Really Surprised!

Absolutely Fantastic

A Disappointing Continuation

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Why can't they do a "night stalker" movie that doesn't suck? Richard Ramirez is the most terrifying serial murderer of all time. His 14-month, 1984-85 L.A. terror spree changed the world. Your very home was a potentially deadly chamber of horrors if he came around. Ramirez worshiped Satan, and presented cops with the most horrific crime scenes ever. If EVIL exists, RR was it's personification. A great film about the case is possible. 2 crap films have been made about the case-and this is one of them. This movie really sucks. If it weren't for the lovely Roselyn Sanchez; this movie would be totally UN-watchable. TRUTH:Ramirez didn't smoke crack.He shot coke. Ramirez disposed of the guy first. This film ignores that aspect. Ramirez wasn't a white guy, he was Hispanic. Ramirez dressed in black, but didn't emulate Trent Reznor's "Downward Spiral" look. Ramirez was never wounded by his victims. The cops didn't catch Ramirez....They saved Ramirez. Nerds. The filmmakers know the facts of the case(according to the DVD's commentary track), but just chose to distract us with some lame fiction.This film quickly becomes a weak cop-movie. Ramirez is just an incidental character. The demon-flash crap is just a lazy offense to the audience; a short-cut to actual story-telling. The filmmakers "based" this film on "true events", but ignored many fascinating, real events-turning the film into a boring story about a pretty cop experiencing sexual harassment. What's the point of all this? I don't know.This film couldn't have missed the mark any further. As for 1985 period-detail, well, forget it. You get about 5 characters, 4 cars, and 3 settings. This is kid's stuff.

There are a lot of reviewers that pointed out a lot of things that I would write about on this movie. I noticed a few errors in certain scenes.Not only Richard's capture was altered, and the outline was supposed to be his story, but instead the story is about a beautiful and smart but strained female cop, Gabriella Martinez (the lovely Roselyn Sanchez), fighting her way to seek approval against deigned Detectives Mayberry (Evan Dexter Parke), and Elliot (Derek Hamilton) who were giving this poor chick hell, whilst minding her two Brothers, with her child-like mother (whom we don't see half way though the film)had lost her mind during her husband's death a year ago was a bit cliché. I also can not understand what happened to her two brothers when the Night Stalker struck out in the Martinez household? Anyone who reads the Philip Carlo book knows that the Night Stalker was a vicious killer with a very short temper if anyone retaliates him, so when Martinez objects to him during a confrontational showdown, you would expect him to lose it to the extreme and beat her to a pulp, but all this Actor (Bret Roberts) does is just hold a knife to her throat and impose threats, especially the hooker; Roxanne Day as Cherry called him a "Pu$$y" earlier. And Richard Ramirez does not have long hair until around 1988, but in the year 1985, he had loose dishevelling curls on his head, but the portrayed appearance and physical characteristics of the plausible Bret Roberts really does look like Ramirez at most angles if not close enough, unlike the laughable, unrelated Gregory Norman Cruz from Manhunt search for the NightStalker - so that was an improvement. It was more lively than Manhunt Search for the NightStalker, but also like this one, it is not accurate to the 'real-life' situations of the true-life case, then again neither was Manhunt. Ever heard of a Reporter not caring about her ragging boss on 'T.V. ratings' and keeping her mouth shut about 'rare' shoe prints found at the scene of a crime? And twisting the story to make Mayor Diane Feinstein never mentioned anything about Avia tennis shoes to throw the whole investigation to a disarray? Both movies failed to deliver why the Nightstalker IS the most terrifying Serial Killer of the last century. Not that it's just about satanism, but people in all classes, and racial communities felt terrorised because the victims were sundries of ethical backgrounds and all walks of life, the gender of the victims did not matter either. No Serial Killer with stealth attacked anyone in their sleep before which is the most vulnerable situation than being snatched off the street. The summer heat was unbearable, the panic was insurmountable and many people stayed up late and soon their mind is playing tricks to think every sound or movement was him, even if it was the figment of their imagination, it maybe the Stalker. Slasher movies like 'a Nightmare on Elm Street' on home video was burgeoning in 1985, that made people even in the youth culture to think 'hey! We got a madman out there that also kills people while they are sleeping in our city' - and that is what also fuels the paranoia uproar, and California feeling fear. That is what both movies failed to produce. To take us back to that scary Summer that labelled the Night Stalker as the most Terrifying Serial Killer in US history. The Timing was so right at this era.In my opinion, the movie gives a predictable plot even if it wants to be a fictionalised tale of the real-life case. I know the darker side of the drug culture was popular in the 80's, but not EVERYONE was a crack head, this particular decade was about some people being health conscious and good well-being like fame, breakin the movie, and flash dance with leg warmers, what happened to that? Including the clothes of the actors looked too modern for that decade, what happened to bat-winged jackets and pixie boots, or Richard's leather jacket? There were many detectives on this nightstalker case. However, this time the original Detectives on the 'real-life case', Frank Salerno, and Gil Carrilo are absent. And Detective Mayberry as a black guy should have cherry curls like in 'coming to America of Eddie Murphy' not a bald head - that was very 1998 and so was Elliot's haircut. Only Danny Trejo is the best underrated actor, whom I recognised back 'from Dusk til Dawn' . In relation to the scenes, Richard did not act like a hunchback, and is a lyrical and articulate communicator and writer, so what's with the misspelled words at the scene of a crime? The dialogue of the Night Stalker was minimised to "DON'T LOOK AT ME" and "DO YOU LOVE Satan? SWEAR TO Satan YOU B1TCH!" which sound's like Mark Walberg's Boogie Nights reminder of 'WHO'S YOUR DADDY?" And Satan looks like the monster from the music drum and bass award winning music video, Come to Daddy from Aphex Twin - do I sense a trend here? If you love a good laugh at what silly movie makers do for cash to make a profit rather than a true story, then go see it. I dare you!P.S. Look out for deleted scene on DVD "the Berry on the Vine" with z-rated Tarantino-style story of Det. Elliot's philosophy "there was this guy and he was walking thought the F@CKing jungle...and a tiger chases him...and he picks a berry from a vine as he is hanging there and feels ALIVE (the most magical satanic word), and I feel like that when I get close to that son of a b!tch I feel alive" but as I watched the scene I was thinking - HOW DID THE STORY GET OUT? TWO HUNGRY TIGERS AND ONE GUY?!? You decide and explain it to me?

I liked this movie. I've read many other words, and certain critiquing things I think were true, but overall I liked it and would give it a rating of 7 / 10. It's a B movie, so don't be expecting big stars, anything expensive or awesome special effects, but I liked how it was done and give credit to the directing style and cinematography.This movie would appeal to viewers who like the drug aspect of Tran spotting, Requiem of a Dream, but unlike having psychedelic like feel, it's much more dark and speed metal like with the music and the cinematography matching in that it will do tons of flashes of screen cuts in sync with the music. For me I was impressed by amount of work that went into making those segments of the movie and kind of rode it like a wave. You'll either go with it or go against it. Thing is, these sequences are all throughout the movie, because of that it will make or break it for you.The plot - A crack / speed freak who's possessed by a Demon (who only he can see) commands him to rape, maim, and kill, meanwhile the cops search for clues to hunt him down. It's simple, but terrifying at the same time. I think the movie did a good job of capturing the suspense & horror of the story, provided you weren't too busy shaking off the dizzying effect from the tweaker scenes. The interesting thing to note is that unlike most rape / murder movies where the viewer is guessing who the bad guy is or how they done it, this movie puts you in the killers head, literally. So there's no real guesswork and literally no surprise at all. The movie relies solely on the tweaking effect of the camera work, and the horror & suspense that's coupled with the killers rampage. Worked for me, may not work for many.The acting was pretty good to so-so. Had it been a big budget movie with big name actors I would have expected more. But being a B movie with a bunch of no names actors, you're bar slides a little. The bad guy kind of freaked me out to say the least, so in that regard I was impressed by the acting for a guy who only had a few lines, he certainly stole the show. I wasn't particularly impressed by any of the cops though.So load up on something, get comfortable, maybe throw on some shades, and prepare yourself for a hyper, B, thriller. For those of you who don't care for drug movies, speed metal, murder / rape, B movies, then stay away.

This movie was horrible. I mean, now all these murders happened just a couple days after I was born, so, I wouldn't know the story. But I know that they probably over embellished. I wasn't happy with the movie, I hope I can get my $4.00 back from "Hollywood Video".2/10