Manhunt: Search for the Night Stalker (1989 TV Movie) User Reviews

No-nonsense true crime drama

[Libretio · 6/10 · 31 January 2005]

MANHUNT: SEARCH FOR THE NIGHT STALKER

Aspect ratio: 1.33:1

Sound format: Mono

The search for serial killer Richard Ramirez, who committed a string of horrific rapes and murders in Los Angeles between June 1984 and August the following year.

It looks a little dated now, but Bruce Seth Green's detailed examination of the facts surrounding the Night Stalker murders - filtered here through the viewpoint of the two detectives (Richard Jordan and A Martinez) who supervised the case - still packs a solid emotional punch. Green's no-nonsense approach to the material results in a couple of voyeuristic crime reconstructions which may strike some as unnecessary (Ramirez had only just been convicted when the movie first aired), but these grotesque details go a long way toward establishing the randomness and savagery of this man's gruesome rampage. Joseph Gunn's wide-ranging script covers all relevant bases, including the desperate attempts by city officials to prevent sensational media coverage driving the killer underground, and the personal toll exacted on law enforcement officers involved in pursuit of the maniac. The climactic sequence - depicting the bizarre events surrounding Ramirez' eventual capture - is ripe with irony, and well-staged by actors and filmmakers alike.

"Night Prowler"

[gattonero975 · 7/10 · 10 January 2014]

Los Angeles is the serial capital of the world. It takes a special "twist" to capture headlines in a city where, by autumn 1983, 5 random slayers were at large and killing independently of one another. In the hot summer months of 1985, reporters found their twist and filled front pages with accounts of the sinister "Night Stalker,"a sadistic home invader with a preference for unlocked windows and a taste for savage mutilation.

Acquaintances described Ramirez as an ardent Satanist and long time drug abuser, obsessed with the mock-satanic rock group AC/DC. According to reports Ramirez had adopted one of the group's songs: "Night Prowler"-as his own personal anthem, playing it repeatedly, sometimes for hours on end. They have a scene in this film showing just that and the late great Alma Beltran has the unfortunate pleasure of being a neighbor that lives right next door in the apartment complex and goes over one night and knocks on the door and tells him to either lower the music or she's going to call the cops. He quickly just turns it off and Beltran runs back to her apartment completely scared and locks the door. Ramirez gets up and walks in the hallway and heads out into the night. Nice little scary scene.

The great Gregory Cruz plays Richard Ramirez (The Night Stalker) (as Gregory Norman Cruz). While he is one of my favorite actors. (he reminds me of a more intense & meaner version of Lou Diamond Phillips)I feel that there were 2 other actors they could have had in this role. Don't get me wrong, Cruz did a good job with his sinister and mean look that he has, but to me either the great Billy Drago or the great Jeff Kober could have done a just as great or even better portrayal of Ramirez. I'm thinking that neither Drago or Kober did not want to be type-cast or associated with such a despicable character and the fact that Ramirez is never truly seen till the last 1/2 hour of the film makes it like ,why bother?

I enjoyed the ending of this film because Cruz as Ramirez is finally seen and his is in every scene for the last half hour of what's left of the film. An all-points bulletin was issued and his mug shots were broadcast on TV and plastered on the front page of the newspaper and was seen by almost everyone right away. He was captured by civilians in East Los Angeles mobbed and beaten as he tried to steal a car. The Police arrived just in time to save his life. That's too bad. That was the end he truly deserved. Being punished by the very same people he caused such a terror to.

Much better than expected and fairly accurate.

[rixrex · 30 June 2007]

This was way above what I had expected for a TV movie of this subject, and much more accurate and true to the material also. I recall that period when the "night stalker" was committing crimes, as I lived in Los Angeles and was house-sitting for some friends. It was a heat wave as portrayed in the film, and I always had the windows wide open at night. Then eventually, some of my lady friends who noticed became almost hysterical with anxiety that I might become a victim. Before that moment, I didn't really consider this killer with much interest, but then realized what effect he had on most of the city, especially the women and those with families. Well, the film portrays this exactly correctly, as it portrays the principle persons involved in a true manner, including the killer himself. It is also great to see then Frisco mayor Dianne Feinstein get taken down a peg for her stupid remarks that released confidential police information to the public. That really happened, but she still got to be a senator eventually.

Interesting story, but very poor acting

[fiera121 · 4/10 · 13 September 2002]

I live in El Paso, Richard Ramirez's (The Night Stalker) hometown, so this story has a special interest for me. But I was disappointed in the very poor acting throughout this movie. The only acting that was at all believable was that of one witness, an older lady who discovered one of the bodies. It's a shame they couldn't have found some better actors, as this could have been a decent movie if they had.

On the bright side, I commend them for making this film without the blood and gore that we usually see. I guess that's because it was made for TV, but it was a refreshing change.

I wish they would have focused more on Ramirez and his crimes (absolutely nothing was said about his background or motives). This movie was really only about the two detectives who investigated the crimes and not about the crimes or suspect at all.

Well Done, But Very Disturbing...

[Axiom-2 · 10/10 · 30 March 1999]

This is a very well done made for tv movie. It's the true story about one of the most notorious serial killers ever! The acting in this film is top notch. I am so glad that this movie was made for tv and not for the big screen. It's shocking & disturbing but it's a story that had to be told, and it was done with the utmost respect to the victims families. My prayers go out to them all...

Very Boring TV Movie

[tram84mvp · 3/10 · 17 May 2021]

Looks like they spent 100K tops on this banal unimaginative.borefest. Some well known actors going through the motions with a script that only a teenager could love. Night stalker story is actually interesting but this 95 minute snoozer doesn't come close to having any worthwhile action/suspense to keep your eyes open.

Not bad at all for a TV movie

[whatch-17931 · 8/10 · 2 April 2023]

I know the story is simplified, but of course it had to be to make a 95 minute movie.

I'm no expert on the case, but it looks like they got the gist right, and more than that. It was just boiled down.

The East LA takedown of Richard Ramirez was very very close to accurate. To my understanding, Ramirez actually ran across the freeway. Here, he takes a bus. That's an understandable compromise for a TV budget.

The lead actors (A Martinez and the late Richard Jordan) never quite made A list, but that has a lot to do with luck. Their performances are great.

The actual focus on the lives of the detectives, well that's soap, but not terribly soapy.

Overall, a necessarily simplified, but basically an accurate depiction of this history.

From a purely movie/directing standpoint, the takedown of the Stalker was gripping and well done.

Night Slumber ? Coming to your home!

[Killer_Romance2 · 1/10 · 29 September 2004]

Richard Ramirez being convicted as America's most feared Serial Killer since Jack the Ripper and possibly the most popular. Due to gaining myriad Media attention and worldwide fame from Male and Female Groupies than any international Rock Star in the Night Stalker trial and this movie was created to mark this event.

There are T.V. True Crime movies that can be intriguing like Ted Bundy; The Deliberate Stranger, or John Wayne Gacy; To catch a Killer. However, this T.V. movie of Manhunt: Search for the Night Stalker is very dull. It is trying too hard to be a "Chiller-Thriller" trying its best to exude feeling of suspense, but it fails to do that because of hammy performances and lack of reality in the script. This is suppose to be a Chiller of a Thriller- it's really trying to be, but the suspense is subdued due to certain scenes of some tedious moments that are unnecessary to be shown, like the cop's private lives, comprised with hammy performances and bad music score with a rip-off of Night Prowler by AC/DC. The black-clad Killer in the movie made so much noise, used too much flashlights in the dark, you would think people would wake up when he enters in their residence, when in the actual trial, the Killer is suppose to be militant and work in darkness, hence the moniker; "The Night Stalker".

The TRUE shadowed actions of the Night Stalker was that he never made a sound of slamming car doors nor using flashlights in the dark; he adjusted to work in remote darkness. As for the rare Avia tennis shoes, he suppose to have dumped them in the San Francisco river and opt for combat boots later on due to Diane Feinstein's elocution slip up, that's why cops can't see them on his feet. However the movie writers claimed Diane mentioned 'ballistics in San Francisco were the same compared to the L.A. Murders' but that was NOT the evidence that "damaged" the investigation, she was supposed to have mentioned the Avia footprints that the Night Stalker did notify to choose a more common footwear and that was not included in the film, so there was loose accounts to this movie.

The dialogue was full of terrible lines and careless errata too. One of Gil Carrillo's daughters was called "Rene" in the beginning, so why was his wife, Pearl, called the same girl "Mica" after 43 minutes into the film? Richard Jordan as an experienced detective, Frank Salerno, also in charge of the Hillside Strangler case in the 1970's but in the 1980's he relies on "his gut" now than anything else! The script was terribly careless, for example, one of Gil Carrillo's Daughters was called Rene, but 43 minutes into the movie, Gil's Wife, Pearl, called the same girl "Mica"- this erratum could have been corrected. The worst part is the rest of the dialogue, which is not convincing to match the original True Crime characters, their personal experiences and personality backgrounds from this movie, it fails to represent their personalities altogether. Richard Jordan, who plays a "seasoned" Detective, Frank Salerno always "feels things" in this case, he tells Sheriff Grimm as he proves one Serial Killer is operating the crimes "This is one Guy doing this - I can feel it" and to his Partner, Gil, "I have a funny feeling about tonight - he is going out again" and when they pursue Ramirez prior to I.D. him in the Newspapers, Jordan says " I can feel it Gill it is all over". Also Frank goes on about how "great" things are. There is a scene where Gill solemnly says "oh no! He switched guns on us! He used a .25 instead of a .22" Salerno replies "that's Great! Phil (the Forensic Scientist) can give us a positive make on the 25, if we get him with this Gun, he is nailed!" and another ridiculous scene is when a cop goes "Hey Frank! We found the shoe, it is a special shoe made by Avia and there are thirteen thousand and fifty-six distributed" and Salerno's response is "that is Great Washington! It is going to be that much easier for you to trace every bit of sale today" and Washington laughs "How do I know you are going to say that!" - this was suppose to be an amusing line, but there is no ring of truth to it. Why did Washington NOT mention there is ONLY one pair of Avia 440 modal that is size 11 and a half twelve; which is the same one at the scenes from the series of murders and just 'one' man is wearing this 'rare' shoe? The Movie Writers did miss out conspicuous details of not illustrating Diane Feinstein's elocution slip up of mentioning the rare Avia shoes of a "particular size" that made the Killer change his footwear. So there was loose research to these "True Crime" accounts of what actually happened, and lack of realism in the script. The writers probably never put their heads together to think about the "real" lives of these Detectives because when Richard was caught and put into custody, Jordan turns to Gill and says "we will be living with this for a long time!" For an experienced Detective who also worked on the Hillside Strangler case, mentions an unrealistic line - I am sure other viewers will find all lines of the script quite false in real situations. All the Actors were given unrealistic lines, the acting was bad too, especially some that Phil the Forensic Scientist stated that makes me lose that suspense, and how can he be so angry after living around the case of Charles Manson and his Cult? He was meant to be a professional mannered person.

The visage of the killer was dramatically revealed near the end. Richard Ramirez should be portrayed by a talented actor but NOT Gregory Norman Cruz, he was equally bad, and he does not resemble Ramirez. Greg had a wicked expression throughout his scenes and looked ropey. The Real Richard was Handsome as a Movie Star and worthy as a Male Supermodel; possessing a dangerously seductive streak and the combination of looking Angelic with a mysterious plutonian air - Guys and Girls flock to him. Picking Cruz was too politically correct for my taste. A better looking American Native Lakota Actor with talent could have been selected no matter how sensitive the audience may seemed at the time. The Real Richard was slovenly in appearance when caught but scary and panther-like with certain magnetism when he was apprehended by the police and was in fact seraphic looking during the trial blessed with devilishly fierce good looks and moody hypnotic charm. Gregory Norman Cruz did NOT have magnetism and kept looking at a certain angle of the camera to appear sinister whereas the real Richard was an unknown person, a tall Grand Turk due to his very high cheekboned and protruding chinned features, and a Cambodian actor who are Lakota could closely fit Richard's visage and athletic slenderman build.

It is a predictable movie with bad enactment, terrible humor and bad music score with a song that is a rip off of Night Prowler by AC/DC. Bruce Seth Green should instead produce the feel of Los Angeles in 1985, like show statistics of guns and burglar alarms sold by the hour or vast amount of people being alarmed when staying up at night and being jumpy to every a nuance of sound thinking the Stalker is there because the minds plays tricks on the people and the brutal heat did not help much that summer. The paranoia was insurmountable, the scary aura of the city at that time was absent in this film, it is not a convincing Thriller. I read Philip Carlo's book and that is miles better of accounted pulsating events and situations.

Most of all, There should be movie scenes that Habitants all over the State that stay up late in the brutal heat of the Californian Summer had their mind playing tricks on them thinking every nuance of sound IS the Stalker - this should meticulously create the convincing fearful atmosphere which the movie did not represent. The movie should be leaning to THE BOSTON STRANGLER (1968); showing the statistics demonstration of locks and guns being sold by the hour in the city to provide an epitome of the aura of Los Angeles in 1985. Unfortunately, it was vacantly provided to be unconvincing. Instead Bruce Seth Green done laconic scenes especially of Richard being a fugitive, falling on his face so audience can laugh at him like a pantomime villain, also skidding up some dust, and taking a Mustang with some mooning full figured guy hanging out the car window then being knocked unconscious and suddenly people of East L.A. came out of nowhere chasing Richard, pounced on him, and the SAME full figured guy with the Mustang was at the scene! How did he get there so fast despite his quick sleep?

This is an average sleeper; I suggest Philip Carlo's book is a better project than this fine old mess.

Unsubtle

[rmax304823 · 9 May 2003]

Sometimes TV movies about real events can be engaging, possibly because the producers don't have to worry about whether their 40 million dollars will be returned at the box office. The treatment of crimes on TV can be truly engaging. The films about Ted Bundy and Charles Manson were fairly well done, especially "Helter Skelter." The story of the so-called Nightstalker, Richard Ramirez, doesn't have quite the potential of the Manson story. It's simply not as intrinsically interesting. But this is more than just uninteresting. It's plain dull.

I've been trying to figure out why. The best proposal that I can come up with is that the fault lies in every aspect of the production. The photography is cloudy, the score done by the numbers. And, as another commenter pointed out, the acting is at best routine. The actors seem to be reading from cue cards half the time. Even Richard Jordan, whose work elsewhere has been quite good, is almost embarrassing to watch. His voice seems slurred and the sound man has picked up every intake of breath, as if Jordan were asthmatic. The role of Richard Ramirez is a key one, and they've used an actor who has a single expression -- a kind of bug-eyed sneer, like an evil Harpo Marx, distinctly wicked. The real Ramirez was angelic, as handsome as a movie star. Girls flocked to him, whereas no one would flock to this guy except flies. The director does nothing to help matters. Camera placement, role enactment, blocking, micromovements -- all are strictly routine. Given all the other weaknesses in the production, the director really needed to punch things up.

Maybe the script is the worst part. I wonder if the writers, while setting the dialogue down on paper, ever really imagine hearing a living human being speaking their words. Jordan "feels" things several times. He calls his partner late at night and tells him, "I have a feeling about tonight. He's going out again." When they're closing the ring around the perp, Jordan tells his partner, "This is it. I can feel it." When the perp is finally safely locked away, Jordan tells his partner solemnly, "We're going to be living with this a long time." This coming from a seasoned detective on the LAPD. Does the line ring false to anyone else? And then there is the squabble between one of the cops and his wife. It seems he's been spending too much time away from home, on the job, and she's worried and frightened, and they have an argument. "I didn't marry your work!" she yells at him tearfully. "What do you want me to do?" he shouts back. (She packs up the kids and leaves him for the duration of the case, but don't worry -- there's a lachrymose reunion at the end.) All straight out of a thousand stories about cops (or military men, or dedicated doctors). No one is really given a believable line. The characters are cartoons, none of them in any way individuated. They don't have twitches or neuroses. They don't joke. They don't make mistakes, although Diane Feinstein does.

The movie is a big long unrefreshing yawn. Too bad. It would have been interesting to know more about what happened, particularly inside Ramirez's head. But that's something we'll never know anyway. Even Ramirez doesn't know. So maybe it's just as well nobody tried to probe his brain and pin it all on the conjecture that he and his Dad were not close enough or something. Anyway, as it stands, I've read more interesting abstracts for articles in Psychiatric Quarterly, and that's saying a lot.

Interesting tv film

[afq2846 · 4/10 · 7 February 2021]

I can say it always amazes me when true stories are changed when made into a movie. Television is notorious for this and this movie follows suit. Certain aspects are glossed over or not even explained. The acting at best is average with more bad then good. Overall if you know nothing about the night stalker and want to know there are way better to see then this. Its a film that should be skipped.

excellent,but terrifying

[disdressed12 · 8/10 · 12 December 2007]

this movie is based on the true story of Richard Ramirez,dubbed The Night Stalker,who terrorised California in the summer of 1985 with a series of brutal crimes.the story focuses mainly on the two main detectives who try to identify and capture him.the movie is a very well done TV movie,but is not only disturbing,but terrifying,all the more so,because it is based on a true story.the movie does a great job of capturing the fear people felt during The Night Stalker's reign of terror.the acting is superb.it would have been nice if the movie had delved into why Ramirez committed those awful crimes,but there is only a vague hint given by Ramirez himself at the end of the movie.for me,Manhunt:Search for the Night Stalker is an 8/10.

Night Slumber ? coming to your home!!

[KillerRomance · 1/10 · 18 October 2022]

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 31 January 2015 There are TV true crime movies that can be intriguing like Ted Bundy, the Deliberate Stranger, or John Wayne Gacy, to catch a Killer.

However, I once owned this TV movie of Manhunt: search for the Night Stalker and it is very dull, it is trying too hard to be a "Chiller-Thriller" and trying its best to exude feeling of suspense, but it fails to do that because of hammy performances and lack of reality in the script.

The black-clad Killer in the movie made so much noise, and used too much flashlights in the dark, you would think people would wake up when he enters in their residence, when in real life, the Killer is suppose to be militant and work in darkness, hence the moniker; "Night Stalker".

The script was terribly careless, for example, one of Gil Carrillo's Daughters was called Rene, but 43 minutes into the movie, Gil's Wife, Pearl called the same girl "Mica"- this erratum could have been corrected. The worst part is the rest of the dialogue, which is not convincing to match the real life characters, their personal experiences and personality backgrounds from this movie, it fails to represent their personalities altogether.

Richard Jordan, who plays a "seasoned" Detective, Frank Salerno always "feels things" in this case, he tells Sheriff Grimm as he proves one Serial Killer is operating the crimes "This is one Guy doing this - I can feel it" and to his Partner, Gil, "I have a funny feeling about tonight - he is going out again" and when they pursue Ramirez prior to ID him in the Newspapers, Jordan says " I can feel it Gill it is all over".

Also Frank goes on about how "great" things are, there is a scene Gill solemnly says "oh no! He switched guns on us! He used a .25 instead of a .22" Salerno replies "that's Great, Phil (the Forensic Scientist) can give us a positive make on the 25, if we get him with this Gun, he is nailed!" and another ridiculous scene is when a cop goes "Hey Frank, we found the shoe, it is a special shoe made by Avia and there are thirteen thousand and fifty-six distributed", and Salerno's response is "that is Great Washington!! It is going to be that much easier for you to trace every bit of sale today" and Washington laughs "How do I know you are going to say that!!" - this was suppose to be an amusing line, but there is no ring of truth to it. Why did Washington NOT mention there is ONLY one pair of avia 440 modal that is size 11 and a half twelve, which is the same one at the scenes from the series of murders and just 'one' man is wearing this 'rare' shoe?

The Movie Writers did miss out conspicuous details of not illustrating Diane Feinstein's elocution slip up of mentioning the rare Avia shoes of a "particular size" that made the Killer change his footwear. So there was loose research to these "true-crime" accounts of what actually happened, and lack of realism in the script.

The writers probably never put their heads together to think about the "real" lives of these Detectives, because when Richard was caught and put into custody, Jordan turns to Gill and says "we will be living with this for a long time!" For an experienced Detective who also worked on the Hillside Strangler case, mentions an unrealistic line - I am sure other Viewers will find this line quite false.

All the Actors were given unrealistic lines, the acting was bad too. The visage of the killer was dramatically revealed near the end. Richard Ramirez should be portrayed by a talented actor, but NOT Gregory Norman Cruz, he was equally bad, and does not resemble Ramirez! Greg had a single bug-eyed sneer, distinctly wicked expression, The Real Richard was Handsome as a Movie Star, possessing a dangerously seductive streak and the combination of looking Angelic with a mysterious air- Guys and Girls flock to him. It was too politically correct for my taste.

If I had to have a personal opinion, Jsu Garcia formally known as Nick Corri of A Nightmare on Elm Street and Wildcats fame would suit to Play Ramirez better.

It is a predictable movie with bad enactment, terrible humour, and bad music score with a song that is a rip off of Night Prowler by AC/DC, Bruce Seth Green should instead produce the feel of Los Angeles in 1985, like show statistics of Guns and burglar alarms sold by the hour, or vast amount of people being alarmed when staying up at night and being jumpy to every a nuance of sound thinking the Stalker is there, because the minds plays tricks on the people, and the brutal heat did not help much that summer; the paranoia was insurmountable, the scary aura of the city at that time was absent in this film, it is not a convincing thriller.

Anyway! I read Philip Carlo's book and that is miles better, and showed the truth about real-life events and situations. Read the book instead.

Could of been better of it wasn't for factual errors

[funnygoatboy · 4/10 · 16 June 2022]

Missing kills He didn't go to Phoenix it was Tucson He was hit by a fence post not a steel bar The crowd beat him senceless before cops got there and were in the 100s Amd they didn't respond well to the cops.