A Is for Acid

Based on the true story of the Acid Bath Murderer, John George Haigh, this TV drama stars Martin Clunes as the odd-looking, charming serial killer.

Normally I don't go in for TV dramas, but since this I have a passing interest in serial killers, I watched it -- I found it well scripted and well acted, with Clunes doing a good job -- at times he did bear a resemblance to the real Haigh (from old photographs I've see), and he brought a certain charm to his character, making his deceits all the more realistic, whilst his narrative voice contrasted this with a certain lack of emotion or inflection. Also, nicely paced.

A Is For Acid, 2002, 2 hrs. Based on a true story. Martin Clunes is solid as the serial killer. I thoroughly enjoyed this British drama. I can't call it a thriller because it was not tense. This murder mystery can be seen at night before bedtime without getting nightmares. I really appreciated the way the director told this story with his camera in a clear, understandable and simple fashion. The camera went from point A to point B to point C, following the action of the story. Clunes was a murderer but not a menace. Pleasant, in fact. I loved the smart brother who saw right through this mysterious murderer.

The film traces the life and deeds of a true life serial killer, John George Haig AKA the Acid Bath Murderer. Whilst in jail for fraud in the thirties he accidentally discovers the effect that acid has on animal bodies. He subsequently "offs" a series of people including a couple a family and three strangers by inviting them to his "workshop". He dissolves the bodies in oil drums full of acid. The film cuts to flashbacks of his upbringing by zealously religious parents, but steers clear of obviously blaming the parents for the son's murderous behaviour.

The film has a similar attention to detail as "10 Rillington Place" and Martin Clunes is excellently creepy as the charming Mr Haig. The contrast is small between Haig's day-to-day behaviour and the actual murders and disposals of the body but fascinating, leading to comparisons with Richard Attenborough's portrayal of Christie in 10 Rillington Place, but this film is more darkly humorous.

The film is written by Taggart creator Glenn Chandler and directed by Harry Bradbeer who directed most of the excellent BBC series "The Cops".

An affable psychopath in post-war Britain suckers in his down-at-heel acquaintances to liquidate them in acid and release ready funds. Will he be caught?

Lovely Poirot-style production, with oodles of acting quality. No great psychological insight, but at least the moral brigade is kept at bay and the natural horror seeps through the period atmosphere.

It refuses to creepify in the acid bath scenes - the last victim might have breathed in then gurgled out a great bubble of blood, but no - so a gentle horror, which was fine by me. I still took pleasure in the pace and performances, the setting and sound.

Overall, nicely judged and a good surprise.

I saw this TV-made film for the first time last night. I know "sociopath" and "psychopath" are labels and that everyone is an individual and no label, even attached to a mass-murderer such as Haigh could really explain his actions which can only be described as destructive and evil. Martin Clunes was clearly relishing the role and I have to say, I found him completely convincing in it. Whilst the adaptation does suggest the strict religious sect his parents adhered to was a strong influence in his development into a psychopathic murderer, I think this film interpretation of his character indicated he had a sense of entitlement to taking what he wanted in life and he had no boundaries, no conscience, saw no reason why he could not do what he wanted to do to get it all. He would appear to be one of those people who believes their own lies to the extent they can successfully convince many others. I think the reason he committed the murders was because he could and he seems to have committed them for personal gain. He had none of the normal moral and ethical boundaries in place to prevent him. He was unable to understand or foresee the consequences of his actions. Since the explanation he was influenced by his religious background came from Haigh himself, who was a practised and pathological liar, I leave it to the experts to determine whether such people as Haigh are the products of nature or nurture or a tragic combination of many contributing influences.