MovieChat Forums > Citizen X (1995) Discussion > Not a good film, here's why

Not a good film, here's why

posted 19 years ago by vinsanity_15
19 replies | jump to latest

First The acting was not that good, for example (The scene where all the cops are checking all the stations) They find a body and the cop realizes it's his relative, let me tell something that cop could not act if his life depended on it. Second Every time the killer stabbed one of his victim's was just ridiculous, I have seen low budget films that make stabbing scenes look more realistic. Third the story was barely about the killer it just showed him pick out his victims and then the victims would just drop on the ground, and then the plot would switch to the cop. One other thing that was bad about this movie was that I wanted to see what he does with the victims and how the victims react but again it barely showed it. Also if you have watched a biography on him it shows him acting insane for them to put him in a mental hospital rather then kill him not looking and acting like a normal person when the cops caught him.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MadamFleur 19 years ago

You are an obvious troll, sir. Be gone.

[–] TwistingReality 18 years ago

To the poster above me: Very convincing arguments...

To the original poster: I don't agree. I liked this movie, although it was a bit, well, dramatized. it showed the circumstances of that time very well. I myself am from that region and I thought the movie was very convincing. Apart from that, the actors actually look like Russians! Every one of them. I know some of them have to be Russian, but Stephen Rea, his film wife, Sutherland, Jeffrey De Munn... Very Good.
It is not a professional movie and it's not very shocking(if that's what you mean), but I think the director achieved a film worthy of watching.

"Welcome to the real world..."

[–] martin-secker 18 years ago

I agree, the acting was first class in most cases. Just because it doen't centre on the killings entirely, doesn't make it a bad movie. Its way better than a lot of cinematic serial killer movies I could mention - Bone Coillector, Taking Lives to name just 2.

"All I did was *bleep* your girlfriend, that watch belonged to Errol Flynn!"

[–] daftdeb69 18 years ago

i enjoyed it and just seeing the bodies just fall was better because one it would have made the film unwatchable for me but it also left it to my imagination

lifes whats happening while we are busy making plans

[–] rob-hymer 18 years ago

Yes. Let's hope he stays under the bridge the next time he has an urge to share something...

I have to agree that the actors looked like Russians! I've spent a lot of time in that part of the world and the film convinced. (Actually it was made in Hungary. Budapest doubled for Rostov and the country shots were on the electric railway near Estergom (sp? Sorry)).
I was most impressed by what happens when you have an absence of big-star egos and a competent director - an engrassing film.

[–] elkin1 18 years ago

Yes, I wondered (dumb me) just how they could find a Russian man who could act sooo well and who looked the part so exactly - just where did they pick him up?
Then research told me that DeMunn was born and raised in Buffalo, NY, studied acting in U.S. and the Royal S. group in GB and then the S. group in U.S. He has a long, long list of parts in TV series, and movies. IMO he is superb.

The subject is fascinating. I located (& have ordered) the documentary film
The Hunt for the Red Ripper. Has anyone seen it?

And, BTW, for my part, I am pleased that the director did not feel the need to depict endless gorey scenes and terrified victims to make a great film.

Sioux

[–] jladam 10 years ago

Ha ha ha! Well said!

[–] colt_89 16 years ago

I didn't really like this movie, it seemed a bit quick, like I wasn't watching the full movie, instead the highlights. It was very under developed. Though I thought the acting in several areas were pretty decent from the main cast, and some of the shots were very good, but still, a borderline average movie.

[–] bpollen 12 years ago

I don't know if he's a troll, but you are right that he's no critic.

Yes, the main character in the movie is the detective, and the movie is about the investigation, not the perpetrator. Give that original poster a cupie doll!

I think the acting is quite good, not bad, as the poster said.

As for showing the victims being killed, the perpetrator killed so many, that the movie selects just one or two to show the actual murder, including the victim's reaction. Then other details of other murders are just relayed by detectives later. Otherwise, it would be repetitive, showing one murder after another.

As for how the guy acts during the murders shown, I think it's quite realistic. I watch a lot of those true crime and "I survived" tv shows, where victims detail crimes against them and how they survived. It seems to me that it is just that quick and that brutal. Violent criminals when they go to stab you, as described by victims who survived, just stab you and get it done. They don't dramatically stand over you and laugh a devilish laugh like Dracula, while waving the knife around in the air.

This is a very good movie. It seems to stay close to the facts, except of course we don't really know the exact conversations that the policemen had with each other about the investigation, and we don't know exactly what the killer and his victims said to each other.

[–] chayo2 16 years ago

Seeing as how most of his victim's were children, if they had depicted that on screen it would have made the movie completely unwatchable for me.

[–] stpfreak21 16 years ago

I agree. To try to be artistic and fail is still better than to offer Saw-esque torture porn.

[–] tjones202 15 years ago

Exactly. His victims were mainly children. No one will realistically portray that subject matter. Ever. No matter who makes the film. I've seen several movies concerning serial killers and they almost always skirt the violent realism of the kill. Considering these monsters victims still have family roaming the world, that's just another reason why the murders themselves were not (and usually won't be) the focal point of a well made serial killer flick.

There is some low budget material out there that may satisfy the OP. Howerer, that's usually boobs and blades type fare. That, or just another overly enthusiastic FX junkie making a horror flick loosly based on an infamous killer. Simply seeing how disgusted he can make everyone with red corn syrup and latex.

However, if the OP's blood lust is focused on the killer's lust of children, seek help.

[–] SecretReagent 15 years ago

That's nice, but you're forgetting one important thing - this is a MADE FOR TV movie - no one in their right mind would approve, release, or screen a film depicting chikatilo's crimes in great visual detail, let alone on television.

& if you want a step-by-step account of Chikatilo "acting insane", watch a documentary.

[–] dalstr 14 years ago

I agree... You don't need blood and guts for a good movie. Most movies like that are not very good and most are not based on actual events. What he did is not something I want or care to see. If you want to know in detail there are books out there about the case. I'm glad this movie did not stoop to shock value. It is a better movie for it.

[–] Zoomorph 10 years ago

You're right - this is not a good film. I gave it 2/10. It's cheesy, melodramatic, and full of cliches and stereotypes about the Soviet Union. It's rather boring, not because it's slow-paced and draws the investigation out over many years, but because the characters are all paper-thin and unbelievable. There's a distinct lack of realism in favor of sentimentality. Most of the killing scenes are poorly done.

Maybe this film resonates well with audiences who are shocked at the idea of a child being murdered and feel warm and fuzzy inside when the crowd claps at the detectives at the end, but for more discerning audiences it will likely fall flat.

~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~

[–] SteveResin 9 years ago

Congrats OP for completely missing the premise of the whole movie. It's not about the killer, it's about the men responsible for tracking him down and their unrelenting conviction to capturing one of history's worst serial killers despite the ridiculous beaurocratic brick walls keeping them from doing their job.

--------------------
Duty Now For The Future

[–] Posh_babe 9 years ago

I don't know if this got a cinema release or if it was made for TV. But generally American made-for-TV movies in the 1990's did not contain as much nudity, sex or violence as cinema releases.

Plus sometimes cinema and TV movies are edited depending on the TV broadcasting network and time of day it is shown. Also who wants to see a child being murdered?

_______________________________________
I'm not posh, I just like VB's clothes.

[–] Kawada_Kira 7 years ago

The story wasn't about the killer or the murders; it was about the guys who tried to catch him. You're attacking the movie for not being what it wasn't meant to be in the first place. Who needs dozens of gratuitously explicit murder scenes?

I liked the movie. Despite the anti-Soviet propaganda and Cold War stereotypes about the USSR, the story itself I found engrossing, and I did think it was well-acted (at least by the main characters; less so by the guy playing the obligatory "stereotypical communist" character required to demonize the USSR), and that the story as a whole was well-handled, including the murders. And Donald Sutherland was as entertaining as ever; i've always liked him, he has a terrific screen presence, and he looked cool in a Soviet uniform to boot lol. I'd give the movie a 7/10, knocking a couple off for anti-communist hackery.