Perry Kate Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Executscan Expected more

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

mikebourkefan As historically inaccurate as this was about the 1980's. I thought Adolph Cortez did as good an acting job as he could considering the script was filled with tons of inner monologues either about Richard hating people or loving his "dark princess". flashback scenes of Richard's uncle talking about his Vietnam kills are misplaced because he was far to old to have been in that war. Elissa Dowling who played the semi girlfriend had some decent talking scenes about power and belief. one big problem thru the movie is kills being off screen and lasting mere seconds yet after invisible kills we see victims looking very bloody. the positives here tons of cursing voice overs and decent gore along with nice sounding instrumental Cuban? music played in opening and closing credits. the negatives Richard commits most of his crimes in broad daylight despite being nicknamed "the Night stalker". to much time was spent with Richard walking thru the streets of Los Angeles sucking on a lollipop. in closing this was a bad movie semi based on true events yet it is heavily rewatchable if you love inner monologue and gore

Draconis Blackthorne Watched this on Decades recently. It comes off as an amateurish college-made production for a film project grade with art project quality. The main theme of the portrayed 'crimes' involves Ramirez roving from one irritating bickering couple to another {except for the airhead on the phone}, thankfully ending their whiny tantrums. One finds oneself eagerly awaiting, even encouraging the next slaying just to make them stop.The primary weapon of choice here is a handgun, with a knife used on a couple of occasions to carve a pentagram on victims' bellies, while Ramirez was actually eclectic, utilizing a variety of murder weapons.The actor appears Mediterranean, and displays the rather vexatious habit of constantly drawing upon a sucker like a pacifier all through the film. He'd more likely be smoking a cigarette, if anything.Ironically, probably one of the most disturbing scenes is the squandering of a perfectly fortuitous opportunity for indulgence with a pair of succulent salacious beauties, perhaps to further establish the character's chaotic disposition.With artistic license taken to the most extensive degree, the plot has little to nothing to do with the actual case, with the vague exception of being beaten by a small mob {although in this case in an alleyway, while on the street in actuality}. The only devil worship angle involves Ramirez psychotically talking to himself, demanding victims say they love Satan, whispering 'demonic voices' throughout, and sharing narcotics with a junky girl in a restroom stall attempting to define Satan through a mind numbed haze.This characterization depicts Ramirez more like a fictional boogeyman likened a Michael Meyers type, which is understandable after all, considering the director also directed the film entitled "The Boogeyman".By far the worst of the docudramas of the genre, with the recent Phillips version as the best so far. ∞

Bloomer This is a pretty monotonous and factually inaccurate portrait of Richard Ramirez, a.k.a. The Night Stalker, the serial killer and self-proclaimed Satanist who terrorised Los Angeles and San Francisco in the mid-1980s. It offers little characterisation, next to no story, no suspense and lots of badly executed violence. Most of the short running time is filled with Richard's repetitious bad-beat-poetry voice-over of a soundtrack ('She was my dark Princess. Dark like hell. Darker than night, my Satanic queen, she was so dark..' etc) plus endless close-ups of him sucking suggestively on a lollipop.What the film does have going for it is difference - the style and delivery are significantly unlike those of the majority of straight to DVD horror films. This doesn't save it from being a real chore to sit through, but seems worth commenting on in these times when so many films are bad in exactly the same way as each other.The grainy video cinematography and no-budget location shooting give the film a gritty sense of place. Richard's voice-over seems designed to fill the void where a recording of the outdoor location sound would normally be. It looks like they only bothered to record sound when it wouldn't be blotted out by traffic and the din of the world - i.e. mostly when they were indoors.This is actually a pretty good film for the actors when they are able to snatch any screen time away from Richard and his lollipops. It looks like the performers were allowed to improvise nearly all of their conversations. When this works, it gives the scenes a ring of non-movie reality. Of course when it doesn't, the actors end up riffing the same ideas repeatedly.The Night Stalker was called the Night Stalker because he attacked people at night. Well, he goes in for a lot of daytime attacks in this film. Very few of the crimes match up to the real case history, the scene in which he is apprehended is abysmally directed, you never see how he gets into any of the victims' houses, and there is no real illumination of the man, either real or imaginary. I would have settled for either.I didn't stop watching this film, but I wouldn't recommend that you start. It's also not a good sign that the film's opening and closing credits take up one eighth of the running time ... but then again, the actors in this film did get a very good deal. They got to improvise, and everyone's name was displayed twice.

Michael_Elliott Nightstalker (2009) * 1/2 (out of 4) Lommel's ongoing saga of doing a film about every famous serial killer continues with this look at the Night Stalker who haunted California during the 1980's and is still sitting on Death Row there today. Adolph Cortez does a decent job at playing the nutcase who walks around stalking men and women while playing with a sucker in his mouth. We learn this is due to a deal with Satan and because he saw his uncle shoot his aunt. Whatever the case, this is the eleventh film in this series that I've seen and while this one here is among the better ones, I still can't help but get bored because we've seen this thing one time too many. Once again we get a crazy guy walking around and talking to himself. Lommel has used this same set up during several of this serial killer pictures and I really wish he would at least try to do something different with it because all of the eleven films just bleed together to the point where I really couldn't tell one from another. I doubt many people outside myself are going to bother going through everyone of these films but those who do attempt it are going to have deja vu all over the place. Once again this is done on video and once again the budget is extremely low even though this one here features more blood than any of the previous ones. The gunshots are extremely fake looking but I guess the producers tried to make up for this by using a gallon of blood on each shot. The film starts off mildly entertaining but it quickly gets tiresome as we have to keep watching the same thing happen over and over.