Rampage: The Hillside Strangler Murders (2006) User Reviews

The good performances just can't bring this movie up to snuff.

[tarbosh22000 · 5/10 · 6 January 2006]

"Rampage: The Hillside Strangler Murders" could've been so much better.

The plot is: Dr. Samantha Stone (Brittany Daniel) gets a case that involves accused murderer Kennenth Bianchi (Clifton Collins Jr.) She gets into his head, and eventually he does the same to her.

The main problem with the film is that there too many camera and sound tricks. It's very distracting and headache inducing. The camera goes around in circles every two seconds.

What's good about this film is the performances. Clifton Collins Jr. is great as Kenneth. If you watch his other performances in "187" or "Mindhunters", you can see the immense talent he has. Brittany Daniel does a decent job. Yes, she takes off her clothes, but she has acting ability. In the end: This movie is a misfire, but thankfully it does boast two good main performances, without that, it would have been a disaster.

For more insanity, please visit: comeuppancereviews.com

Not bad at all

[billyblakec · 3/10 · 8 January 2006]

When I first picked this movie up I feared it to be another cheap, poorly written real-life serial killer movie such as 'Gacy'. I was happy to find while watching it that it was actually a well done movie. Clifton Collins Jr. delivers a strong performance as Kenneth Bianchi, one of the two men responsible for the 1977 murders of many young women. His eerie resemblance to the real Bianchi really gives the film an extra boost of realism. Brittany Daniel gives a convincing performance as well, playing Samantha Stone, a psychiatrist who specializes in determining if a suspect is truly insane.

The movie lacks, though, when it tries to add an additional sub-plot in the story. This being Samantha's troubles with her partying, druggie, cheating boyfriend. This non-conclusive aspect of the story tends to use up time that could have been better used to develop Clifton Collin's character. Also, a factor that I felt was unneeded was the amount of nudity and sex in the film. Many shots of naked Daniel and other random couples having sex got a bit excessive at times, and tended to become redundant.

Over-all, the film was not badly done. I enjoyed a few neat filming effects and techniques in the beginning and other parts of the film. Good dialog, clever ending, and a good plot. 7/10.

*Word of warning- If you're looking for historical accuracy in this film you are not going to find it. It's very loosely based on the Hillside Strangler. The timeline is very far off and the events that occur are mostly made up for dramatic reasons.*

Horrible Film

[PersianPlaya408 · 5/10 · 26 August 2006]

Fisher's film about the Hillside stranger killings, is not a homage to the 70s or a realistic film by any means. Actually its a pretty horrible softcore porn like crap put out by Hollywood that i wish i didn't waste my time on. I don't get how it cost a whole million dollars to make a crappy film like this. I mean thats not too much for a budget, but even that million is wasted here. The cast is not good, even clifton Collins was not impressive while i blame the screenplay and weird direction. The atmosphere was nonexistent, dialogues just stupid. the cinematography didn't help, quite confusing unimpressive work from Eliot Rockett. The film is not recommended by me by any means, skip it big time.--- IMDb Rating: 4.0, my rating: 5/10

An exercise in total incompetence

[edgein15 · 1/10 · 2 February 2006]

Do you have any idea how wretched a film has to be for me to consider it the worst "true" serial killer-themed movie ever? Well, this one gets that honor. How it was humanly possible to make a movie worse than SPECK boggles my mind. But this crew did. Oh wait, I know why: 1. Here's a movie whose title suggests it will only appeal to true crime buffs. So let's alienate the only possible fan base this movie could have by changing EVERYTHING factual about the case. Nevermind the fact that the real Ken Bianchi was a slick BS artist. Nope, this movie turns him into Kevin Spacey from THE USUAL SUSPECTS. And what's with that title, you ask? Weren't there two Hillside Stranglers? Yes. Yes, there were. But Angelo Buono is a minor character in this piece. Forget the fact that he was the actual brains behind the crimes and was in effect Ken's mentor in murder. Angelo gets one brief scene and then falls off the face of the earth. Interestingly, Angelo's criminal trial was the longest in United States history up to that point. Do they even see fit to give us little slices of information like that in the closing credits? Nah. Because research is hard.

2. There's this wonderful new invention out there called a tripod. It allows a camera to be placed in a fixed position for a steady, undistracting shot. Our cinematographer hasn't heard of this invention. Therefore, he shoots every scene in a circular dolly shot. No, seriously. EVERY scene. Sometimes to break the monotony of the circular dolly shots, we get a circular dolly shot superimposed onto ANOTHER circular dolly shot. Yay.

3. Our psychiatrist Samantha is such a model of professionalism that she keeps candid nude pictures of herself hanging on the wall in her study. I guess this is to provide a conversation piece to visiting patients and law enforcement personnel. She's also apparently so absorbed in her casework that she can never seem to fasten the top 6 or 7 buttons on her blouse. It's impossible to give a tinker's squat about Samantha because her only character development consists of her having increasingly half-hearted sex with a parade of drugged-out strangers.

4. When the story lags, cut to another drug-fueled orgy! Not that you'll be able to see much, because for these sequences they seem to have strapped a camera onto a hummingbird. A hummingbird with a penchant for annoyingly long dissolves. And because recutting a film to meet an R-rating costs money, let's just digitally fog certain props and naked characters that the MPAA finds offensive. Ah, digital fogging. It's not just for Japanese pornos anymore! Classy.

In conclusion, this movie fails as a serial killer biopic. It fails as a character study. It fails as a procedural. It fails as a horror film. It fails as a suspense film. But if you look at it as an Impassioned Plea for Tolerance and Acceptance of the Circular Dolly Shot, you'll find no better example.

A couple nice performances but totally worthless story

[redrum911 · 2/10 · 8 September 2006]

As a Hillside Strangler buff I decided to buy this DVD ($5 at Blockbuster). I was blown away by the inaccuracies of the story, to the point of fraudulence. This is not really the Hillside case at all. The time-line is completely off (events happen waaay out of sequence to real life), and the Brittany Daniel (main) character is at best an amalgamation of a number of characters, and at worst a complete fabrication (not a good sign in a fact based movie when the lead character never existed!). And oddly, the story is told from her point of view, with an odd story-line about coke deals and sex parties. If I had a nickel for every movie with a lesbian criminal psychiatrist who looks like a model, does coke, throws sex parties at her home in the Hollywood Hills and does interrogations with her top open...

But worst of all, the movie fails to capture the essence of the story (one of the most bizarre and interesting cases ever, from beginning to end), what made the killers "tick" and worst of all disregards the victims by basically phasing them out of the narrative. On top of that, the film-making is amateurish (you'll need to down a bottle of Dramamine due to the camera that NEVER STOPS SWIRLING AROUND) and unsteady.

On the plus side, the performances by Clifton Collins, Jr. and Brittany Daniel are good. Though she isn't given much material to work with (many of her scenes involve her "thinking" aka staring off into space), she is sometimes engaging and always nice to look at. If you're really interested in Hillside, the best movie on it is The Case of the Hillside Stranglers, the 1989 made for TV flick with Richard Crenna, Dennis Farina & Billy Zane -Zane's performance in particular nails the Bianchi character much better than Rampage, and Crenna and Farina are excellent as well. The story also has more to do with the victims, and also with the toll the case took on the cops involved. Of course, that movie doesn't have long nude scenes w/ Brittany Daniel, so you'll have to choose.

unbelievable waste of time and talent

[minehead · 1/10 · 14 January 2006]

After seeing that a film of the tag team killers of B & B was now released, I was hopeful that someone had made use of this fertile crime history, and Bianchi's lame MPD defense could have been interesting if made by someone who HAD A MODICUM OF TALENT...and had a real script..I was just stunned at how far dramatic license could be utilized...and still use "actual" names with no actual history to back it up. This is the WORST serial killer flick ever, and possibly a contender for worst film ever. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Hillside case, except that we see the comical appearance of the multiple personalities of Bianchi in the last 15 minutes(permanently damaging the career of this young guy that was in "Traffic"). In the end, the flick is a failing grade at a CC Film School. I don't know much about the "writer/director", but it really makes you wonder how anyone, with just a MiniDV handicam and a loosely written script gets "known" actors to appear in this horrible mess. I felt the pain of these actors (especially Lake Bell, she's fine!) throughout...and the cute blonde from "Joe Dirt" was forced to chain smoke and go bra-less throughout, for what reason ??? Not even that can keep any interest up after the first 5 minutes. This is nothing more than a failed, male sex/murder fantasy, and is the most amateurish film that I've seen in release possibly ever...it should be burned, the MiniDV master should be burned !! Take some Dramamine before you TRY to watch it, it makes the Blair Witch camera work look like Lawrence OF Arabia. Most amateur porn flix have higher production values than this one. Stop making movies Herr Director, even if your daddy owns a studio...

When people with no talent make movies, they make movies like this

[fertilecelluloid · 1/10 · 29 July 2007]

It begins by ripping off the opening sequence of "Irreversible". The camera sweeps and twists for no reason. It creates no context. It has no point. "Rampage - The Hillside Strangler Murders" is a film made by people who have no talent or intelligence. They have seen some contemporary films and they are keen to recreate sequences from them. They possess no vision of their own. Chris Fisher, who is listed as the film's director, could not direct traffic on a one way street. Because he has no vision, he goes with "style" instead. His idea of "style" is to keep his camera moving no matter what happens, so we're served endless streams of dizzying, pointless camera work. The characters are actors who pose and shout and spew nonsensical dialog. The lead actress spends much of the film in the nude. She is an attractive, capable thespian who looks like porn star Lois Ayres (aka Sondra Stillman). She is not a real person, she is a one-dimensional cipher. We get no insight into why The Hillside Strangler strangled and we get no suspense. This is one of the worst films I have ever seen, and I've seen plenty.

This was the worst "serial killer" flick ever!

[arcane360-1 · 1/10 · 3 February 2007]

I have read the books and case studies on the Hillside Stranglers and this film has little to nothing to do with the true events. How can they even call this a "serial killer" film and not show any (oh, OK part of one) of the killings? The rating hypes up violence and there really is not any in this piece of crap. This "film" is so pathetic it's like some kind of soft-core, made for cable fake porn. If all I wanted to see was naked broads, I would rent a real porn. Where is the killing? Where is the blood and carnage promised on the box? There's no amount of c-level actress t&a that could save this waste of celluloid. Real fans of violent, exploitive cinema beware: This movie blow's it big time. Save your money and avoid this crappy flick.

An interesting turn at the end with lots of sex-oriented content

[tokawa · 7/10 · 7 February 2006]

In the late 1970s, many bodies of women are found in the Los Angels area. They are brutally raped and sodomized. When the police take a suspect named Kenneth Bianchi in custody, a psychiatrist Samantha Stone is called in. She finds at first that Kenneth cannot be a serial killer. Kenneth maintains that he has nothing to do with the killings and suggests that his cousin Angelo and a man named Steve might have something to do with the murders.

Just like 'The Hillside Strangler,' this film contains a lot of sexually-oriented scenes, which may turn off some viewers. The interesting side of this movie is Samantha's ability to tell who is involved in the killings of women. It's like solving a mystery. And it has an interesting turn at the very end of the movie.

Although this movie is inspired by true events, the movie itself is not directly or entirely based on the 'Hillside Strangler' killings. That being said, there is an odd aspect. Samantha is aware that her boyfriend is a drug dealer and a sex addict. But she goes out with him anyway. So what is the true theme of this movie, Samantha exploring her sexual interest or showing her ability to solve the mystery?

There's at least one good aspect of the movie. Its use of camera is quite good. Just as the true event is confusing and sickening, the way of capturing some scenes makes us feel that we do live in a confusing society.

Comment made by Machousej.com

Kids playing Irréversible

[sdrywer · 1/10 · 10 January 2006]

As an genre fan and director is somewhat as old as I am, I had some hope to see new talent to show off here. Sadly that didn't happen.

First thing what kicks in is noticing that these kids have seen that french movie Irréversible. What means dizzy camera rotating around and buzzing sound from lights. Too bad this doesn't serve any purpose on this movie and shows off the low budged and lack of talent of filmography and editing. On Irréversible all that well done camera trickery served an purpose to tell story from end to beginning seamlessly, but on this its just to cover dull story whit "exotic" 70s' setting (clothing) and predictable story. On acting wise, only one who shows any talent on this flick is Clifton Collins Jr., who seems to be stuck in 2nd class movies since his last notable appearance on mindhunters (and it's director has too, who was called in to remake original unwatchable Exorcist: The Beginning to proper old school horror). Not to mention, this has some lame "blurred out" scenes, where people are having sex and one injection, is as annoying like wathcing some mtv show where all the official logos are blurred out. Haven't seen this on "movies" ever. I guess the only kicker in this one is to see "Dawson's Creek" appearance star butt naked coupe of times (amazing they didn't blur that out), what I never missed because I have only seen that series only couple of times by force. Showing off complete lack of talent, she kind of reminded me of Paris hilton on House of Wax.

So shortly: Lack of talent on movie-making and acting, arty low budged crap, what struggles to be full lenght film. Only question is how could somebody waste money to release this kind of *bleeeeb*. Perhaps this would have been acceptable in 1980 but...

Absorbingly sordid trash

[Woodyanders · 8/10 · 31 March 2009]

1978, Los Angeles. Lovely and charming psychiatrist Dr. Samantha Stone (well played by the gorgeous Brittany Daniel) interviews nervous and scared suspected serial killer Kenneth Bianchi (a strong and compelling performance by Clifton Collins, Jr.) in order to determine if he's sane or crazy. Director/co-writer Chris Farber relates this engrossing story in a deliciously flashy'n'trashy style which creates a considerable amount of raw energy and crackling intensity. Farber's unapologetically seamy and nasty rub-your-nose-in-the-gutter sensibility may not be subtle, but it does give the picture a lurid vitality that's both exciting and arresting in equal measure. Moreover, there's a vivid and credible evocation of the wild anything-goes hedonism and amorality of the 70's. For example, Samantha is the total opposite of a squeaky clean goody-goody two shoes heroine; instead she's a completely uninhibited swinger who smokes pot and participates in crazy drug'n'sex orgies. Daniel and Collins, Jr. are both excellent in the leads, with Collins, Jr. in particular a stand-out with his frightening portrayal of raging psychosis and seething misogyny. The supporting cast is likewise solid and praiseworthy: Lake Bell as Samantha's brassy District Attorney best friend Jillian Dunne, Bret Roberts as Samantha's scuzzy dope dealer boyfriend Jack, Tom Wright as the hard-nosed Detective Bryant, and Mike Haggerty as Bryant's equally gruff partner Detective Smith. Tomas Arana makes a brief, but still memorably chilling appearance as the coarse and slimy Angelo Buono. Eliot Rockett's gaudy, dynamic cinematography keeps the camera constantly moving throughout while Ryan Beveridge's moody score further enhances the overall edgy tone. As a nice added bonus, the luscious Daniel bares her beautiful body a few times. A pleasingly tawdry wallow in the celluloid sewer.

Film marred by misuse of story

[videorama-759-859391 · 6/10 · 22 April 2015]

Following hot on the heals of the previous killer shock, The Hillside Strangler, this one is told from another point of view, that being of hot young Brittany Daniel, as psychiatrist, Samantha Stone, who interviews Kenneth Bianchi (Clifton Collins Jnr) which leads to the arrest of the other, tougher Bianchi brother, played by a miscast actor who'll you'll remember from the provocative film, A Girl's Life. Not delving into Bianci's crimes in flashback, we also delve into Stone's unstable life, getting over her ex, and seeking happiness through drugs and booze ups, wild parties, which you wouldn't expect from your usual shrink, where more to the point, sounds like what Daniel's would do, off camera. As the shrink, she doesn't pull it off. She's wrong for the part. What leads me to that analysis, is you can tell she really tries, where a self consciousness is lurking about. Collins is much better as Bianchi, quite good, in fact, though I remember Tommy Howell, playing it better in the prior Bianchi movie. This is a why did they make this movie? What leads me to say that, is that we do take away from Bianci, meddling in Daniel's problems, the opening scene as one example, as the camera swirls around her swank beach apartment to a beaty version of the song "You can ring my bell", where we feel we've taken a wrong route to the story. How Daniel's finally caught Bianchi, I must say was impressive, well not so this movie, but it still deserves a watch, particularly if you like hot Daniels.

waste of time

[rsussman11 · 3/10 · 9 October 2012]

This film is totally a waste of time unless you are looking for a few tits and ass scenes. The acting is second rate and the script was horrible. I was starting to root for the bad guy just because I hate the good guys so badly. Whoever sees a psychiatrist busy at orgies and getting high in the evenings, meanwhile during the day its all business interviewing alleged serial killers while she prances around bra-less with her boobs half exposed and the 'kicker' is when she insists on having the killer's handcuffs removed while she interviews him. The psychiatrist in the film needs a shrink. The script is terrible and the acting is just so-so. Second rate film that looks like it was a made for TV. This film was way off the mark.

Utterly uninvolving

[TdSmth5 · 5/10 · 12 November 2008]

What a way to botch a movie. This crew had the money and the know-how, but still they managed to ruin what could have been an OK movie.

The problem is that the story is told from the perspective of the psychiatrist, played by Brittany Daniel. Now they story is supposed to be about a serial killer. The title is quite misleading, as if the movie were about the murders. It's not. They show one kidnapping and murder. From then on it's all about the psychiatrist. What does she do? Interview, meet with, and hypnotize a suspect. So we get 3 or 4 extended boring sequences of that. And they are not particularly interesting at all. The villain here is not one bit scary, menacing, or of interest, although well-performed by Clifton Collins Jr.

Any other movie would have told this story from the perspective of the killers and cops, which would be more fun to watch. What makes the psychiatrist at all noteworthy is that Daniel is pretty and lives with a drug user/dealer who spends his time partaking in drug and sex orgies. She's gets also involved. And those are the only watchable moments in this movie.

There are some short scenes of cops raiding suspects homes, but nothing to get one's attention. Daniel has a friend DA who is running the case. This is rather politically correct anachronistic non-sense. How many young women were at the DA's office in LA in the 70s? Another problem, this person is played by Lake Bell, who is utterly incompetent at re-recording her own voice track. Perhaps because she barely moves her lips when she speaks, but it looks like a foreign-dubbed movie. And her character is not likable or watchable.

On top of that, sometime after 30 minutes, the movie makes clear what is going on with the suspects and who did what and why. So for 55 minutes we have to wait for the movie to work out what we already know is going on- again, this happens through conversations, not even flashbacks.

Another absurd thing is that there are 4 or so scenes where things are censored- blurred- as if we were watching a TV-cut of an R-rated movie. One rarely sees that and it's ridiculous. This is, thankfully, a hard-R-rated movie and they blurred some sex-scenes and drug paraphernalia! One has to wonder what went on in people's mind's as they were editing this thing.

Finally, another non-sensical thing is how this movie is filmed: in constant motion, with the camera circling and rotating, and going in circles at all times- all times. The camera is never still. This is fine for the credits and perhaps during the drug/madness moments. But it becomes nauseating and silly after a while. Again, there's a time for everything but non-stop revolving camera movements are just annoying.

The only reasons to watch this movie are Brittany Daniel and Joleigh Fioreavanti, who starts off the movie beautifully. There's some good acting, too. But otherwise, the movie fails miserably in direction, story-telling, camera-work.

Unfortunately Disappointing

[boyinflares · 5/10 · 3 January 2007]

What seems to be a sort-of follow up to 2004's "The Hillside Strangler", in this one, "Rampage: The Hillside Strangler Murders" begins with the suspected Strangler, Kenneth Bianchi (Clifton Collins Jr.) captured and brought in for questioning from Dr. Samathan Stone (Brittany Daniel). The film tells the story of Dr. Samantha Stone and what she goes through during her time on the Strangler case. Not only does she deal with sexism from male detectives, but an abusive boyfriend, and of course Kenneth Bianchi and the is-he-or-isn't-he question that she must ask herself. Her only confidant is a former friend, the District Attorny Jillian Dunne (Lake Bell).

"Rampage" is an interesting film: Fantastic performances from Clifton Collins Jr. as Kenneth Bianchi, and the lovely Lake Bell is terrific as Jillian Dune. However it is almost hard to take Brittany Daniel seriously as a psych doctor, though she gives an admirable performance. Some of the camera techniques are very unusual, particularly at the drug-using party scenes. They add something to the film to liven it up I suppose, which is needed, because the film plods at times, and the pacing seems a little off - the first interrogation for example was far too long. The 70's outfits are fantastic though. The standout performance is obviously Clifton Collins Jr., and the way he pulls of the "personalities" of the Strangler are worth watching this film for, even if it is unfortunately disappointing.

Clumsily fictionalized version of famous case.

[dave13-1 · 5/10 · 24 April 2012]

Kenneth Bianchi, the serial killer known as the Hillside Strangler, was captured by L.A. police and tried to build a psychiatric defense around a split personality disorder. What followed was a genuine medical puzzle which a clever psychiatrist had to figure out: was Bianchi actually insane or just a clever con man?

In its attempts to fictionally re-create this famous story, this movie proves a rather mixed bag. Brittany Daniel plays a sexy swinging police psychiatrist (the real one was a middle aged fat guy) matching wits with Clifton Collins Jr. as Bianchi. Their interactions make up the dramatic center of this film and are moderately effective but lacking in the on- screen fireworks required to make this sort of exercise really work (as in Silence of the Lambs). Much of the background of the film is made up of clumsy ruminations by the film makers as to whether the permissive, anything-goes sex and cocaine L.A. lifestyle and its resulting alienation of the individual could be responsible for the Strangler's rampage. It certainly gave him a big city to hide in and a smörgåsbord of vulnerable victims to prey upon.

This movie, in short had certain potential given its complex real life narrative, but its execution fell far short of its ambitions. Not awful, but not really recommended for anybody looking for insights into one of the most famous serial killer cases in recent years.

Really good interrogation, marred by some scenes of unwarranted futility

[PeterMitchell-506-564364 · 6/10 · 25 February 2013]

Apart from some unnecessary nudity and sex scenes, this is quite a good interrogation thriller. I mean do we really have to know about Daniel's personal life, including her partying exploits, doing joints and guys she doesn't remember going to bed with, plus her cheating boyfriend, who she literally kicks out the house. No. I mean is that really the behavioral norm of an upscale psychiatrist. Especially one who's interviewing, notorious, hillside strangler killer, Kenneth Bianchi. But remember, things were different in the seventies. People were more looser and wilder. If anything, this movie is something of a fascination. Daniels and Clifton Gonzalez Jnr play good off each other, it was an interesting choice of casting, though Clifton, great seasoned actor that he is, was more powerful, if overdoing it in parts, playing child like, innocent, where Daniels finally catches him out. Clifton had been trying to fool her, playing two personalities, where something small gave him away, as does with all serial killers, that leads to their capture. Sometimes, the mistakes they make are so stupid, these intellectual psychopaths should get twenty plus years added to their sentence on the charge of stupidity. Daniel's character had to be fictional though. I just couldn't believe this was the same woman taking Bianchi's case. Even her girlfriend, played by the ugly woman in Hudson Hawk, also in the legal profession, offers her a joint. The seventies were really grouse. These outside fictional touches, I did like, even though it did sway the real story away, or disrupted it, a few times. Do, remember, another hillside strangler film, the better one, came out two years prior. I just thought this unnecessary stuff I didn't mind, was futile, if you can make sense of that. This one's still with a look, where we too view the other bad half, Angelo, in minimal scenes, his true to life character, running somewhat different rivers to Nick Turturro's Angelo in the other hillside strangler one.

Rampage: The Hilside Strangler Murders

[a_baron · 9/10 · 29 December 2021]

Like the factually accurate 2004 film "The Hillside Strangler", this one has had some extremely negative reviews, but this is a largely fictionalised version of the thoroughly documented atrocities of Kenneth Bianchi and Angelo Buono. The worst criticism that can be made of it is the soundtrack anachronism "You Can Ring My Bell". Kenneth Bianchi was arrested in Washington State on January 13, 1979, shortly after murdering two young women in one transaction. "You Can Ring My Bell" by Anita Ward was released later in the year and was a massive hit worldwide reaching number one on no fewer than five US charts as well as in Canada, the UK, and Spain for starters.

Our heroine is a blonde psychiatrist who when she isn't chain-smoking at police headquarters spends most of her time prancing around naked and having three in a bed sessions with her love interest and a girl called...what was your name again? Best not to mention the white stuff.

The Summer Of Love may have been over for a decade, but no one here seems to have noticed.

Also, Bianchi never makes it to Washington State, he is arrested in the vicinity of one of the murders, and is thus a prime suspect. Questioned by our heroine, he points the finger at his killer cousin and a mystery man named Steve. To cut a long story short, she is at first taken in by "Steve", and believing Bianchi to be a genuine double or multiple personality says: "The guy needs help, not the gas chamber".

It remains to be seen why any man who has kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered even one girl needs "help" instead of punishment, and for so many, the ultimate punishment is surely well deserved whatever his state of mind. However, in their final hypnosis session, Samantha Stone tricks the fictional Bianchi the same way Dr Martin Orne tricked the real one, proving he was faking it the entire time. Clearly, the film-makers did their research. The real Bianchi based Steve on a real person, what today would be called identity theft, but this film doesn't go that far.

If you are not averse to female nudity and don't mind a bit of graphic violence including dead bodies, this film has much to recommend it. And bear in mind that although this version is clearly fictionalised, the real crimes of the Hillside Stranglers were horrific beyond belief.