User Reviews

I rented this movie not expecting a lot, but was very interested to see how one of the most disturbing serial killers in American history was portrayed.

Often times movies about serial killers, especially made for TV movies fall short because they get caught up trying to get away with showing as much of the gruesome acts that their subjects committed, rather than delving into the environment that could've produced them, or the circumstances in which their acts were committed.

E! True Hollywood Stories do a better job of relaying the events than movies such as Summer of Sam, the slew of movies made about Charles Manson , the handful of Ted Bundy movies and the recent film Gacy. Gacy is not a bad movie. It is just kind of boring to be honest. There is absolutely no suspense, no true horror, a few kind of gruesome scenes and it doesn't leave the viewer with any answers as to what could have possibly created a monster like John Wayne Gacy, aside from the brief lack luster 2 minute scene with a young Gacy fishing with his father.

To make a film about John Wayne Gacy and have it not be interesting is like messing up a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. The part of Gacy is very well acted however by Richard Holton. He is perfect for the role, you may recall him from his role as Francis in Pee Wee's Big Adventure (a true classic.) Back to the point, if you are a serial killer aficionado this could be worth checking out, if you're a Killer Klowns from Outerspace fan don't bother Gavy dresses up like a clown once and its brief. This film would have better spent its time tackling the enigma that was this monster of a man and the double life he led for years instead of simply relaying events in a rather boring way. Not worth the 4 some odd dollar rental fee unless ur a big serial killer or Gacy buff.

I remember the intent on watching this movie was because it was where Stephen King got his idea for the movie "It". Well, this is the true story about a middle-aged man, John Wayne Lacy, who is an ordinary husband and father living in an ordinary town. He works as a clown for children's birthday parties and seems to live a good life despite living through a very abusive childhood. However, no one knows that this ordinary and kind man has a sick and twisted deep dark secret. It goes on until neighbors, friends and even his own wife start to grow suspicious and that's when hell breaks loose. The ending surprised me and if you watch it, you will be too! Mark Holton did a fantastic job as John Wayne Gacy. I didn't know Holton had such talent, I mean after seeing him play Francis in the Pee-Wee Herman movie, I didn't think much of him, but he was great in this one!! His facial expressions and his emotions were so real that it was really convincing. Rent it and you'll find out for yourself!! I give it 7 stars out of 10!!

Having a low budget doesn't always mean having a bad movie, but in this case it does. While other directors use their minimal budget to produce the best film they can, Clive Saunders seems to have blown it all on something, because this film looks like it could have easily been made on $1,000. I found it to be dull, poorly written/acted/directed, and an insult to the intelligence of viewers who have actually done the research on Gacy that these film makers neglected to do.

The setting is horrible. The movie is supposed to be taking place in Chicago, but the Southern California architecture, mountains and palm trees make it clear that the production never left Los Angeles. The film is supposed to take place in the seventies, but it doesn't give off the authentic feel at all. The script gives one the feeling that it was a first draft whipped up in one weekend and put to film without so much as one editing session. The dialogue is weak and unbelievable in many scenes, and there seemed no basic plot whatsoever. With directing, editing and shoddy camera work such as appears in this film, these people should be banned from ever making films again. Seriously, I could do better with a bunch of friends and a camcorder.

Now, I want to start right off by saying that I did not go into this hoping for blood and guts and gore...what I wanted was to learn a little background on the man himself. Although I love those aspects of horror films, I wanted more of a psychological view of Gacy, and that is what the film failed to deliver. All it managed to do was show scenes of bugs in his crawl space, him going to and from work, him being harassed and beaten up for the money he owes, and the overwhelming emphasis placed on the stench of the decomposing bodies hidden under the house.

Worst of all, Gacy is portrayed as somewhat of a bumbling idiot rather than the scarily intelligent being he was. All of the deaths that are shown seem to have been committed on accident - such as the boy he was drowning in the bathtub when he was interrupted. When the boy fell down dead, he looked like he'd "made a boo-boo."- Not to mention the fact that he would leave dead bodies lying around the house and his roommates wouldn't take any notice. I realize that some people don't make it their business to report suspicious crimes or get involved, but that is just ridiculous.

Yes, I will admit that I wanted at least one scene of brutal violence from the film, but only for it to give me a full perspective of Gacy's crimes. I wanted a true story that did the story of the killer justice as well as creep me out, but instead I received this boring mess. Don't do like I did. Spare your intelligence and read up on Gacy instead, I guarantee you that what you read will entertain and scare you more than this film ever could.

I hadn't heard much about the Gacy Killings before I saw this movie. I guess you could say I'm uncultured considering he is one of the most well known serial killers of America. Anyway, I decided to give this movie a go, because I'm starting to open up to movies that aren't all about comedy and this seemed like a good contrast to try.

I was quite disappointed by the lack of depth. It seemed to just fill time with the same thing over and over again. He goes out, picks up a boy, brings him home and well...we know the rest. I suppose the main problem was the fact that we never really got an insight into him and how he thought and his real reasons for doing what he did. We had a little taste of his childhood and his abusive father right at the beginning of the film and heard a few flashback sounds throughout the film as constant reminders but that was it.

We also never really saw how this affected everybody else around him. His co-workers, friends, neighbours, wife, mother, children. I mean they were all a part of his life and even lived in the same house. It would have been nice to include this in the storyline. I feel this film was more of a documentary to tell people who he was and what he did rather than open up a bit of light as to what went on behind it all.

I've seen other serial killer movies and they all seem to at least explain a little as to what is going on. We never really got a look at it through his eyes, which is what I guess everybody will be expecting to see.

Overall, it was a pretty boring account of what happened and although my thoughts go out to those that were lost and the people that were affected by these real life events. I feel this film has done nothing but bring back painful memories for those involved. A film best left alone...

If you're thinking of watching this movie. I suggest you do it on a night where you've got nothing better to do because it really isn't that entertaining.

I'd like to know what the purpose was behind the making of this film. The Gacy story would have been served better by a more documentary approach, instead of this weak "grand guignol" version which spends more time focusing on maggots and bad smells than on Gacy and his background. Are we to believe that he's a psychopath because his dad whacked him around on a fishing trip (and maybe elsewhere)? His married life is brushed over casually (what happened in all the OTHER years of his marriage?), and his business and social life was also given short shrift. Why did he kill the first boy? When did he lose control over his anger and perversion? He's just a hair-trigger, vulgar and angry guy through the entire film.

BUT HERE'S WHAT BUGS (sic) ME MOST ABOUT THIS FILM...when will L.A. producers realize that other parts of the country look different from California? This story took place in Des Plaines, IL, my wife's home town. (In fact, Gacy's last "pickup" was at a store just a few blocks from her house.) In the movie, Gacy's house and neighborhood look nothing like Chicago. The trees are wrong, the sky is wrong, the other buildings are wrong. They didn't even get the colors quite right on the Chicago police cars. Worst of all...as in many other Hollywood productions about Chicago...you can actually see MOUNTAINS in the background (during Gacy's party scene). Hollywood morons need to get out a little more! There is life beyond L.A. (At least they confessed to it in the closing credits.)

I recently watched an interesting documentary about John Wayne Gacy and it led me to search for movies based on his story. Gacy was quite difficult to actually purchase once I had found out about it but eventually I got hold of a copy. I wish I hadn't bothered. There was an opportunity here to make a great serial killer but bad acting, poor editing and a weak screenplay just made this barely watchable. I gave myself a pat on the back just for sticking it out until the end.

Now I know it says at the starts some things have been changed for dramatic purposes but do you really need to add more drama to a story about a guy who killed more than 30 people? Then if you feel like you just then make it more interesting than the true story itself, Gacy fails miserably at every chance to do that.

Honestly don't bother with it

This film is part biopic, part psychological portrait of real-life serial killer John Wayne Gacy, Jr. (played here by Mark Holton). It begins with a brief scene of an 11-year old Gacy with his father, before jumping to Gacy's later life with his second wife, when he was living just outside of Chicago. It roughly covers a number of events up to Gacy's arrest, but not his trial or later years.

This is one heck of a difficult film to rate. Co-writer David Birke also co-wrote another serial killer biopic/psychological portrait, Dahmer (2002), and both films suffer from many of the same flaws. Gacy may have even more problems. There are countless things that could have been done better.

Yet in combination with co-writer and director Clive Saunders, Gacy manages to retain your interest, and excels at the prime directive of serial killer flicks--it makes the viewer feel profoundly uncomfortable. If judged solely on that aspect, the film would deserve a 10 out of 10. Of course, not everyone wants that kind of emotional experience with a film, but it seems to me that if a serial killer flick doesn't make you uncomfortable, something went wrong. The subject isn't exactly puppy dogs and pixie sticks, unless we're talking about barbecuing puppies and using the pixie sticks for spice.

Let's get out of the way that the film isn't precisely, historically accurate, and it's far more historically incomplete. I don't consider that a flaw. Saunders makes it more than clear a couple times that he's used facts about Gacy's life as inspiration. This is not a documentary, but a fictionalization--specifically it's "historical fiction". Gacy had a relatively complicated life, and understanding his crimes "realistically" involves looking at a huge time span of complex events. There's no way it could be done in 90 minutes, or even 180 minutes.

However, the events that Birke and Saunders choose to show too often seem random, and there's too much exposition missing. We get one scene of Gacy-as-a-boy with his dad, whom we see being mildly abusive. This isn't sufficient to establish anything significant about Gacy's youth. There either should have been more material like this, or it should have been dropped altogether and simply mentioned at some point, perhaps during a bit of self-reflective dialogue (which we get later anyway).

Next we jump to a screen full of text telling us that Gacy was convicted of sodomizing a boy and spent 18 months in prison. Then we jump again, and suddenly we see Gacy living with a woman about his age, two younger girls and an older woman. We can figure out that this is his wife (it was actually his second wife) and mother, and we assume it's his kids (they weren't, they were stepdaughters). Eventually we're told their relationships (except my parenthetical facts), but it doesn't help that it is initially presented as something of a mystery.

There's a general lack of exposition as exemplified above that makes the film play more surrealistically if you're not familiar with Gacy's story. Sometimes this works--the inserts of Gacy eating chicken and dressed up as an alternate world Colonel Sanders (Gacy's first wife's family owned a number of Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants in Iowa) are particularly striking, even if the viewer can't quite figure out why they're present. But just as often the lack of exposition is more of a problem, as with the two hippie-looking guys who are staking out Gacy near the end of the film. It's never quite clear who they are, why they're around, or why in some cases they appear to have lawn chairs set up within about 30 feet of Gacy's front door.

There are a lot of interesting facts about Gacy that are hinted at but not shown very well. For example, he was actually well liked by a number of people and he was very involved with community groups such as the Jaycees at one point. His fascination with clowns was also much more bizarre than is shown in the film. He had unusual makeup that friends recommended he change because it had potential to scare children, and he was an amateur artist who painted weird but wonderful clown/skeleton canvases (well, I like it at least, but I have a taste for outsider art, including psychotic stuff). In conjunction with the clown fascination, Saunders employs subtle carnival music in the score at one point. This worked well, but would have been better if more regular and prominent.

What Saunders focuses on instead are those elements that provide that uncomfortableness I was talking about earlier. Gacy had a crawl space beneath his house that served as a dumping ground for bodies and that produced an infamous stench. Saunders dwells on the crawl space, appropriately. He also fills it with cockroaches, maggots and other insects. Gacy comes across as consistently pathetic, almost sad, as does most of the rest of the cast, surprisingly enough, including Gacy's family and most of his victims. It's difficult when watching the film to believe that some of the victims would make themselves as available as they did, especially over time, but this is based on truth. A lot of small, subtle "beats" add to the pathetic feeling, including the driving shots through the dirty windshield, and a lot of white trash characters who look unkempt, who drive wrecks, and who work in dilapidated environments. Even though I ended up wishing there was more of the carnival music, I also loved the melancholy score that is prominent about two-thirds of the way through the film.

While the film might not provide a lot of psychological insight into Gacy, if such would be possible--he truly comes across as very rational and completely insane at the same time, and it might have benefited from a more linear, in-depth look at some of the victims, the film still succeeds by delivering a deeply disturbing atmosphere.

"Gacy" is a great example of a film that tries to do way too much and tries way too hard to do it. We are treated to a very vague portrait of a man who was an historically vicious serial killer. Along the way there are attempts at comedy that do not work at all, too many victims that look too much like actors, and a lot of nonsense that couldn't have happened and never really did happen.

Keep in mind that the movie was penned by a screenwriter, it is not any kind of J.W. Gacy biography. If you view it with this in mind, I suppose it could be mildly entertaining, but if seen through intelligent eyes, it stands out as an exploitative, ridiculous and overly ambitious serial killer thriller film that romps through way too much unnecessary filler material.

Not scary, not funny, not realistic. Not recommended.

3 out of 10, kids.

Hey, how about all those neighbors that were always wondering what that awful smell was that was coming from under his house? Gacy as the unenviable distinction of being one of the few serial killers to rival the depravity of fellow psychopath Ed Gein, whose antisocial antics led to the inspiration of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Silence of the Lambs, and Psycho. Gacy was less into wearing other people's skin as he was into strangling and sodomizing young men, providing plenty of material for a sick biography like this, which of course lots of sick people like me will go out and rent.

Why we all get such a kick out watching things like this (by "we all," of course, I am referring to all of us sick people who get such a kick out of watching things like this) I am not sure I rightly know, but I think Gacy is a well made film, given its subject matter and it's limited production capabilities. Sure, there are numerous holes, none of the acting is very impressive other than Mark Holton's (who played Gacy himself), and the movie commits that cardinal sin of the movies, it throws logic out the window. The whole premise of the movie, as was the case in Gacy's life, is that John Wayne Gacy was a regular guy next door that no one would ever have suspected, but in the movie the quickness with which everyone dismisses the smell of rotting meat coming from under his house is a little trying. I don't know enough about the details of Gacy's life to know is people actually did smell decay from under his house and ignore, but I can't help but think that even if that did happen, it was dramatized for effect, as they say, in the movie.

The thing that is most disturbing about a movie like this is that if someone had written a screenplay like this that was entirely fictional, they would probably have gotten a similar response that Wes Craven got when Last House on the Left was released. People didn't want him to be allowed to work in film again, and yet when it is based on true events people have this morbid fascination with it. Not that that's anything new, it just seems odd to me that people are more offended by fictional violence than true violence.

I like that the movie has a lot of restraint when it comes to showing the things that Gacy actually did to his victims. We are not entirely spared a look at how he killed some of his victims (this would have offended some of Gacy's fans, if you can believe that such a man has them), but the movie leaves most of the more heinous acts offscreen, concentrating more on things like thousands of crawling maggots and the inevitable smell emitted from the rotting corpses under his house. Most estimate that Gacy killed something like 30 young men, others say we may never know how many he killed.

Holton does a great job with the script, which is not the best, and is especially good at making us believe that Gacy was able to be charming despite how frightening he could be when he was visiting the other half of his personality. It is indeed unsettling to think that a man who dressed up like a clown to entertain sick kids at a hospital could be killing large numbers of young men and doing things much more horrible than sodomy to them, but if you want to get a few insights into how and why he did it, this film is not a bad place to start.

Note: I've read that, while this movie concentrates on the story from Gacy's point of view, there is also a television movie called To Catch A Killer that focuses more on the police investigation side of the story.

I was pretty disappointed with this one. The primary reason this film was even remotely disturbing was due to the fact it was based on a true story. The direction and acting was quite terrible. Really, really bad. Thankfully, the bad acting is so much so that it turns from bad to kind of funny. I haven't seen the other film based on the same situation, but can't image it to be much worse than this. It's worth seeing for the sake of it being an interesting true story...well, that and John Gacy is played by none other than Mark Holton (Francis from Pee Wee's Big Adventure). Somehow, the relation between the two films makes them both that much scarier.

I'd read some really negative comments before watching this movie. I was pleasantly surprised by the way it unfolded and particularly impressed by the performance of Holton. Never seen him before, but I thought he took on the lead role very well indeed. If I'm honest, I do prefer the made for TV version, To Catch A Killer, starring Brian Denehey. Gacy isn't as in depth but, nevertheless, is an extremely well made and interesting look at one of America's most notorious serial killers. The only criticism I have is that, at under 90 minutes long, which did seem to pass incredibly fast by the way, it really doesn't have the time to fully convey the complexity of the character or the games he played with the Police involved in the case. However, I enjoyed this movie very much and would recommend a viewing, especially to those who find this genre interesting.

So, possibly not the worst, but damned near to it. Here's the thing; I'm a psychology major with a specialization in criminal psychology. I've been working in a prison with small-time serial murderers for the past 3 years north of Atlanta, Georgia for my internship and occupation. I've extensively studied all the famous ones, Fish, Sutcliffe, Gacy, Dahmer, Gein, etc. so that I could make headway on treatment and understanding in the prison I've been working in. For all of you out there interested in the subject, the best book on the subject for those not doing, well, graduate study or anything, is My Life Among the Serial Killers by Dr. Helen Morrison. Excellent book with a large section on Gacy, her studies with him, and even his trial and execution. Not even talking from a standpoint of how it incorrectly portrays Gacy the man, but plainly from the standpoint of movies, it's terrible. It's an absolute bore; the whole movie drags and chops its way through a largely fabricated story with terrible editing, directing, and acting. Much worse, Gacy is portrayed as if his murders are driven by revenge at points, unconscious drives at others (closer to, but still not getting to the most likely causes). There is one thing that the movie did decently, and still it was nothing more than hinting at the truth. Jeff Rignall, one of his few surviving victims, was depicted as that male prostitute. He suffered severely from Gacy's treatment, including permanent and nearly fatal liver damage from the chloroform, brain damage from the near-death suffocation, and several other major medical issues along with severe developmental and psychological issues. The other victim that survived and came forward, Robert Donnelly reported almost identical occurrences as far as abduction and torture. Even then, his life did not need extra, fictitious events to dramatize it. He was an interesting enough person even when the truth is told. Come to think of it, some of the most interesting things he did were during his imprisonment up until his sentence was carried out in March of '94. Either way, if you think this movie gave you any insight into the veiled monster that Gacy really was, you're deeply mistaken. The biggest thing this movie was lacking was recognition of his inability to view other people as separate sentient human beings. That is what makes a serial killer. This movie did not portray that in any reasonable way, and it did not bring to the public any sort of idea of what Gacy was.

I just saw this movie on DVD and worked myself all the way through till the end. This movie was not really good, the acting appeared to me as a bit corny, and the story was not put together either. Also I thought it was too bad they sometimes used handycams, usually I don't mind, I love the Dogma95 movies, but this movies had all the handwork at the wrong time. You wanna see a good J.W. Gacy movie go see "to catch a killer" it was actually a miniseries made in 1992 starring Brian Dennehy, that was made more convincing. 2 1/2 out of 5 stars

The reason I rented this movie is because, John Wayne Gacy is a legend over at my old high school, because two of his victims were my teacher's students. So, there would always be questions. The house was just a couple blocks down from our school and we'd ask about Gacy himself and what he was like. It wasn't really like what we heard when I saw the movie.

The movie does tell in the beginning that some of the events they came up with were fictional. To tell the truth, I don't think the reason why this movie wasn't effective is because of the fact that Gacy was so brutal with these boys. It couldn't be shown what he did to them. So, the movie itself isn't that great. I'd rather go and visit my old school and just ask the teachers that were there when this happened.

3/10

When you read the true stories of these horrible serial killers such as Gacy, Dahmer, and Bundy, its easy to think that those stories would make great and terrifying films. However time after time these serial killer bio flicks just fall flat and don't seem to capture the horror of these killers, and "Gacy" is definitely not the exception.

My first complaint is just the whole tone of the movie. It never seems very serious, I felt as if I was watching a comedic made for T.V movie with all the funny parts ripped out. The story was flat and moved at an unusual and unappealing pace. I can't say I am very familiar with the true story of John Wayne Gacy (I know the basics, just not everything there is to know) but I doubt this movie followed it to a tee, some things just seemed out of place.

Overall "Gacy" just doesn't do a very good job of telling the story of John Wayne Gacy. Its rather boring and just not very interesting.

3/10

John Wayne Gacy was a truly terrifying sociopath. Not that you'd know it from this chaste straight-to-DVD movie that inexplicably shies away from depicting either sex or violence. The young teenage boys that Gacy preyed upon are played by actors in their twenties, diminishing the pedophilic horror of the subsequent seductions. Abductions and killings largely take place off screen, and the rape and sadistic sexual torture that he subjected his victims to isn't even mentioned. It's truly strange that the filmmakers, having chosen to depict such a sadistic human being, should then dilute the story to TV-movie banality. Beyond the complete lack of drama, horror, or suspense, the dialogue is ineptly written, the pacing slow, the performances patchy, and the music of the cheapest synthetic orchestral variety. The whole juvenile endeavor kind off begs the question, Why did they bother?

After I promised myself not to rent any movies, which have fewer than 6 stars on IMDb, I made this my exception, because I found this movie in the .99c store, and I am glad that I bought it (now, don't you all rush to the .99c store - it is probably closed or the movie is sold out by now). The plot is simple - "lets just try to tell the story of Gacy", and because they simply "tried" wasn't good enough for this plot. In other words - I am sure that in real life, they must've had FBI on this one for a long time, yet the movie only depicts the local policeman, which is kind of boring. The acting was done well by all characters, which makes this definitely worth .99c. The problem was the directing, editing, production - this movie was definitely not thought out good enough, but I have seen worse. The director should have chosen better script, better score, better layout, locations, costumes etc. The editor should have chosen better timing in his editing, because as it is, at times - it makes people confused. Nevertheless, just like other better attempts to portray serial killers, a better one would be: "Henry - a Portrait of a Serial Killer" - this is a very risky genre. The safest way to go, is it to make it into a documentary. However, at the end of the day - it only seems to work if the characters are fictional, That way we can completely separate from our minds: the serial killer and his "normal" life. And that is how we will be left with the gruesome picture of a different species. Then we can see that in his mind, he is either becoming or he already became a creature from a different world - to fuel our fascination with the mysterious works of the mind. From this movie, we get just a tiny glimpse of it. So we are left left begging for more. But that is still a downfall of this movie. Anyways - at the end you can still stand up and exclaim: "this is a true serial killer." And that is why I give this 6 out of 10.

First, anytime a film's tagline includes the five words "based on a true story" prepare for anything but the truth. This film is loosely connected to the real John Wayne Gacy and his rampant mid 1970's murder spree. However the story bears little resemblance to the actual events nor does it deliver an accurate portrayal of Gacy. In essence, most of the script is fictional. Once I accepted that then I had to accept a story line and direction style that I found quite frustrating. The tale sort of jumps around and introduces plot points, people, and events, that don't have any explanation or get fleshed out. These things just come and go throughout the film. It didn't seem to have flavor or focus, if I had to pick a word to describe this viewing experience it would be flat. There's not a lot of scary moments, thrilling moments, highs or lows, it's just sort of bland. I will say Mark Holton was believably creepy and disgusting in the title role. Otherwise this film serves no purpose historically, artistically, or otherwise. It just makes you want to take a shower after watching it.

The Gacy movie is OK for what it is. It's not historically accurate (several events take place in the movie that either didn't happen or happened at a different time) and it would have been nice with a rape and execution scene or two, since that part seemed like it was something they had to get over with, so we could get more on the Gacy the man. What really works is the performance of Mark Holden (who plays Gacy) and the mood of the movie. Holden not only looks like Gacy, but is genuinely scary when he's alone with the boys. As far as the mountains in the background and what have you, do yourself a favor and try to ignore it, because this movie is worth checking out. It's not quite up there with "Henry: Portrait of a serial killer", but it's not that far from it.

The reason I watch any movie is for entertainment and this one certainly did that. I was largely unfamiliar with the Gacy story so I had no preconceptions. I found it believable and well acted. Judged on holding my attention and the scare factor I give it a 10. It surely deserves better ratings than it's been getting from the majority of the people who've posted thus far and I would not hesitate to recommend it to anyone looking for a way to spend an evening and enjoyable viewing experience. While it might not be exactly accurate in all details I did not watch it expecting a biography, just entertainment and that is what I got. So don't be put off by all the negative comments, see it and make your own opinion.

The acting in this movie is so bad as to be laughable. If I didn't know any better, I'd say it was a parody. The cinematography and editing were equally as bad. The only scary thing about this movie, is the ninety minutes or so of my life that I won't get back having watched this.