Prosecutor Anthony Fraser (Michael Biehn) seems to have a normal life with his wife Kate (Deborah Van Valkenburgh) in California but they actually suffered the lost of their daughter Molly. He gets a gruesome case of a massacred family. D.A. Spencer Whalen is pushing for the death penalty but it's against Anthony's views. Also the brutality of the killings could lead to an insanity plea. The crazed Charlie Reece (Alex McArthur) continues his killing spree and drinking blood. A boy is missing and he's assumed to be kidnapped. Naomi Reece (Grace Zabriskie) is Charlie's unstable mother. Albert Morse (Nicholas Campbell) is assigned as his public defender.
The production looks poor like a good TV movie. It's surprising that a great director like William Friedkin made this. It doesn't look quite as good as his earlier work. It moves much too slowly. There is a lot about the insanity plea. That seems to be what the movie is all about. It has some interesting takes on the issue but it's not particularly dramatic. The trial meanders at times. Also I doubt insanity plea is as easy as portrayed in a jury trial. I think the real guy this is loosely based on actually got sentenced to the death penalty. There are some misdeeds by the psychiatrists that is pushed too far. Essentially the defense psychiatrist is pushing another psychiatrist to fake documents. I can't really buy his stated motivation of an anti-death penalty crusade. He's actually shown to be a little crazy while testifying. He's just another part of the push by the movie against insanity pleas. Also Charlie was supposedly released by a lower function doctor six months before the first murder. In which case, wouldn't the prosecutor call that person to the stand. Where is his testimony? There are a lot of unlikely things going on in this movie. His escape is insanely stupid and it's not even filmed that well. After so many deaths, no jury would ever consider an insanity plea no matter what the law says. The talk in the jury room sounded fake and manufactured. Also since he's in custody, he would be closely monitored for the pills to be taken. Wouldn't he be tried for the killings during his escape after the verdict anyways? That takes away the drama for me even if he's declared not responsible. He's going to have another trial anyways.
The production looks poor like a good TV movie. It's surprising that a great director like William Friedkin made this. It doesn't look quite as good as his earlier work. It moves much too slowly. There is a lot about the insanity plea. That seems to be what the movie is all about. It has some interesting takes on the issue but it's not particularly dramatic. The trial meanders at times. Also I doubt insanity plea is as easy as portrayed in a jury trial. I think the real guy this is loosely based on actually got sentenced to the death penalty. There are some misdeeds by the psychiatrists that is pushed too far. Essentially the defense psychiatrist is pushing another psychiatrist to fake documents. I can't really buy his stated motivation of an anti-death penalty crusade. He's actually shown to be a little crazy while testifying. He's just another part of the push by the movie against insanity pleas. Also Charlie was supposedly released by a lower function doctor six months before the first murder. In which case, wouldn't the prosecutor call that person to the stand. Where is his testimony? There are a lot of unlikely things going on in this movie. His escape is insanely stupid and it's not even filmed that well. After so many deaths, no jury would ever consider an insanity plea no matter what the law says. The talk in the jury room sounded fake and manufactured. Also since he's in custody, he would be closely monitored for the pills to be taken. Wouldn't he be tried for the killings during his escape after the verdict anyways? That takes away the drama for me even if he's declared not responsible. He's going to have another trial anyways.