Fluentiama Perfect cast and a good story

GazerRise Fantastic!

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

chriskirk2 Why can't they do a "night stalker" movie that doesn't suck? Richard Ramirez is the most terrifying serial murderer of all time. His 14-month, 1984-85 L.A. terror spree changed the world. Your very home was a potentially deadly chamber of horrors if he came around. Ramirez worshiped Satan, and presented cops with the most horrific crime scenes ever. If EVIL exists, RR was it's personification. A great film about the case is possible. 2 crap films have been made about the case-and this is one of them. This movie really sucks. If it weren't for the lovely Roselyn Sanchez; this movie would be totally UN-watchable. TRUTH:Ramirez didn't smoke crack.He shot coke. Ramirez disposed of the guy first. This film ignores that aspect. Ramirez wasn't a white guy, he was Hispanic. Ramirez dressed in black, but didn't emulate Trent Reznor's "Downward Spiral" look. Ramirez was never wounded by his victims. The cops didn't catch Ramirez....They saved Ramirez. Nerds. The filmmakers know the facts of the case(according to the DVD's commentary track), but just chose to distract us with some lame fiction.This film quickly becomes a weak cop-movie. Ramirez is just an incidental character. The demon-flash crap is just a lazy offense to the audience; a short-cut to actual story-telling. The filmmakers "based" this film on "true events", but ignored many fascinating, real events-turning the film into a boring story about a pretty cop experiencing sexual harassment. What's the point of all this? I don't know.This film couldn't have missed the mark any further. As for 1985 period-detail, well, forget it. You get about 5 characters, 4 cars, and 3 settings. This is kid's stuff.

Paul Andrews Nightstalker starts in 'Los Angeles 1985' where one fateful night a man (Bret Roberts) has a bad foot fetish experience with a prostitute named Cherry (Roxanne Day) so he decides to don some black leather gloves & kill a couple of Hispanic people in they're own home. The next morning & Hispanic cops Officer's Gabriella Martinez (Roselyn Sanchez) & Frank Luis (Danny Trejo) are called to the house when relatives become worried, the two Officer's enter the house & find the mutilated & violated corpses. The killer seems to target the Hispanic community in Los Angeles & as more of them are brutally murdered Officer Martinez is promoted to homicide detective, more to appease to & calm the Hispanic community down than for her actual detective skills but what she doesn't know won't hurt her, right? The senseless & brutal murders continue, can Martinez make a useful contribution to the case & prove her male counterparts wrong? I'll give you three guesses & the first two don't count... (not that you'll need them anyway!)Written, co-produced & directed by Chris Fisher Nightstalker is the latest in a long line of low budget crap that I've sat through recently, honestly sometimes I wonder why I even bother I really do. Anyway, never let it be said I don't give a film a chance & I did at least make it all way through it. Even though his name is never mentioned Nightstalker is apparently based on the crimes of serial killer Robert Ramirez who killed members of the Los Angeles Hispanic community back in the 80's, having lived in England all my life I have never heard of Ramirez or his crimes so I really can't say how accurately this depicts them. The script throws in a bald headed demon that 'tells' the nightstalker to kill, the fictional cop Martinez to try & have a central character & add a few melodramatics to the proceedings & by all accounts has very little to do with the real Ramirez & has no real regard or intent for factual recreation. I can understand filmmakers wanting to change a few things around & spice things up a bit but in this case Nightstalker just comes across like a really bad cheapo low budget horror. It moves along at a fair pace & I didn't fall asleep (it was quite late too) so I have to give it that but overall I can't exactly heap praise on Nightstalker as it's simply not very good & ultimately that's the bottom line I'm afraid. I also take offence at the notion that he killed because of his foot fetish, even if it was unintentional they show him acting out a fantasy with a prostitute just before he kills his first victims which clearly sends some sort of message out, doesn't it?Director Fisher turns in one of the most annoying film to watch I've sat through, his use of gimmicky editing & MTV style editing & manipulation is irritating to say the least. From stupid time-lapse photography, fast forward, hi-speed, low-speed, blurriness, jerky hand held camera shots & constant drab low level lighting set to the most awful rock tracks you have a film which may literally give it's audience a head ache. These annoying flashy sequences are really unnecessary as proved by the fact the films most effective scene is when these processes aren't used. Forget about any decent violence, a few blood stained murder scenes & a couple of eyeballs in a box, that's it.Technically Nightstalker is OK apart from those annoying editing tricks, according to the IMDb Nightstalker was edited in the editor's living room & that it was shot in a mere 16 days. Neither of these revelations come as any real surprise to me & 16 days? What took them so long!? The acting was OK but did anyone else notice Trejo's moustache? The one side is fine but one half of the other half was shaved off, he literally only had three quarters of his moustache! Is this a fashion thing? Pay close attention when he & Sanchez are talking outside her house near the end, you'll see what I mean...Nightstalker is a pretty bad film when all said & done, it's as simple & straight forward as that. There are much better films out there although as I said at least it kept me watching to the bitter end which is something I suppose.

kitycatty137 To enjoy this movie you better be on ACID or some other drug, because the movie is very disturbing; not in the scenes or anything like that, but in the way the films was shot; everyone seems to be on booze or drugs in this movie, and when they use it their heads keep spinning and twisting, and it's all very fast, flickering images, and death metal music; it just doesn't make sense. The movie itself, the remaining 45 minutes if you scratch all the head shaking flickering mambo-jumbo, portrays Richard Ramirez, but only concentrates on a few of the murders he committed. The previous comment states that it was overdone and probably was less terrible in real life, well, newsflash, it was WAY worse. this movie only shows a tiny bit of what Ramirez was capable of and only few of his murders. Not at all has been concentrated on his worship of Satan )apart from some pentagrams found on the murder scenes), and you don't get a look into the mind of Ramirez either. In the movie he is just a weirdo drug addict. Also, the movie suggests his victims were all Latina ladies of a certain age, which is not true either; he killed all races, men, women, and children, his youngest victim being around 6, and his oldest I think in her 80s. All together, this movie is NOT the true story of Ramirez, and it is VERY annoying to watch with the continuously flickering images, and the non stop death metal type music. If you're on acid, as I said earlier, you might enjoy this, but if you like true horror movies and want to know what really happened back then, you'd be better off buying a book.

Freya(sableOnBlond) the-real-roobeemoon This film , I had never heard of this film until just last night actually - when a friend gave it to me to watch...I didn't even read the description of it , so I had absolutely NO IDEA what I was to expect with it. All I looked at on the video case itself was the front cover and the movies' title....So , I pretty much was figuring that this was a HORROR film and I was also assuming this would not be a good contributor to that genre... Well , as it turns out , after watching , Oh - I'd say about the first 10 minutes of the film , which is actually the beginning of the film with the credits still rolling in , I did realize that this film was about Richard Ramirez , who was the night stalker /killer in various brutal and satanic murders. The only reason I clued in on that was because I was prior familiar with the dirtbag in general. I had seen a A&E TV special about his trial and how some fruitloop of a women had married him in prison while awaiting his death sentence for the crimes he had committed. I found this movie , well - not too disturbing - although I will not say it is not. The guy was a major drug fiend and obviously had HUGE mental issues. Basically blaming his crimes on Satan , "Satan made me do it" - type stuff. What a FREAK! And this film sure does a GREAT job at showing it's viewer just THAT. I didn't LOVE this film , but I will give it a big credit. Well done. Also , one last thing - this is not a horror film , this is a documentation film....Yep , yep , yepAnd with all of that , I'm out... PEACE