-known fact that fathers and mothers hit their children more when under the influence.

On that note, it seems there are many more movies to come and since I could not list every movie ever made I will leave you with a small list of honourable mentions and ones worth seeing if you are a crime junkie like me!

Helter Skelter - Charles Manson (I omitted this from my list as I don’t feel Manson is a serial killer in the truest sense of the meaning) The Happy Faced Murders - Keith Hunter Jesperson 10 Rillington Place - John Christie At Close Range - Bruce Johnston. The Boston Strangler - Albert DeSalvo Citizen X - Andrei Chikatilko Dahmer - Jeffrey Dahmer - I haven’t seen this myself, but would have loved to have included it Dead Beat - Charles Schmid The Deadly Tower - Charles Whitman Deliberate Stranger - Ted Bundy Deranged - Ed Gein The Hillside Stranglers - Angelo Buono and Ken Bianchi Honeymoon Killers - Martha Beck and Ray Fernandez. Jack the Ripper - Jack The Ripper Killer: A Journal of Murder - Panzram M- Peter Kurten - Peter Kurtan Manhunt - Richard Ramirez Mason Murders - Charles Manson Night Stalker - Richard Ramirez Out of the Darkness - David Berkowtiz Overkill - Aileen Wuornos A Pale Horse - Ed Kemper Summer of Sam - David Berkowitz Three on a Meathook - Ed Gein To Catch a Killer - John Gacy Vengence is Mine - Iwao Enoziku (Japanese)

Horror\\\\Buff - keeping busy as usual.

Show all stories by   Author:  60162 ( Click here )