Tags:
Film: Confessions of a Serial Killer
Year: 1985
Director: Mark Blair
Writer: Mark Blair
Starring: Robert A. Burns, Dennis Hill and Berkley Garrett
Review:
This was a film that I hadn’t heard about and was intrigued when I learned that this is from 1985. It was being shown at the Nightmare Films Festival to kick off the third day and I got the chance to see it. I’ve also now given it a second watch as part of my Voyage through the FiVes.
Synopsis: after finally being caught, a serial killer (based on the notorious Henry Lee Lucas) reveals the details of the murders of more than 200 women.
When I learned what this film was about, I was even more interested as I had recently seen the film Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer which is based on the same person. It starts off with a young woman who is stranded on the side of the road. Daniel Ray Hawkins (Robert A. Burns) pulls over to help her. She’s having car trouble. It does start and he sabotages it. The car then shuts off. It won’t start back up. He offers to drive her to the next gas station. When they go past it, she starts to freak out. In the end, he murders her.
It then shifts to Daniel being interrogated by Sheriff Will Gaines (Berkley Garrett). He won’t talk to the other officers, but Sheriff Gaines shows a level of respect. He gets him food and cigarettes. Daniel then starts talking. He recounts murders that he’s committed. This includes the ones he did with his friend, Moon Lewton (Dennis Hill) as well as his sister Molly (Sidney Brammer). Some of them are hitchhikers where others are women he comes into their homes. The police question whether he’s committed all these crimes or if he is just giving the details from the newspaper. When he’s able to lead them to different bodies, they start to take it much more seriously.
That is where I’ll leave my recap and introduction to characters. Where I’ll then go is that I found this to be an interesting take on the Lucas crimes. Upon first watching Henry and then this, I wasn’t overly versed. Since then, I’ve talked to my mother who’s read up on him as well as watching a Netflix documentary. From what I have gathered the truth is that he didn’t kill nearly the amount of people he claimed. Now he did team up with someone and then actually married that man’s sister as they committed more minor crimes.
For this take, I liked Burns portrayal of the character. Something interesting is that it does feel like he’s reciting lines. Normally this would affect my thoughts on the performance. It makes this creepier for how stoic he is in telling the atrocities that he committed. It is such a matter of fact. Having no emotions makes him more of a monster. There’s also this angle that he’s trying to remember things he’s rehearsed since he is confessing to crimes that he didn’t commit. His portrayal of the role is well done for what they’re going for.
Where I’ll then go will be with filmmaking. The pacing is interesting since it sets the stage with this opening kill. From there we know he’s been captured so it jumps back and forth. We see him confessing and then we see things play out for what he’s telling them. I love the fact that the police push and question for facts. Lucas only killed a couple of people. He liked the notoriety and the rewards for his confessions. He knew regardless he’d never be released, so that’s part of it. I could plausible see someone kill like he did, since he was a drifter and DNA would be in its infancy. There is an amateur feel to the cinematography and framing that adds a grittiness that makes it feel eerie, like we’re there with him.
Then to finish out this thought, there wasn’t much in the way of effects. It is more about what he did and less about seeing it. They were done practically, which I’ll also credit. It made me cringe and feel uncomfortable with the subject matter. It doesn’t linger too much on the kills themselves. The blood looks solid. The attacks do as well, so I must give credit there. Credit to the direct to make something unsettling by what we aren’t seeing and left to the imagination.
There is an aspect here with the story that I wanted to include before moving too far away. There is an interesting angle here with the police providing rewards to Daniel for confessing. It creates an issue that he admits to things he didn’t do. This also brought notoriety as I said. Things Daniel says seem to be coming from benevolent reasoning, but he’s a monster. There is also this idea of the police doing things to reward a person like this. It presents an interesting moral quandary.
I want to then circle back to acting performances. I’ve already said how I thought Burns worked in his role I feel bad for the back-story that is established for the character as to why he kills. There is truth there with what his mother did and the lasting effects. Humanizing the serial killer though gives an odd feeling that works. Hill was fine as the unintelligent accomplice. Brammer was interesting as his sister as she is much rougher in this version. There is a theme here that nurture can affect people and develop them into the monsters they become. Garrett was fine as the sheriff. I thought the rest of the cast were fine with what was needed as well. Credit the acting for the victims and show the fear of the situation slowly building. That was well done.
In conclusion, I do think this is an interesting version of the story of Henry Lee Lucas. Now this is a fictional take. What he did was deplorable, but they humanized him as well. There is a dilemma here of giving rewards for him to confess. How far should the law go and how much truth is being told? The acting isn’t great, but I think it works for what they need. Burns works and the rest of the cast push the events to where they end up. Credit for the acting performances of the victims and the fear they showed especially. This is made well enough. It is a slower version that leaves more to the imagination. There is a gritty feeling, almost like we’re there with him. It is limited to the effects, but the practical approach is good. This makes for an intriguing companion piece to Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. It is less graphic but still a heavy film to watch. I’d recommend it though for a closer look at this real-life monster.
My Rating: 7 out of 10