James Franco to Direct The Night Stalker

Actor James Franco has found his next project, which he will also direct. It’s called ‘The Night Stalker’, as in the serial killer, not Kolchak.

The New York Post writes:

The film will show how Ramirez, currently on death row in California, became a killer. It’s being co-produced by Soundgarden lead singer Chris Cornell and Nicolas Constantine, who also wrote the screenplay.

As with all films, I will withhold judgment until I see it. That said, I have but one question. Why? I don’t care, really “how” Ramirez “became” a serial killer. What would be the point, exactly? Ramirez is where he belongs, locked up on death row.

I am not interested in what drove him to evil. Anyone else?

Comment with Facebook

About Darren

"Revenge is sweet and not fattening." Alfred Hitchcock

7 thoughts on “James Franco to Direct The Night Stalker

  1. The Why(s)? are all answered in your statements, Darren. It’s being directed by someone who isn’t a director (typically) and being produced by Chris Cornell. Two people who aren’t typically in the limelight when it comes to films being made behind the camera. This is more than likely, a pet project, that will be treated with respect and done meticulously and not clearly for the money, like most studios would do. And like a previous poster mentioned, Monster was a huge success due to it’s low scale, great writing, and wonderful character studies on the origins of a killer. If done right, who’s to say an awful person of society doesn’t make an interesting and thrilling subject for a film. OZ did that for 6 seasons. We were surrounded by people who were the absolute worst of society and that show was phenomenal because it was a labor of love. I say, sign me up. I can’t wait to see this. Franco directing can be interesting too. Let’s not forget how many gifted directors have come from acting and working with great directors. Clint Eastwood is fantastic, George Clooney is fantastic, John Cassavettes was fantastic, etc…this could be a step in a great direction.

      1. I get that, Darren. That’s why I used OZ as an example too. To say that if the source material is worth it…even if the film is about hitler…if done right, it can be interesting. Look at Downfall, you saw a human side of Hitler that no one saw or would even think to see. That film was brilliant too. That’s why I think origins of a killer can be interesting because ultimately, everyone is human…no matter how evil their actions are. The downward spiral can be an interesting story.

    1. “Zodiac” was more about the investigation, and not about the UNSUB known as Zodiac. It did not explore Zodiac’s motives (of course, that’s due to the killer never been caught); “Hannibal” is a fictitious character, although some bits and pieces of real killers were inspirations for the character as well as the fictitious characters of Gumb and Dollarhyde.

      “Monster” about Aileen Wuornos, had some notice because it was about the real life rarity of a female serial killer. protrayed the killer in a sympathetic light. The film in my view, was good but overpraised and overrated.

  2. there is always something appealing in the ways evil works and takes over a person. That makes for a good script, and well directed and acted.. well.. you remember Monster, don’t you?

    And as for Franco directed.. I have never been a real fan but the morbid story will drive me to a redbox near me.

  3. Well, we had “Monsters” remember? it has the same premise, and it was succesful (Charlize Theron won an oscar and all). Also there was “Zodiac” or “Hannibal” series. So why not this one? The darkest of human soul always fascinate people isn’t. It evoke their morbid fantasy & imagination. Also a very good source of storytelling…. so there you have it.

Leave a Reply