Killer: A Journal of Murder - Critical Reception

Critical Reception

Mark Deming of Allmovie gave the film three out of five stars. Chuck O'Leary of Fantastica Daily gave the film three out of five stars as well.

Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun Times gave the film two out of four stars, stating "Metcalfe's casting of James Woods as the killer is a good choice, and Woods gives a powerful, searing performance. He does not compromise Panzram, or soften him. But the movie does, by withholding information. The real Panzram is well-documented in crime references, and he led quite a life. The movie is less than forthcoming about this life; its purposes are served by being vague about the details (although it does set the tally at 21 murders). It needs to humanize Panzram. Perhaps no one is completely irredeemable. But Panzram was a monster and prison was his destiny. If Lesser had sought out a different prisoner for his sympathy, Killer might have been more convincing. By choosing Panzram, Lesser places his own motives in a curious light: Was he attracted to evil? Was he excited by proximity to it, by his own invulnerability to such a dangerous man? Some people are. If you want to understand what's going on in Killer, see Butterfly Kiss. It will deconstruct the earlier film for you, while itself remaining opaque and disturbing - as it should."

Emanuel Levy of Variety Magazine gave the film two out of five stars, writing "True to form, "Killer," like last year's "Murder in the First," contains obligatory sequences with stubborn inmates and cruel guards. One scene, however, in which Carl brutally bludgeons to death the most sadistic guard while his fellow prisoners watch indifferently, ups the ante considerably. Writer-director Tim Metcalfe's tightly constructed, fast-moving scenario is intelligent and knowing, but the actual case may be too complex for a 90-minute dramatization. Though Helmer finds an original way to present episodes from Panzram's shocking life, his movie doesn't dig deep enough into the formation and workings of a troubled psyche, which should have been the dramatic core. Instead, Metcalfe conveniently settles for a less ambitious task, a relationship film between two opposites. Ultimately, "Killer" is not as richly detailed or multilayered as "Dead Man Walking," and the prosaic, earnest nature of some sequences has a TV-movie feel. Still, the acting of the two leads is beyond reproach. Woods, who has excelled in playing wiry nihilists and assorted villains, is perfectly cast as the loathsome killer who welcomes his doom. His highly charged, intelligent presence complements an intense performance, which combines arrogance and bitter hostility. In his most mature work to date, Leonard's quiet, sensitive turn underlines a well-written part that goes beyond a stereotypical portrait of a liberal Jew."

Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle gave the film an unfavorable review and noted "Surprisingly little of "Killer" deals with Carl's career. Most of it concentrates on his relationship with Henry, which makes for a series of rather static encounters in which Carl acts unpleasant and Henry looks mournful and forgiving. It helps that Carl is played by Mr. Unpleasant himself, James Woods. Woods is always fun to watch, and he has a couple of inspired moments. But Metcalfe's script just skims the surface, leaving it to Woods to fill in the gaps with overacting. He looks foolish at times, exerting himself in this lightweight effort." LaSalle summed the film up by stating "When it's not ridiculous, "Killer: A Journal of Murder" is flat and clumsy. Scenes have no rhythm or shape. Here and there, some moments work - for example, the scene in which Carl takes a metal rod and beats a guard's head in has a certain sis-boom-bah. But then graphic scenes in which a guy gets his head beat in are almost always effective - at least to anyone who happens to have a head."

Walter Addiego of the San Francisco Examiner gave three out of five stars and stated "Killer: A Journal of Murder" sounds like it could be the latest in the current binge of serial-killer movies. Instead, it's an earnest and often striking drama about the relationship between an idealistic prison guard and a vicious murderer, a self-described "animal." If a bit simplistic, the picture nonetheless provides some affecting turns on the theme of human redemption, and offers two fine central performances." Addiego summed the film up by writing "Still, for all but the hopelessly cynical, there's enough here to repay a viewing. It's necessary to be reminded again that how society treats its worst members is a good window into its soul."

Movie-Vault.com stated "The primary difference between "Killer" and "Shawshank Redemption" is that the latter is greater than the former in many various ways. But the former is also based on fact, which makes it more important--in some ways--than "Shawshank." But "Shawshank" had more spirit than the former and the former's morals don't come across as strong as the latter's. Surprising that this movie relies entirely on Woods' performance for support - and entirely fails. There's nothing wrong with it except that there's nothing behind it. There's no life in this petty criminal he portrays - a man who may or may not have been insane but was hanged in the 30s anyway. Woods lends no likeability or believability or characteristic traits to this man he is portraying, and in the end he comes across as a pointless incarnation of a man whose life, perhaps, never even merited the Hollywood treatment in the first place. No one does any passing in "Killer: A Journal of Murder." It's sort of depressing in a non-depressing sort of way."

On Nitrate Online.com, Carrie Gorringe wrote reviews of films from the 22nd Seattle International Film Festival of 1996, and stated "...Also violent and spectacular is James Woods' performance as serial killer Carl Panzram in Tim Metcalfe's film, Killer: A Journal of Murderer. The document that emerged was worthy of that much-abused adjective, 'shocking', as it provided a most unpleasant set of insights into not only the psychopathology of familial abuse, but the scarifying conditions that existed (and probably continue to exist) in the American penal system. In an interview, director Metcalfe downplayed the psychological and social aspect of the story, and expressed a belief that the film's emphasis is centered more upon the naivete of Lesser's liberal do-goodism and its inadequate response to the unadulterated and irremediable evil of Panzram who, in his writings, inadvertently revealed his own suspicions that he was born evil. In my opinion, this film accomplishes both tasks effortlessly."

PrisonMovies.net stated "It’s not uncommon, in my experience, for certain corrections officers to be attracted to the most extraordinarily difficult prisoners; there is something in being seen to be the only one who can manage the unmanageable, or the only one who seems to understand what makes the monster tick. Perhaps that’s what drove Henry Lesser to become the confidant of serial killer Carl Panzram. Without that sympathetic treatment (complemented by the quaintly nostalgic feel of a Depression-era prison, reminiscent of The Green Mile), there is little to keep you interested in either man. If Panzram has no redeeming features both men could be readily dismissed; the inmate as a monster and his keeper as a fool. And that’s where the problem lies, if you look at the real-life story. Panzram’s journal, not published until 1970, suggests that he killed 21 people, many of them vulnerable, some of them children. He killed for no reason. If we knew this, when James Woods goes willingly to the gallows, claiming a victory for justice, none of us would ask - as Lesser seemingly does and notwithstanding all that we have seen - whether there is the slightest bit in him worth saving."

London's Time Out Film Guide gave a favorable review and wrote "Writer/director Metcalfe switches to b/w for the journal, but that approximates the harshness of the material, not any moral distinction. Indeed, Metcalfe holds to a liberal perspective which Panzram, for one, may not have agreed with. Woods is typecast as Panzram, but he's terrifyingly alive in the part - even double-chained and ringed by a dozen guards, he's a palpable threat. A very nasty piece of work, he none the less insists that he is a piece of work: the sum of his exposure to the indifference and sadism of others. Leonard is just an on-looker as Lesser, but he, like the film, never flinches from the disturbing truths Panzram represents. This tough, gritty movie is shot by Abel Ferrara's regular cameraman Ken Kelsch, produced by Oliver Stone and dedicated to Sam Peckinpah - so you know where it's coming from."

Richard von Busack of Metroactive wrote a favorable review, under the title "James Woods dominates 'Killer: Journal of a Murder'", stating "James Woods, his face like a devil sick of sin, to paraphrase Wilfrid Owen, is outstanding in Killer: A Journal of Murder as Depression-era psychopath and proto­serial killer Carl Panzram, a career criminal best known for his wish that humanity had one neck, so he could strangle it. Director/writer Tim Metcalfe handles period slang well and weaves historical figures unobtrusively through the story (such as crusading psychiatrist Karl Menniger). Unfortunately, Metcalfe has picked up a few bad habits from executive producer Oliver Stone: inept Natural Born Killers­style flashback montages punctuated with shots of Panzram snarling at the camera like the Wolf Man, overly dramatic music, and ineffective women characters. Leonard is more than just a conscience in spectacles and a pair of trousers. Like the movie itself, he maintains moral equilibrium without being a hand wringer. But Woods is the soul of Killer: A Journal of Murder. The movie makes the useful point that there are some people upon whom the moral lesson of the death penalty is lost, and Woods communicates something else that's important: how satisfying, how joyous, it must be to be a really first-rate actor."

Los Angeles Times writer Kevin Thomas gave a favorable review and wrote "Tim Metcalfe's powerful 1996 film "Killer" goes beyond sending a message to illuminate a remarkable friendship between Carl Panzram, a confessed serial killer of 21 people, and a rookie guard, Henry Lesser, at Leavenworth State Penitentiary. Ultimately, Woods is better than the picture, but he's so much the picture it scarcely matters."

Bob Strauss of The Daily News of Los Angeles gave the film three out of five stars, writing a review under the title "Murderer Takes A Long Look Into His Raging Black Heart", stating "While Killer: A Journal of Murder may at first seem like a lower-budgeted Dead Man Walking, this modest and absorbing film soon establishes its own hard, fascinating particulars. Like Dead Man, Killer is a true story that explores the close relationship between an execution-bound inmate and a sympathetic civilian. Perhaps due to limited resources, this movie focuses more on the two characters than the wider issues of capital punishment, and screenwriter-director Tim Metcalfe has turned that restriction into a virtue. We end up with an intimate knowledge of the minds of sympathetic guard Henry Lesser and the appalling - but never less than achingly human - Carl Panzram."

The Spokesman-Review reviewed the film in January 1997, giving it two and half stars out of five, stating "Don't get the wrong idea from the title: This is no "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer". Instead it is a serious attempt by neophyte Tim Metcalfe to film the real-life story of one Carl Panzram, a self-confessed thief, rapist and murderer. The problem with the film is Metcalfe's inability, through either lack of money or lack of talent, to make a cogent statement about the death penalty, pro or con. The strength of the film is James Woods who gives one of his patented, jangle-nerved performances."

Michael Janusonis of Providence Journal gave an unfavorable review, and stated "When I spoke to James Woods in New York in early December, he was buoyed by some good reviews for the film, in which he plays real-life serial killer Carl Panzram, who was executed in the 1930s. At the time Woods had also just won praise forhis role as real-life racist murderer Byron De La Beckwith in Ghosts of Mississippi, a performance for which he was shortly afterward nominated for a Golden Globe. Woods was hoping there'd be an outside chance for some industry recognition for Killer: A Journal of Murder as well. And when I finally watched a copy provided by Republic Pictures, I found that - despite good performances by Woods and Robert Sean Leonard as the novice prison guard - the film lacked the depth and flashiness and snappy pacing needed for it to score high with audiences and most critics (though the tape contained knockout quotes from Siskel and Ebert and the Los Angeles Times)."