America's Serial Killers: Portraits in Evil (TV Series 2009– ) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
11 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Portraits Of Evil!!
strong-122-47888528 September 2016
Warning: Spoilers
So, would you say that the following 2 statements are true or false?

(1) The USA, today, is, without question, the "serial killer" capital of the world.

(2) According to the experts - (As of 2009) - There are an estimated 100 serial killers at large (and committing the unspeakable) all across American turf.

Well - If you guessed "True" to these 2 statements, then you are 100% correct. But, hey - If you happen to be an American, I wouldn't recommend going around bragging about this the next time you're visiting another country. It may raise more than just a few eyebrows.

And, speaking about true facts, regarding America's worst - Is it also true that Serial Killer TV shows are, indeed, educating "real-life" serial killers?

Well, for the answer to that disturbing question - I strongly suggest you view this 2-disc, 7-hour documentary, asap.... 'Cause I guarantee that you'll be truly amazed by what you find out about America's most notorious and nasty murderers and murderesses who have been killing purely for pleasure for more than a century now.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Produce Of America
IcyTones5 September 2020
This Documentary is an 'overall' view of USA's most famous Serial Killers.

Grouped by murder styles & portrayed by their adoptive names, movie titles are referred to & film clips used to support each episode. Archive film footage is also used to enhance the moment of capture or trial. For the more elusive murderers, where the identity is still being questioned, and archive film footage not possible to show, drawings have been used instead.

Countless movies have been based on some of these Serial Killers, so it's the 'Editor's Choice' as to which movie is used to best describe the individual Serial Killer. This adds flavour to the documentary as it means specific movie titles that can be researched or watched with relevance.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Portraits Of The Most Evil Kind
StrictlyConfidential3 August 2020
"Portraits In Evil" is a 2-disc, 7-hour "Serial Killer" documentary that goes into a considerable amount of detail in its quest to reveal to the viewer the despicable lives and the horrific crimes of a number of notorious, American murderers (both male and female) who were on a killing rampage (at one point in time, or another) during the 20th century.

Due to this documentary's murderously unsavory and equally disturbing "sociopathic" subject matter, it all does tend to become quite an unsettling experience (after a while) viewing the darkest side of human behavior for 7 hours.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Horribly inaccurate
anspruchsvoiier16 July 2016
There are so many errors in this wanna be documentary that the producers should hang their heads in shame. The documentary begins with a broad generalization claiming that serial killers are a phenomenon that only started post World War II in the 20th century, only to turn around and mentioning famous 19th century serial killers like H.H. Holmes, Jack the Ripper and Jane Toppan and ignoring the fact that between 1900 and 1950 more than 180 serial killers were active in the US alone (120+ internationally).

Many facts of the Lipstick Killer they covered were outright wrong: He didn't murder his 6 year old victim in a basement, but merely dismembered her there after killing her at some unknown location. He also didn't blame the killings on an alternate personality like this shoddy film claims. That was what the police claimed after they drugged Heirens with sodium pentothal which then caused him to utter the name "George" under the influence of the drug a couple of times. He never claimed the name of his alter ego was George Murman and especially not that this was short for murder man like the film claims. That's what the press came up with.

They don't even get the pronunciation of Gein's name right and this could have been easily rectified. Not just did Wikipedia list its proper pronunciation as early as December 2007, at the same time news footage from reporters talking to Gein's neighbours and pronouncing his name could be found on Youtube...and the stuff is still there! The lackluster research doesn't just reflect negatively on the producers, but also on their experts. Apart from the fact that none of them got Gein's name right, their statements are usually absolutely useless, merely expressing opinions about the horror of serial killings with very little hard information. Most of the interpretation of how serial killers tick come from a "true crime writer", a person without apparent education in criminology, psychology or psychiatry.

To call this film a documentary would lend more credence to it than it deserves. The film has a massive 90s feel about it, judging by the choice of background music and editing style they used. I was almost willing to cut this film some slack. After all, research in pre-internet times was by far not as quick and easy as it is today, even though that's no good apology for such a project that must have taken months to put together and for which proper research should have still been done.

When I discovered that this was made in 2009 I was actually at a loss for words. How can something so shoddy be released to the public FOR MONEY when it was produced in the era of Wikipedia and Google Books where correct information was just a mouse click away? The problem is that from a less knowledgeable perspective this looks like a pretty watchable documentary. Though antiquated the style may seem, the editing is solid with using plenty of original footage and pictures, though not as much as it could. People without detailed knowledge regarding the cases might end up memorizing false information. Viewer beware. Don't forget a pound of salt when watching this. You might find it entertaining, though to those seeking accurate information, you'll be utterly disappointed as you'll find yourself researching every little fact yourself after discovering that you can't trust anything that is being said in this film.
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Awesome.
kitkatt111@aol.com2 August 2013
Serial Killers: Portraits in Evil reintroduces us to some of our best loved serial killers, American icons who either warm our hearts or chill our blood: 40 something prostitute loving Jack the Ripper, the dashing and charismatic Ted Bundy, the ever youthful HH Holmes, everyone's favorite mensch David Berkowitz, hot tamale Richard Ramirez, and that sick mofo Albert Fish, whose profile really left a bad taste in my mouth (no pun intended). A rabbi, a criminologist at Northeastern, a guy who looks like Mexicat, and Kirk Gill, a so-called 'true crime writer' who lives in his parent's basement, round out the list of lovable misfits who treat the viewers to their opinions.

The narrator really goes to town when reading the letters penned by the killers—Jack the Ripper sounds whispery and devilish, while David Berkowitz sounds like Woody Allen meeting Jerry Seinfeld in a dark alley. I haven't seen the Richard Ramirez episode yet but I can only imagine he will sound like Cheech Marin.

This documentary is also fond of showing long clips from films—if you are interested in seeing 90% of an old movie about Jack the Ripper or Peter Lorrey's soliloquy from 'M' you are in luck..

Considering I think I bought this set for about $3 at WalMart....it's well worth the price, mostly for being so unintentionally amusing.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Pretty Disappointing
MisterSisterFister26 June 2018
First of all, there really isn't much here that you can't find in books or in better documentaries. The inaccuracies, the mispronunciation of names and the constant cutaways to movies got on my nerves quite early on, along with the cheesy voice work for the letters and quotes of the killers. I mean, come on, let's take this material seriously, shall we? I also don't get why they included Jack the Ripper, an English serial killer, in here with a bunch of American killers. Its even there in the damn title. I don't know, this was a waste of time and that sucks because this is a poor and shallow representation of these people. I gave it a four because I was at least able to finish it.

P.S. I know I already mentioned it, but whenever they were showing the movies (and trust me - it drags on for minutes at a time) really pissed me off the most. I felt like I was suddenly thrust into film school. If I wanna watch the movie, then I'll watch the damn movie!
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Not bad
take2docs11 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Just because one has never heard of 'the Vampire of Brooklyn,' 'the Night Stalker,' 'the Son of Sam,' and 'the Clown Killer' does not necessarily mean unfamiliarity with the names Albert Fish, Richard Ramirez, David Berkowitz, and John Wayne Gacy. The latter were notorious homicidal maniacs; the former were their respective monikers. (Ah, yes, the Son of Sam, who was famously quoted as saying, "I didn't want to hurt them. I only wanted to kill them.")

Often referred to as 'lone nuts,' it's interesting to note that a 'lone' serial killer does not make a loner. Gacy, for example, was quite sociable and well-liked by his neighbors. A suburbanite, family man, and active Democrat, who would have pegged him for a multiple murderer?

All very interesting to criminologists and those into true crime stories, and this ten-part docuseries certainly does not, or at least should not, disappoint said interested parties.

Jack Levin, Steven Egger, Frederick Reamer, and Kirk Gill are the four interjecting talking heads who provide their psychologizing analyses of serial killers and whose input is often quite insightful.

Jack Levin is a particular favorite of mine within the field of criminology. Having read a book of his, I was already familiar with him prior to watching this. In his heyday, Levin was widely known in the media as a pundit on the subject. Having spent over a quarter of a century professionally absorbed in this morbid field of study, this highly credentialed and seasoned expert was often called upon to testify in court and was known to correspond with serial killers in an attempt to understand how their minds work.

Although serial killing is neither a modern nor entirely an American phenomenon, the curiously underrated AMERICA'S SERIAL KILLERS: PORTRAITS IN EVIL focuses on several fiendish slayers who made headlines in the US at some point during the 20th century.

Granted, its presentation may not appeal to everyone. It's best viewed, I think, as an introduction to the study of serial killing, as it's not at all in-depth as far as biographical info is concerned. We learn very little of the backgrounds and childhoods of this rogues' gallery of nefarious ghouls. The docuseries is more interested in trying to understand the psychology of these criminals than it is with documenting their life histories and the details of their cases.

Aside from the above-mentioned quartet of quellers, 'the Boston Strangler,' 'the Hillside Stranglers,' 'the DC Snipers,' 'the Zodiac Killer,' and 'the Unabomber' are also profiled. As well as Ed Gein, who as far as I am aware was never given any nickname. (Hmm. The Unconventional Upholsterer?) Ditto, killer-cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer who, incidentally, died prematurely while serving time in prison and thus was never granted a last meal request.

One of the more analytical ponderings the interviewees attempt to solve is the answer to the question of what is to blame for the creation of a serial killer. Are we dealing with bad seeds or environmentally created sadistic psychopaths? Is it a question of nature, nurture, or a combination of the two? Does post-agrarian urbanization play a part, as Mr. Reamer muses? Whatever the case, there is very little entertaining of possible causes outside the realm of mainstream science. Although other researchers have put forth theories that are fringe-y (the programmed patsy theory) or outright metaphysical (the idea that some of these bloodthirsty felons were victims themselves, of parasitic entities/unclean spirits), one will find no such out-of-the-box commentary, here.

Amid one's study of serial killers, one comes across many interesting bits of info. How many people, for example, are aware that one of Richard Ramirez's favorite albums was AC/DC's "Highway to Hell" (which contains the song, "Night Prowler"), or that brainy Ted Kaczynski may have been a mind-controlled test subject who perhaps because of this very factor ended up going postal?

Each of the ten parts within this gritty yet intellectually fascinating docuseries runs for about three-quarters-of-an-hour. There's nothing flashy about its presentation, as it seems more geared towards educating the viewer than entertaining him by means of gory images and subliminal messages centered around popcorn.

How can a human being commit such gruesome acts and after being caught often show little or no remorse? What makes a slaughterous deviant? Yes, criminology and the study of serial killers is not the most pleasant of pastimes but such conscience-less lowlifes do exist and therefore by examining this phenomenon one gains, in my opinion, a wider and deeper perspective of this mysterious thing we call reality.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Amateurish...is this really from 2009?
aricana11 January 2022
I'm not impressed. I can not find any evidence, that this series is actually made in 2009 and not in1996.

And why on earth start off with a British serial Killer, when you purposely have chosen to call it America's Serial Killers.

If I'm watching documentary, and I'm going to watch 30-50% old black and white movies cuts, it damn we'll have to be authentic materials...but no of course it isn't. It's close to nonstop clips from old (really old) movies, as it probably were cheap or maybe even free for the producers to use in the series instead of newer materials, etc.

Narrator could have a fine voice for narrating, but he comes off as amateurish and unnatural, reading up from manuscript he hadn't rehearsed.

At best this series can be called a nice try, but not something that was supposed to be launched on streaming world wide.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
shocking! Not in a good way.
pjmlloyd10 January 2017
Do not waste Your time or money, pass this one by. Shock number 1) The inaccuracies. Shock number 2, the fact, like a previous reviewer I, actually thought I was watching something created in the 90'., Shock number 3, the narrator' bizarre need to over act when repeating supposed actual text, not to mention the accents. Frederic Reamer, a social worker who gives his opinion in each video even becomes quite annoyed at one point at the utter stupidity of the interviewer's questions, they actually left that in. I'd had my doubts about what I was watching, but when I watched that, I knew I had made a bad move. (thankfully, I only wasted my time).

AVOID THIS DVD.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Does not compare to similar documentaries
retro_tiger26 November 2020
Warning: Spoilers
The first episode is a waste of time Claims to be about Jack the Ripper Seems to spend most of the time on an awful reenactment or film around Jack the Ripper.

The 2nd episode is a slow start, uses a 1930s movie that is a very vague comparison to HH Holmes and doesn't really have a place in this documentary. The narrator using accents for quotes is not necessary.

This is not as interesting or as well written as other documentaries or series talking about serial killers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed