In 1958 Nebraska 19 year old garbageman Charles Starkweather goes on a murder spree with his 14 year old girlfriend Caril Ann Fugate killing 11 people in three months, introducing America to... Read allIn 1958 Nebraska 19 year old garbageman Charles Starkweather goes on a murder spree with his 14 year old girlfriend Caril Ann Fugate killing 11 people in three months, introducing America to spree killing.In 1958 Nebraska 19 year old garbageman Charles Starkweather goes on a murder spree with his 14 year old girlfriend Caril Ann Fugate killing 11 people in three months, introducing America to spree killing.
Lance Henriksen
- The Mentor
- (voice)
William Frederick Knight
- Robert McClurg
- (as William Knight)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
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.
Lets look at the plot outline to start with, which refers to 16 year old Starkweather and his 14 year old girlfriend. Whilst I thought Brent Taylor and Shannon Lucio played their roles adequately, they do not pass as these age groups. If you research the facts of the film you find that Starkweather was actually 19 and Caril had just turned 13 therefore, I don't understand why they cast two obviously older actors. There should have been more of a 'Lolita' scenario. The poster refers to Natural Born Killers, etc and suggests this is the story that inspired these films. This film inspires no one. It dwells on the 11 killings but at the same time does nothing to broaden our understanding of the characters. The events leading up to the first murder are brushed over. 'Lets just give an idea of who they are and move on to the gore!' But the violence is just lame and it becomes monotonous seeing Starkweather moving on to the next kill. The character who stood out was the Sheriff but for all the wrong reasons. If he smokes in real life then he has a funny way of holding a cigar. His dialogue was laughable and every time he came on screen I cringed. Don't go out of your way to watch this film, you'll regret it.
When I watch a movie like this, I am hoping to learn or get some insight into the kind of person that would commit these crimes. OK. there are some technical problems with the movie: the scenery, southern accents and all. But I have to disagree with the bad acting comments. The actors were convincing in their roles. It impossible to empathize with a conscience-less murderer but you do get a sense of his lack of compassion for human life. His girl friend is in the same boat - completely amoral. I think the scene where they fall asleep in the same room as one of their bloody victims is a great statement. My sense of the directing is that it was meant to convey a 50's B-Movie style which reinforced the time and sense of these two losers. Inspite of the drawbacks, I did gain some sense of the their personalities which is (to me) far more important than exact historical placement and correctness. Other good movies in this vein: Elephant and Deliberate Stranger (about Ted Bundy). Not so good: Ed Gein, Dahmer.
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.
Did you know
- TriviaLance Henriksen's voice as the dark man mentor was added in post-production , and Henriksen embellished on the original dialogue the dark man said by adding some profanity.
- GoofsWhen Charlie is stabbing Caril-Ann's father, the knife becomes bloody after a few stabs. The camera turns to Caril-Ann's little sister for a while, and when it turns back to Charlie, the blood on the knife is gone.
- ConnectionsFeatures The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet (1952)
- How long is Starkweather?Powered by Alexa
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $1,000,000 (estimated)
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content