Speck (2002) User Reviews

Richard Speck was no philosopher, movie lacks accuracy

[glenn-adams-1 · 3/10 · 22 March 2007]

I watched the unrated version of this movie and as a person who has studied the life and crimes of Speck closely, I must say this movie is a flawed but ambitious take on the real story. While capturing the true horror of Speck and the murders this film makes the following factual errors. 1. Speck did not inject drugs at the crime scene as depicted in the movie. In fact he was mainly an alcoholic and pill popper who rarely took drugs via syringe. 2. The Asian nurse who survived Speck's massacre did not squirm her way down stairs and under the couch in the living room as depicted in the movie. This would have been impossible. In real life she hid under a bed while Speck methodically eliminated his 8 victims. 3. The movie depicts Speck as being violent and brutal with the women as soon as he meets them. Not true. In reality Speck was at first calm and gentle, reassuring the women he wasn't going to hurt them. This is how he was able to tie each of them up. 4. The real Richard Speck was not the deep thinker the movie depicts him to be. FBI profiler Robert Ressler interviewed Speck in the 80's and said that Speck not only DID'NT know why he committed the murders but that he wasn't interested in learning why nor could he shed any light on why. Speck was known to be of below average intelligence and not the philosopher king who narrates this movie. If the story wasn't so tragic and horrifying, the voice over would be laughable. All in all, Doug Cole's performance is adequately menacing and cold-blooded even though I don't think the real Speck was so forward in his violence. No doubt he was a very violent person when under the influence but he was also known, after all, for being a fairly slick con man who was able to put people at ease before victimizing them. Beverly Ann Sotelo's performance as the surviving nurse is the finest in the film. She is a very good actress. If you are at all squeamish, do not see this film. It's very graphic and disturbing.

Good looking movie, awful direction

[Cking-2 · 3/10 · 21 February 2003]

Rented this from my local Blockbuster under the title SPECK - that may be the way to look for it if you still feel the need to see it after this review.

It's a movie about the serial killer Richard Speck, who killed several nurses in Chicago in the sixties. Watching the movie, one gets the feeling that it follows the crimes to the letter. Unfortunately, that doesn't make for a good movie.

Another problem I had was the near-constant music letting us know that this was a SCARY MOVIE, and some god-awful narration letting us know what's motivating Speck. The acting was average for this type of film; to give credit where credit is due, the movie is very beautifully photographed for my taste. Your mileage may vary.

Over all, if you're interested in the subject matter, it may be worth your time.

Feels like a made for TV movie.

[jasonwtx · 14 June 2003]

Richard Speck was always one of the most scary true-life serial killers so I was hoping to be frightened by this picture.

It starts off with a warning saying that the film has been edited so it could gain an "R" rating. So I'm thinking this is going to be some nasty gore-fest.

If there was any gore, it was all edited out, and badly.

Richard Speck is one terrifying dude, but this film comes across as something you might see on UPN.

Wait for "Great Trials and Crimes of the 20th Century" to re-air on PBS and look for the Richard Speck segment. It will scare the pants off of you.

This is pretty bad

2/5 stars.

Waste of Time

[daviddaveinternational · 1/10 · 7 January 2013]

Watching this, at least to me, was a pain. I could make no connection between this character and Richard Speck. At all! Zip! Nothing! First off, Speck was not a "serial killer". He was a "spree killer" meaning he only killed people within a very short period of time. Second, he was a half-wit, to put it nicely. This guy in the movie was portraying Speck as a mastermind. Speck was missing a few candles on his birthday cake but in real life, was a very quiet and shy individual. He was very polite to the girls. The idiot in the movie kept repeating, "I love to kill" and horse-hockey like that. I could only watch about the first 15 minutes of this garbage before I had to turn it off. In no way does this movie even faintly resemble what really happened in Chicago. For instance when the one girl comes home stumbling drunk. What's up with that? Most of the girls hardly spoke any English and were too young to drink. At any rate, do NOT buy/rent this movie. It is NOT the way it went down. Kind of reminds me of "The Gray" movie. Just horrible directing, producing, etc. If you are not into reality, this movie is for you.

Possibly the most boring movie ever.

[skull-fission · 1/10 · 21 June 2006]

"Speck" was apparently intended to be a biopic related to serial killer Richard Speck. There is, however, not much killing to be found in this movie, and none of it is explicitly shown. The most disturbing scene in the entire movie is perhaps when Speck stomps one of the eight unfortunate nurses to death in her own bathtub, yet even this is merely implied, and not shown, save for a few unconvincing downward thrusts of Mr. Speck's leg. The most entertaining part of this movie is most likely the voice-over, which should be a testament to the mind-numbingly boring nature of this movie. Every aspect of this movie is horrible. Unless you have a fondness for boredom, don't bother. This movie only clocks in at 72 minutes, but it feels like an eternity.

Nurse killer makes a naff thriller...

[barnthebarn · 1/10 · 27 May 2008]

Where to start with 'Speck' the true story of Richard Speck, a killer of eight nurses in the 1960s. Director Keith Walley has worked on a few of the extremely low budget Full Moon Releasing movies (such as Birth Rite) and here works from a script by (at the time) Full Moon regular Don Adams. Unfortunaly whilst the film seems like a accurate portrayal of the horrendous crime the script isn't great, perhaps because the real Speck's ramblings were not terribly interesting!? Despite the care that has been taken to make this authentic it wreaks of a cheap cash-in of the acclaimed cinematic serial killer movies of the same period (such as 'Ed Gein'). Filmed in a dirty brown, not quite sepia, for the most part and narrated by star Doug Cole the film fails to present the horror of the crime because the narration is irritating, the colouring distracting from the story and the crime, though gruesome and upsetting to watch, is merely that and no editorial work seems to have occurred on what is pretty much a very poor quality camcorder viewing on the events. There is no examination of the motivation or of Speck's life really, just a cheap shot at a gruesome crime. Released by Full Moon there is little evidence of Full Moon's better output here, Charles Band ignoring his own rule that his films feature fantasy killings (e.g. dolls, monsters and so on) and not quite knowing what to do with this new reality. Incidentally Band introduced a special label for these films called 'Shadow Entertainment'. Band has said that he regrets the period of Full Moon output alongside Tempe Entertainment (whose Creator J.R. Bookwalter and regular Danny Draven also speak very badly of Charles Band). The Tempe era features uniform Apple Mac editing and brutal hand-held camera filming, very much like a home movie. Speck retains these qualities and whereas Witchouse 3, for example, managed to use these well, Speck is merely boring and gross.

Nasty, but effective

[Woodyanders · 8/10 · 8 January 2013]

Grim and disturbing portrait of Richard Speck (a creepy and convincing performance by Doug Cole), a remorseless serial killer who raped and murdered eight young nursing students in Chicago, Illinois on July 13, 1966. Director Keith Walley, working from a tight script by Don Adams and Aaron Pope, pulls no punches in his graphic and upsetting depiction of Speck as a monstrous brute: Speck's sadistic thoughts serve as a kind of nihilistic narration, the moments of savage violence pack a ferocious punch, there's a good deal of nerve-wracking tension, the tone is suitably bleak and unsettling, and the stark terror and utter helplessness of the scared victims is vividly rendered in a most unnerving manner. Moreover, this movie doesn't really try to explain why Speck did what he did; instead it merely shows that this guy was a cold-blooded psycho through and through. The actresses who play the victims do credible work in their roles. Kirk Douglas' stylized cinematography gives the picture an appropriately grungy yellowish look. The shuddery score by Walley and Lance Bachelder does the skin-crawling trick. A gut-wrenching film.

Cinematic chronicling of the Richard Speck nursing dorm murders

[Wuchakk · 7/10 · 26 July 2017]

RELEASED IN 2002 and directed by Keith Walley, "Speck" stars Doug Cole as the real-life mass murderer, Richard Speck, who savagely terrorized nine nursing students at a townhouse functioning as a dormitory in south Chicago, 1966. He murdered eight of them one-by-one. The ninth woman (Beverly Sotelo) only managed to survive by hiding under a bed while Speck was out of the room. In his drug-addled state the killer probably lost count. The woman's witness was key in capturing the man with the crude forearm tattoo that read: "Born to raise hell."

The topic is distasteful, to say the least, but the movie effectively chronicles the events of late night July 13, 1966. Although this is a low-budget independent flick, it's competently made with quality actors. The score is one-note disturbing and haunting while the tone is dream-like, thoroughly austere and horrific. The murderer's narration throughout by Cole is akin to Willard's narration in "Apocalypse Now" (1979). It's based on the real-life Speck's blatherings combined with that of other renown murderers (e.g. Dahmer) and no doubt the writers' imagination. Regardless, the well-written sociopathic verbiage successfully puts you in the mind of the slayer and doesn't cop-out in regards to psychological scrutiny. In short, the narration boldly unveils the awful truth and is expertly delivered by Cole; the movie should be commended for this.

The only thing that holds "Speck" back is the one-dimensional story itself. The first hour is comprised of the thug's invasion of the townhouse, his terrorizing of the girls and their systematic murders. The compelling final act records the aftermath and ultimate apprehension. It's all thoroughly convincing, but not entertaining in the manner of, say, the Friday the 13th flicks, probably because the producers intended "Speck" to be a wholly realistic account of the true murders; and it is. The Friday the 13th movies are sometimes fun and the murders can even be amusing; not so here.

A life-long prisoner, Speck died of a heart attack 25 years after his crime in 1991 (WAY too long of a wait for justice). Concerning his murderous transgressions he said: "I had no feelings at all that night. They said there was blood all over the place. I can't remember. It felt like nothing ... I'm sorry as hell; for those girls and for their families, and for me. If I had to do it over again, it would be a simple house burglary." He was a thoroughly sick bastage who unfortunately descended into depravity in prison, a sad waste of human potential, but at least he honestly admitted that he was sorry for what he did.

THE MOVIE RUNS 79 minutes. The script was written by Don Adams & Aaron Pope.

GRADE: B/B- (6.5/10)

Crappy B-Movie

[gerry-7 · 12 May 2003]

My girlfriend and I enjoy the serial killer bio pics that have been coming out recently. We've seen "Dahmer" and "Bundy", both of which were released last year. I found both of those movies to be disturbing and realistic portrayals of the mindset of those men and the events surrounding their crimes.

"Speck" by contrast was highly stylized and contained absolutely no substance. I only watched the first hour and saw only the suggestion of violence along with a laborious soundtrack. The director wanted it both ways, he wanted you to be disturbed by this man but no *show* you anything disturbing. The acting was mediocre and the plot moved at a snail's pace. I am not a proponent of gratuitous violence, but if you're going to make a movie about a serial killer, especially a REAL one, then at least give us some sense of his rituals and behavior. They made Speck out to be a disgruntled cowboy that flashes his knife and does little else. yawn.

If you want to see a real dramatization of a serial killer and his mindset, see either "Dahmer" or "Bundy".

Disturbing imagery

[Katatonia · 13 May 2003]

I rented the Rated R version of Speck, and i can only imagine what the Director's unrated version is like. To call this is a disturbing movie is an understatement. This is not a film to be entertained by, it is rather slow-paced at times. I am not saying this is a bad movie, it serves it's function very well. The acting is very well done. I say this because the women who play the nurses truly made themselves believable in their performances in sheer terror.

I am no expert on the actual story of Richard Speck, so i can't say just how accurate this film really is. I do know that he was surely a complete psychotic in every meaning of the word. Not everyone will enjoy this film, or even like it. Some will be turned off simply due to the fact that it is so dark and depressing. It's a coin toss, but i would recommend it for fans of the genre.