Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Bessie Smyth Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Wuchak 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.Speck was finally electrocuted to death 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)

skull-fission "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.

Katatonia 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.

Cking-2 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.