Supelice Dreadfully Boring

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Bessie Smyth Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Leofwine_draca FREEWAY KILLER is an attempt to tell a story about a little-known serial killer who menaced the Californian highways in the late 1970s. While I appreciate that the film-makers made a great deal of effort in getting this unknown story to the screen, unfortunately their budget is so cheap that the result is an amateurish mish-mash of themes and set-pieces that have already been seen before countless times.With even a semi-professional sheen this might have been something good; as it stands, it's just another unpleasant serial killer outing, little different from the rest of the torture porn sub-genre of film-making. The killer is simply that, a sadistic brute who enjoys beating and murdering his victims who were in the main innocent hitch-hikers simply looking for a ride.The cast give amateurish performances with no sign of restraint. Michael Rooker contributes a blink-and-you'll-miss-it cameo enough to get his name in big letters on the DVD case. Even worse, FREEWAY KILLER is full of anachronisms as no effort has been made to give this film an authentic look or feel. For much better serial killer films, check out ZODIAC (whose period authenticity is breathtaking) or the incredibly disturbing SNOWTOWN whose killer had a similarly warped personality to the guy here.

binyonadam This facts in this are ignored in this movie. It was totally scared of its subject matter. They changed his accomplices into victims when in reality they were monsters like Bonin. Poorly acted and very cheap looking. It looks like a T.V movie and the way they sanitized the contents it could easily be film of the week on some channel. Disappointing on every level from the acting,to the directing,to the contents. The end was poor The Characters unconvincing The script confused The film is B movie material It's a sensitive subject not really movie entertainment. It's the worst example of bio pic I've seen. Very very cheap and empty

Solomon Terra I loved Scott Leet's performance, but I have to say the primary, fundamental and defining ingredient was very ludicrously omitted: Bonin's motivation. Bonin was motivated not only by the power & mania as depicted, but also and primarily so by sex. He raped all of the men he killed, brutally. That was the defining horror of his crimes. This movie doesn't even let on that Bonin was into guys, let alone that such was his primary motivation for engaging in the hunt. For that, the movie comes across as positively embarrassing. It's such a sanitized version of the truth, it has no right claiming to even be -about- William Bonin.So if you want to know the true story, don't watch this movie. Or if you want to watch this movie, pretend that the movie world's Bill Bonin is some other person entirely, because he sure isn't the real-life version.

elshikh4 After (The Silence of the Lambs – 1991) a fashion had swept Hollywood in the 1990s and beyond, as if a subgenre had been born in the thriller / horror movies. It's all about the hunt for one crazy ultra-intelligent serial killer, by – in general – 2 different, yet complete together, partners. Else that, the rest of the serial killers, largely the realistic ones, went to be TV movies of the week. While (Freeway Killer) isn't any of the above (having no TSOTL's formula, being based on horrible true story, and cinematic), it leaned to take the worst of both; the poorness of writing, producing, and directing.The writing has no business exploring anything, I think the scriptwriter doesn't know the word "history" or admit it. I didn't understand how come the movie turns into narration near the end, or the necessity of the character of the victim's mother there. Rather how the police caught the title character ? Obviously, the scriptwriter doesn't know the word "thrill" either !The back projections, as in the car scenes, were ancient and funny, which pushed me out of the movie's 70s mood to the laughing mood! The sets did serve as a factor of bore. Not because they were numbered or so usual only, but for the way this movie dealt with them in the first place. The directing is close to awful. It led everything blandly. Remember the scenes at the friend's home; nothing interesting or catchy of any sort was done there. In fact, the whole movie says nothing artistically !Save a melancholic atmosphere and tone, clothes from the events' era, and some good acting, I didn't find something to earn from it. Speaking about good acting; it was good in the tight limits of that script. So Scott Leet, with his scary charismatic presence, was about to be Razzied. Thank god that the other elements didn't harm him much. In best cases it looks like a nihilist and bloody road movie, a glum slasher horror, or a movie about troubled friendship between 3 troubled men, however clueless when it comes to the reasons of their troubles and violence (Bore ? Suppressed anger ? Hate to society ? Inferiority complex ? Persecution mania ??!).Anyway, not the movie that I expected or accepted about William Bonin, whether psychologically or thrillingly. It does have the worst of the famous 2 formulas that I mentioned earlier, and doesn't have something good from or out of them either. It's only a dark tale of a real serial killer, where being poor is the secret of its insipidity.