Interesteg What makes it different from others?

ScoobyMint Disappointment for a huge fan!

Derry Herrera Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

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

chriskirk2 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.

Killer_Romance2 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?

Kristine 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

wastoid4life I have read some of the comments on this film and couldn't disagree more with the other viewers. This was an enjoyable film, although it seemed a little long (only 95 minutes though). The cinematography is nothing less than brilliant. Filming at only 3 and 6 frames per second gave the film a horrific, realistic feel. The use of camera effects has a very smash-mouth, renegade, film student feel, but this ads an amazing depth to the film. After having seen Dahmer, Gacy and a couple of other "based on a true story" films, this is by far the best. While some say the script is light, I believe that is what the director/writer/producer was going for. This is not just the story of Richard Ramirez, but of the female Latin detective who was placed on the case as a PSA to Latinos that the cops cared about their community. Finally, this film made me do something that many scary movies of the past ten years have not...it made me jump. It made me have nightmares. It made me not want to be alone at night. That's what I look for in spooky movies, not in-depth character development. I want fear to be my primary emotion, not a sense of understanding some poor soul who brutally raped, butchered and mutilated women.