This film, and also the movie BADLANDS was about Charlie Starkweather...So which Charlie character do you like better, Martin Sheen or Arch Hall Jr.? Both are pretty disturbing. It almost seems like Sheen may have watched the Sadist and stole some of Arch Hall's mannerisms and such. Don't know, just a thought.
shareBadlands is a better movie, though The Sadist is an amazing film in its own right. But I prefer Arch Hall's Starkwater impersonation; He's so slimey, greasy, and over-the-top with that constant crap-eating smear on his face-- In other words, he was perfect casting for such a character.
http://www.myspace.com/killababy4christ
I tend to agree. Interesting that Hall "pulled it all together" for this one role, but Sheen is a better overall actor...
shareIt's quite difficult to compare the two films. "Badlands" plays out over a long period of time, "The Sadist" takes place over 91 minutes. No disrespect to "Badlands," which is a wonderful film in its own rite, but if I had to choose, I'd say that I prefer "The Sadist."
Sheen's character was sedately calm and seemed to get very little thrill out of killing people. He just happened to murder people who got in his way. As a matter of fact, there were a few characters who could've died, but didn't.
Hall's character was a far scarier psychopath -- one who really derived pleasure from taunting and psychologically torturing his prey before annihilation. That's what makes this film so intense.
I have to agree. while "BadLands" had a Bigger Budget (AND Martin Sheen) , Arch Hall's Portrayal of the Character "Charlie" actually WAS "scarier" , exactly for the Reason(s) that You-mentioned.
share