Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueIn 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... Tout lireIn 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)
Avis en vedette
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesLance 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.
- GaffesWhen 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.
- ConnexionsFeatures The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet (1952)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Starkweather?Propulsé par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Старкуэзер
- Lieux de tournage
- Lancaster, Californie, États-Unis(main location)
- sociétés de production
- Consultez plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 1 000 000 $ US (estimation)
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Starkweather (2004) officially released in Canada in English?
Répondre