In 1958 Nebraska 19 year old garbageman Charles Starkweather goes on a murder spree with his 14 year old girlfriend Caril Ann Fugate killing 11 people in three months, introducing America to... Read allIn 1958 Nebraska 19 year old garbageman Charles Starkweather goes on a murder spree with his 14 year old girlfriend Caril Ann Fugate killing 11 people in three months, introducing America to spree killing.In 1958 Nebraska 19 year old garbageman Charles Starkweather goes on a murder spree with his 14 year old girlfriend Caril Ann Fugate killing 11 people in three months, introducing America to spree killing.
Photos
Lance Henriksen
- The Mentor
- (voice)
William Frederick Knight
- Robert McClurg
- (as William Knight)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaLance Henriksen's voice as the dark man mentor was added in post-production , and Henriksen embellished on the original dialogue the dark man said by adding some profanity.
- GoofsWhen Charlie is stabbing Caril-Ann's father, the knife becomes bloody after a few stabs. The camera turns to Caril-Ann's little sister for a while, and when it turns back to Charlie, the blood on the knife is gone.
- ConnectionsFeatures The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet (1952)
Featured review
Just plain lame
Bad acting. Bad script. Wildly inaccurate. I am slightly surprised that Charlie Starkweather hasn't risen from the grave and hunted down the makers of this so-called film. This is the kind of worthless movie you would expect to see on late night TV, probably on one of the cable channels that specializes in bad movies. Unfortunately it's not bad in a good, goofy, campy kind of way - it's just generically bad.
Let's start with the script, since that is the greatest offense. The dialogue contains phrases that no one in 1950's Nebraska, much less Charlie Starkweather and friends, would ever say. I doubt anyone today would spout out such ridiculous lines. It's the kind of stuff you might find in a Harlequin Romance from the 1970's. Where does Hollywood find such talentless writers who come up with nothing but clichéd hacks? If that weren't bad enough, the script is full of inconsistencies: one minute a character will say something, the next minute he will contradict what he said before, as if he didn't remember what he just said. It's just plain dumb writing.
The acting is as bad as you would expect. I've seen better acting in worse films, but bad acting is bad acting - no further explanation necessary.
It's so inaccurate you wonder if the writer and director read even the sketchiest accounts of the events covered. They assign Charlie's motives in killing to a shadowy character (Lance Henricksen) who talks him into murdering people for the dumbest reasons you've ever heard. No attempt is made at historical accuracy - if you think you're going to learn something about the Starkweather-Fugate case from this film, then think again. All it will do is lead you astray. I wonder that Caril Fugate hasn't sued the makers of the film for portraying her in this manner.
So there you have it: lame all around, from the script to the final credits. Thankfully there has been a decent movie made about these events, check out "Badlands" with Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek. It's over a decade older, but much better done, if still not very accurate.
In conclusion, if Charlie were to rise up and kill the director, script writer, and everyone involved in this movie - I doubt a jury would convict him.
Let's start with the script, since that is the greatest offense. The dialogue contains phrases that no one in 1950's Nebraska, much less Charlie Starkweather and friends, would ever say. I doubt anyone today would spout out such ridiculous lines. It's the kind of stuff you might find in a Harlequin Romance from the 1970's. Where does Hollywood find such talentless writers who come up with nothing but clichéd hacks? If that weren't bad enough, the script is full of inconsistencies: one minute a character will say something, the next minute he will contradict what he said before, as if he didn't remember what he just said. It's just plain dumb writing.
The acting is as bad as you would expect. I've seen better acting in worse films, but bad acting is bad acting - no further explanation necessary.
It's so inaccurate you wonder if the writer and director read even the sketchiest accounts of the events covered. They assign Charlie's motives in killing to a shadowy character (Lance Henricksen) who talks him into murdering people for the dumbest reasons you've ever heard. No attempt is made at historical accuracy - if you think you're going to learn something about the Starkweather-Fugate case from this film, then think again. All it will do is lead you astray. I wonder that Caril Fugate hasn't sued the makers of the film for portraying her in this manner.
So there you have it: lame all around, from the script to the final credits. Thankfully there has been a decent movie made about these events, check out "Badlands" with Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek. It's over a decade older, but much better done, if still not very accurate.
In conclusion, if Charlie were to rise up and kill the director, script writer, and everyone involved in this movie - I doubt a jury would convict him.
- How long is Starkweather?Powered by Alexa
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $1,000,000 (estimated)
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content