This is certainly a weird bag of mixed "sweets", and about 4 fifths of it tastes like manure, and by that I do not mean the murder-sequences. The director, Chuck Parello, doesn't seem to have a clue about what a good script entails, and he is extremely eager to consult "The Great Book of Clichés" at almost every turn. While the real life Angelo Buono and Kenneth Bianchi probably were quite simplistic and pathetic, however under the ever watchful eye of Parello, they come off most of the time, as nothing but ridiculous caricatures. It is not a good sign when you actually find yourself laughing your head off at lines obviously meant to be menacing, but which on the contrary becomes truly great, unintentional comedy. There is so much hilarious dialogue going on here, that it's unfathomable, and it goes without saying, that this in the end will ruin the deep and unsettling impact Parello probably would have liked it to have. It could almost seem that Parello was hoping, in the future, that the film could get some sort of turkey-award, because many of the images on display here, are just beyond belief. After a woman has been strangled, and Buono checks for life-signs, confirming that she is gone, if you look closely, you can see clearly that she is still breathing! Now, that is what I call good acting, it's truly a feat of accomplishment not being able to do the simplest thing, to play dead. The Royal Shakespeare Company next, I assume? Then you have sequences that seem over-the-top unlikely(And trust me, they are many!!), like fex. when they lure one of the first girls to do some hooking for them. At first she seems genuinely scared, and the whole scene is quite believable, but after a little while she seems quite content being the whore of the house! How are we to interpret this, I wonder? Is she still in a state of massive shock, with the result that numbness has set in, leaving a deadened impression on her face, that could be mistaken for serene calm? Or has she really come to her senses, realising after some serious contemplation, that this new line of work really is the best carriere option for her? That these two psychotic madmen really were heaven sent? You are left with one last alternative, and in this context it is most likely the most plausible one I fear, that Mr Parello simply doesn't have a clue how to piece together images in a concise and believable manner. And concise is probably a foreign word for him, because he doesn't seem to quite know which type of film he is directing; am I directing a Italian gangster movie? Is it a comedy? Is it a movie about dancing? No, wait I'm actually directing a movie about two real-life serial killers!! Well, what the hell, let's just mix them altogether, it probably will turn out more believable that way! Since I've actually given it a 3, that could only mean that there actually were a few sequences that I found to be intense, compelling and disturbing. One of the first murders, I actually found to be one of the most unsettling I've seen in quite a while, and after watching horror films for about 16-17 years now, it goes without saying that I can watch almost anything. So congratulations Mr Parello, for having that brief moment of clarity! I also found some rewarding intensity in the scene where Buono is arguing with his mother, and for the most part I think the women playing the victims did some good acting, in that they seemed genuinely scared, and that they managed to evoke some pity on my part. As a conclusion though, the film is quite simply manure, with just a few bits of candy strewn on it for good measure. And of course, that is far from good enough. See "Bundy" or "Dahmer" instead.
Review of The Hillside Strangler
