KILLER: A JOURNAL OF MURDER
A film review by Steve Rhodes
Copyright 1996 Steve Rhodes
RATING (0 TO ****): **
Writer and first time director Timothy Metcalfe takes one of the original books on serial killers by Thomas E. Gaddis and James O. Long and turns it into a dreary tale of the friendship of a vicious murderer and a big hearted guard. If you can focus on the story itself and ignore the plodding pacing, at its heart KILLER: A JOURNAL OF MURDER is a fascinating tale.
In a true story set in the Leavenworth federal penitentiary in 1929, the great and explosive actor James Woods plays Carl Panzram. In the 1920s Carl was arguably the era's most vicious killer. He slaughtered twenty-one men, women, and children and spent his entire life in and out of prison. Since some of the places where he killed people did not have the death penalty he managed to escape so he could kill again. Not until he killed a federal prison guard did he get the hangman's noose.
In a film where Oliver Stone is the executive producer, you may not be surprised to find that the victims in this movie get short shrift. The inhumane treatment that Carl gets is featured instead. The focus is on Carl and the young Jewish guard Henry Lesser played by Robert Sean Leonard. Henry's father taunts him with, "Whoever heard of a Jewish prison guard?"
As soon as Carl enters Leavenworth, he and his new fellow inmates are lectured by the warden with, "I didn't send for you. I don't like you and I don't want any more of you." The guards, except the new guard Henry, are out to get Carl from the beginning.
Henry has an unfailing belief in the inner goodness of everyone, even Carl. He even goes into Carl's cell and puts down his nightstick which irritates Carl since he thinks that it is such reckless behavior in front of someone with his proclivity to senseless violence.
Carl is not permitted to have a pencil and paper, but Henry smuggles them in and out every night so that Carl can write his autobiography. The film tells in flashback the story of Carl's past life intertwined with his current predicament.
When the story moves back to Leavenworth, it bogs down in Henry's little pious pronouncements about how society is to blame for the men in the prison and how reform is possible. Carl will have none of this, and he asks Henry if he is a red, to which Henry nods yes but keep it quiet. Carl believes in the inner meanness of some man regardless of any reform. The flashbacks have him more a victim that a criminal, but do show some of the damage he has done.
Perhaps the best sequence in the show is when Carl is at a prison earlier in his career when a reform minded warden comes in to whom the inmates give the nickname of Spud. Spud is full of lofty experiments. He lets Carl out of the prison during the day solely because he is reputed to be the worse prisoner there. You can take a guess as to the success of that little experiment.
The acting by Woods is quite good, but far from his best. Leonard seems out of his depth and gives a lackluster and never convincing performance. The other characters are all caricatures. Notice, for example, how all of the wardens are beefy guys who smoke big cigars, and the guards all sinewy. Only Henry looks like a wimp.
The main problem with the show is the surprisingly slow pace set by the director. How he takes such naturally controversial material and a high spirited actor like Woods and manages to craft such a low energy show is a conundrum. The only answer I have is that he views the book on which it is based so reverentially that he wants his audience to have the time to fully ponder the subtleties in its every meanings.
My favorite part of the show is the CATCH 22 style paradox about executing serial killers. If they demand to be killed by the state, they risk the chance of being declared ipso facto insane, and, therefore, unfit to have their wish carried out. As Carl puts it, "I don't want to be alive. I want out of these clothes. I want out of this body. I want out of this world." Later he goes on to say, "You created me. Now, you kill me."
KILLER: A JOURNAL OF MURDER runs 1:31, but trust me, it feels like a three hour movie. It is rated R for brutal violence including one scene of a guy's skull being crushed where most of the audience had to look away. There is also bad language and a rape scene. This show would be okay only for quite mature teenagers. Although the story is interesting and Woods gives a compelling performance, watching it all is such an arduous task that I can not bring myself to recommend it. For Woods' work in it, I do give it **.
**** = One of the top few films of this or any year. A must see film. *** = Excellent show. Look for it. ** = Average movie. Kind of enjoyable. * = Poor show. Don't waste your money. 0 = One of the worst films of this or any year. Totally unbearable.
REVIEW WRITTEN ON: September 13, 1996
Opinions expressed are mine and not meant to reflect my employer's.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews