i must have seen a different film!!

Absolutely amazing

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

180629: If you're a serial killer aficionado like myself, this made for television movie might provide some entertainment. If you're not, you'll be better served finding another avenue.

Although I had heard several mentions of the BTK Killer over the years, I didn't know any of the hard facts about the case. So when I got a copy of this movie, I thought it might give me some insight. Let's just say that this movie failed to satisfy my curiosity. Being that it was made for commercial television, the treatment feels very soft. For starters, it doesn't go into much depth to the actual murders; had it had done so, it might have given more insight to the killer. Also, the movie is lacking a hard edge - we don't get the feeling that the title figure is a ruthless monster (mostly we see him do mundane day to day things), nor do we feel the urgency the authorities must have been pressed with investigating who the killer was. The movie also comes across as cheap, from its low rent production values to a musical score that is not only cheesy but inappropriate at times. All this may explain why much of the cast gives passionless performances; even Robert Forster, an actor I've liked in many other movies, seems to just be going through the motions. You'd probably be better off reading a book concerning the BTK Killer instead of watching this movie.

This is a documentary, a true story, a true criminal. A serial killer who had gone rampant or even silent for thirty years or so is titillated one day by some intellectual who is vain enough to do some research on his case. And that is enough to wake him up from his slumber and he will make one mistake that will bring him out, that is to say to court and ten prison sentences for his ten murders. A silly mistake indeed, a mistake caused by his ignorance of the modern world, of the computer he is using, and he will send a floppy disk, or diskette, to the police out of his great vanity and that floppy disk will reveal the identity of the author and the address of the computer on which it was last used. It is true he was a bad speller and he was a D+ and C- student at college. Never trust computers and believe they are mute and silent when you turn them off. They go on talking and telling things. This film is only interesting in the fact it reveals the immense self-satisfied pride of this serial killer, of maybe most serial killers.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines, CEGID

I'm from the Wichita area, so am very familiar with this case and was shocked by the factual errors and poor quality of this film.The single redeeming quality of this movie is Henry's portrayal of Dennis Rader. He did an excellent job of capturing Rader's mannerisms and bore a striking resemblance to him.I'll try to list the factual errors sequentially. First off, Magida is a fictional detective, probably based on Ken Landwehr. There were no female detectives in lead roles on this case. I'm surprised at the leaps the movie makes, using the real names of the judge and attorneys but fictional names of law enforcement officers. Also, no detectives who were present at the scene of the Otero murders were on the team that eventually caught Rader.Second are the location errors. The Sedgwick County courthouse, where Rader's trial was held, is NOT a small, old-fashioned building in suburbia!! It's actually a very modern building, several stories tall in a busy downtown area. The "Cousins Cafe" is also a complete fabrication. Rader went home for lunch, as he was a creature of habit the police knew what time he would be headed there and apprehended him on his way to lunch.Third are the errors in the crimes committed and reported. He was only linked to 8 murders until shortly before his capture, the Hedge and Davis murders were not committed in Wichita and originally not thought to be BTK killings. The Bright murder was not portrayed correctly either, I will not go into the specifics...read the books if you want to know.On to the film itself. It begins with Rader in the courtroom recounting the murders, but abruptly shifts to a portrayal of the case from the fictional Magida's eyes. Either point of view would have been fine, but if this is meant to give an accurate look at the horror of the murders, several have been left out.If you are interested in the BTK case, I would NOT recommend watching this movie. Read one of the books, but not Beattie's, unless you're interested in long and irrelevant diatribes on the author's life.