I didn't like it one bit. I know nothing of the real story, I have no idea of what the real story is except what I saw in the movie, so my comments are barely on the movie, and it's terrible.
It's a story of a spoiled kid that killed his father and almost killed his mother to collect their life insurance prize. He used and ax and was always the only suspect, but although the detective was sure he was guilty many other people in town believed his story of innocence.
The movie is filmed like a documentary with bits of re-inactions.
Christopher Porco is played by Matt Barr, but I didn't like it, I didn't know what to make of him; he was supposed I think to look like a charming, evil sociopath, but I didn't feel any of it.
Well, basically I didn't like any of it. I don't know if the movie is loyal to the real story or not, but what I saw was this: character detective Sullivan (Eric Mccormack) asking a severely injured woman, who almost died after being hit more than once with an ax, if she knew her attacker and if it was her son Chris, and he deduced by her movements that she said Chris did it, which seems to me a pretty lame start, since he had nothing to go on at first and he didn't pursue any other line of investigation.
Second thing, this Chris is supposed to have charmed everyone; his college brotherhood is one: all those boys thought he came from a very rich family and that he was a sort of Rockfeller kid while he didn't have all that money and he used trick after trick to make it seem so; all the females he met: all the young ones in love with him and the older ones loving him like a son. Why were all these girls in love with him? Because he told them 'you're my girl'? and they melt like ice in the Sahara? This character Chris was not all that charming, and it's unbelievable that every single girl, every single one was mad about him.
Only character I liked was the mother, Joan Porco played by Lolita Davidovich, who defended her son all the way. Of course, he's her son, and as he said at the beginning she would do anything for him.
With another name I would have never suspected this was based on a true story, but of course who would ever make up the name Porco?
Of course moving on with the movie and the investigation they come up with other things , like the fact that time before he broke in his parents house and stole computers and then sold them for money, and also that that night he was not where he said he was, and that he had cheated many times, and not only on girls. He faked his grades to please his mother, he forged his dad's signature to get more money, and stuff like that. At the trial things came out like the fact that he used to forget his keys in the door like they were found after the murder, but I would have liked to hear that story before, it should have been a strong, a real reason to suspect him.
The jury finds him guilty, and sure many things point that way, but I didn't like that the movie doesn't show us any kind of investigation at all, specially at the beginning. I didn't like that everything started and was based on the detective's question to that dying woman, I mean did she even understand the questions in those conditions?
Speaking about the movie and the movie only, as I said before, I think the investigation was very poor and the guy was more disagreeable than charming.
One more thing I didn't like, the last scene when they show us the mother that night smiling before the attack, to make us sure that she recognized her beloved son and smiled to him, when she kept on defending him. Was that based on some fact or was that to give us a feeling of closure?
ITA Romeo killer: sospetti in famiglia
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento