Rampage: The Hillside Strangler Murders

After seeing that a film of the tag team killers of B & B was now released, I was hopeful that someone had made use of this fertile crime history, and Bianchi's lame MPD defense could have been interesting if made by someone who HAD A MODICUM OF TALENT...and had a real script..I was just stunned at how far dramatic license could be utilized...and still use "actual" names with no actual history to back it up. This is the WORST serial killer flick ever, and possibly a contender for worst film ever. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Hillside case, except that we see the comical appearance of the multiple personalities of Bianchi in the last 15 minutes(permanently damaging the career of this young guy that was in "Traffic"). In the end, the flick is a failing grade at a CC Film School. I don't know much about the "writer/director", but it really makes you wonder how anyone, with just a MiniDV handicam and a loosely written script gets "known" actors to appear in this horrible mess. I felt the pain of these actors (especially Lake Bell, she's fine!) throughout...and the cute blonde from "Joe Dirt" was forced to chain smoke and go bra-less throughout, for what reason ??? Not even that can keep any interest up after the first 5 minutes. This is nothing more than a failed, male sex/murder fantasy, and is the most amateurish film that I've seen in release possibly ever...it should be burned, the MiniDV master should be burned !! Take some Dramamine before you TRY to watch it, it makes the Blair Witch camera work look like Lawrence OF Arabia. Most amateur porn flix have higher production values than this one. Stop making movies Herr Director, even if your daddy owns a studio...

What a way to botch a movie. This crew had the money and the know-how, but still they managed to ruin what could have been an OK movie.

The problem is that the story is told from the perspective of the psychiatrist, played by Brittany Daniel. Now they story is supposed to be about a serial killer. The title is quite misleading, as if the movie were about the murders. It's not. They show one kidnapping and murder. From then on it's all about the psychiatrist. What does she do? Interview, meet with, and hypnotize a suspect. So we get 3 or 4 extended boring sequences of that. And they are not particularly interesting at all. The villain here is not one bit scary, menacing, or of interest, although well-performed by Clifton Collins Jr.

Any other movie would have told this story from the perspective of the killers and cops, which would be more fun to watch. What makes the psychiatrist at all noteworthy is that Daniel is pretty and lives with a drug user/dealer who spends his time partaking in drug and sex orgies. She's gets also involved. And those are the only watchable moments in this movie.

There are some short scenes of cops raiding suspects homes, but nothing to get one's attention. Daniel has a friend DA who is running the case. This is rather politically correct anachronistic non-sense. How many young women were at the DA's office in LA in the 70s? Another problem, this person is played by Lake Bell, who is utterly incompetent at re-recording her own voice track. Perhaps because she barely moves her lips when she speaks, but it looks like a foreign-dubbed movie. And her character is not likable or watchable.

On top of that, sometime after 30 minutes, the movie makes clear what is going on with the suspects and who did what and why. So for 55 minutes we have to wait for the movie to work out what we already know is going on- again, this happens through conversations, not even flashbacks.

Another absurd thing is that there are 4 or so scenes where things are censored- blurred- as if we were watching a TV-cut of an R-rated movie. One rarely sees that and it's ridiculous. This is, thankfully, a hard-R-rated movie and they blurred some sex-scenes and drug paraphernalia! One has to wonder what went on in people's mind's as they were editing this thing.

Finally, another non-sensical thing is how this movie is filmed: in constant motion, with the camera circling and rotating, and going in circles at all times- all times. The camera is never still. This is fine for the credits and perhaps during the drug/madness moments. But it becomes nauseating and silly after a while. Again, there's a time for everything but non-stop revolving camera movements are just annoying.

The only reasons to watch this movie are Brittany Daniel and Joleigh Fioreavanti, who starts off the movie beautifully. There's some good acting, too. But otherwise, the movie fails miserably in direction, story-telling, camera-work.

Do you have any idea how wretched a film has to be for me to consider it the worst "true" serial killer-themed movie ever? Well, this one gets that honor. How it was humanly possible to make a movie worse than SPECK boggles my mind. But this crew did. Oh wait, I know why: 1. Here's a movie whose title suggests it will only appeal to true crime buffs. So let's alienate the only possible fan base this movie could have by changing EVERYTHING factual about the case. Nevermind the fact that the real Ken Bianchi was a slick BS artist. Nope, this movie turns him into Kevin Spacey from THE USUAL SUSPECTS. And what's with that title, you ask? Weren't there two Hillside Stranglers? Yes. Yes, there were. But Angelo Buono is a minor character in this piece. Forget the fact that he was the actual brains behind the crimes and was in effect Ken's mentor in murder. Angelo gets one brief scene and then falls off the face of the earth. Interestingly, Angelo's criminal trial was the longest in United States history up to that point. Do they even see fit to give us little slices of information like that in the closing credits? Nah. Because research is hard.

2. There's this wonderful new invention out there called a tripod. It allows a camera to be placed in a fixed position for a steady, undistracting shot. Our cinematographer hasn't heard of this invention. Therefore, he shoots every scene in a circular dolly shot. No, seriously. EVERY scene. Sometimes to break the monotony of the circular dolly shots, we get a circular dolly shot superimposed onto ANOTHER circular dolly shot. Yay.

3. Our psychiatrist Samantha is such a model of professionalism that she keeps candid nude pictures of herself hanging on the wall in her study. I guess this is to provide a conversation piece to visiting patients and law enforcement personnel. She's also apparently so absorbed in her casework that she can never seem to fasten the top 6 or 7 buttons on her blouse. It's impossible to give a tinker's squat about Samantha because her only character development consists of her having increasingly half-hearted sex with a parade of drugged-out strangers.

4. When the story lags, cut to another drug-fueled orgy! Not that you'll be able to see much, because for these sequences they seem to have strapped a camera onto a hummingbird. A hummingbird with a penchant for annoyingly long dissolves. And because recutting a film to meet an R-rating costs money, let's just digitally fog certain props and naked characters that the MPAA finds offensive. Ah, digital fogging. It's not just for Japanese pornos anymore! Classy.

In conclusion, this movie fails as a serial killer biopic. It fails as a character study. It fails as a procedural. It fails as a horror film. It fails as a suspense film. But if you look at it as an Impassioned Plea for Tolerance and Acceptance of the Circular Dolly Shot, you'll find no better example.

This film is totally a waste of time unless you are looking for a few tits and ass scenes. The acting is second rate and the script was horrible. I was starting to root for the bad guy just because I hate the good guys so badly. Whoever sees a psychiatrist busy at orgies and getting high in the evenings, meanwhile during the day its all business interviewing alleged serial killers while she prances around bra-less with her boobs half exposed and the 'kicker' is when she insists on having the killer's handcuffs removed while she interviews him. The psychiatrist in the film needs a shrink. The script is terrible and the acting is just so-so. Second rate film that looks like it was a made for TV. This film was way off the mark.

When I first picked this movie up I feared it to be another cheap, poorly written real-life serial killer movie such as 'Gacy'. I was happy to find while watching it that it was actually a well done movie. Clifton Collins Jr. delivers a strong performance as Kenneth Bianchi, one of the two men responsible for the 1977 murders of many young women. His eerie resemblance to the real Bianchi really gives the film an extra boost of realism. Brittany Daniel gives a convincing performance as well, playing Samantha Stone, a psychiatrist who specializes in determining if a suspect is truly insane.

The movie lacks, though, when it tries to add an additional sub-plot in the story. This being Samantha's troubles with her partying, druggie, cheating boyfriend. This non-conclusive aspect of the story tends to use up time that could have been better used to develop Clifton Collin's character. Also, a factor that I felt was unneeded was the amount of nudity and sex in the film. Many shots of naked Daniel and other random couples having sex got a bit excessive at times, and tended to become redundant.

Over-all, the film was not badly done. I enjoyed a few neat filming effects and techniques in the beginning and other parts of the film. Good dialog, clever ending, and a good plot. 7/10.

*Word of warning- If you're looking for historical accuracy in this film you are not going to find it. It's very loosely based on the Hillside Strangler. The timeline is very far off and the events that occur are mostly made up for dramatic reasons.*