User Reviews (30)

Add a Review

  • Warning: Spoilers
    I found the details they included when dressing the 544 Castle Drive set amazing.

    If one looks at the crime scene photos, they matched the furniture, window dressings, apartment layout, and rugs VERY closely. Although the building's exterior was not accurate, the interior seems VERY close.

    I found the scene where they recreated the murders very powerful because they had no sound for it. Something about it made the scene extremely eerie.

    Oh, and I know this is inconvenient for all of you MacDonald fans, but Fatal Vision was published three years AFTER MacDonald was convicted. So, the book had absolutely nothing to do with his indictment or conviction for the three murders he committed.
  • (Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon.)

    Although director David Greene is known almost exclusively for his work in television, this movie is several notches above most TV fare. Running a full three hours and twenty minutes in two parts, Fatal Vision is just about as riveting as the book of the same name from which it was adapted. The screenplay by long time Hollywood pro John Gay amounts to an indictment of army Captain Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald, but then again so did the book.

    Gary Cole gives a convincing performance as the former Green Beret army officer who was accused, and then some nine years after the fact, convicted of the murder of his pregnant wife Collette and two young daughters. Karl Malden plays Freddy Kassab, Collette's father, with his usual skill, while Eva Marie Saint plays Kassab's wife.

    Since it is still being debated to this day whether Jeffrey MacDonald really was guilty of this horrendous crime (as he continues to serve his prison sentence), perhaps we should appreciate this movie strictly as a study in sociopathology.

    The story begins February 17, 1970 with MacDonald phoning the police to report that his wife and two daughters had been brutally murdered by a marauding gang of hippies who broke into his home shouting "Kill the pigs, acid is groovy." He claims he tried to fight them off and was injured and knocked unconscious.

    In contrast, the story presented by the prosecution and detailed in McGinniss's book, portrays MacDonald as having, in a fit of temper injured or killed a member of his family, and then to cover up that crime killed all of them, and then fabricated a crime scene to support his story including the infliction of superficial wounds upon himself.

    The question most people would like answered is WHY would a previously upstanding member of the community, a successful doctor as well as a decorated army Captain, go to such a horrendous extreme to cover up a crime no worse than manslaughter, if that?

    The answer is in the character of Jeffrey MacDonald himself who is depicted as a psychopath possibly under the influence of amphetamines, a man so callous and unfeeling about the pain and suffering of anyone except himself, that he would murder his own family in an attempt to divert the blame from himself. This was the answer that McGinniss came up with after spending a lot of time with MacDonald and after initially believing him to be innocent.

    This is the answer that the jury believed, and this is the answer given in the character that Gary Cole so vividly portrays.

    There are many kinds of truth--legal truth decided by a jury, scientific truth decided by experiment and confirmation, spiritual truth, etc. And there is cinematic artistic truth, decided by the viewer. I think the business-like direction from Greene and his adherence to McGinniss's "vision," along with the fine performance by Gary Cole make us aware of the reality that there are sociopaths among us who can charm and kill with equal ease.

    Regardless of the true facts of the case (which we will never know for certain) it is this singular truth that makes this movie worth seeing.
  • If you read Joe McGinnes' book, you'd find it difficult to accuse the author of trying to sell more copies of it by twisting facts around. McGinnis was hired in the first place by MacDonald to tell his side of the story and only gradually did the writer change his mind about MacDonald's innocence. Of course McGinnis wanted his book to sell, so he could become rich and famous, just as MacDonald wanted his story told so he could become rich and famous too. Everyone wants to be rich and famous. But some people want it a LOT more than others and, according to McGinnes, this was Jeff MacDonald's biggest problem.

    The book ends with a description of a "narcissistic personality" drawn from the work of Christopher Lasch. There's some reason to believe that MacDonald belonged in that category. One of his last writings to McGinnes detailed a number of his greatest regrets about his life. Chief among them was not having actually gotten a degree from Princeton. (He transferred to Northwestern's medical school after his third year.) That's a pretty dumb thing to put down as a great regret unless you're something of a narcissist.

    Of course being a narcissist doesn't make you a murderer. In this case, it was the physical evidence that made the difference. It's true, as earlier comments have mentioned, that the army made a botch of the crime scene. They tramped all over, setting disturbed items upright, even swiping MacDonald's wallet. But some of the comments have been misleading, because McGinnis's book describes all this, and the film does too. Of course, having the army foul up a crime scene doesn't make you innocent either. In the end, McGinnis found MacDonald's story unbelievable because, in addition to the physical evidence, there was the simple fact that MacDonald "hadn't been hurt badly enough."

    The murderers in his tale (one of them a girl in a floppy hat) beat the other three members of his family to death and stab them. And here is MacDonald, a trained green beret, who gets tangled up in his pajamas while his wife is screaming in the background and who then passes out, sustaining a few scratches and a neat nick that ends in a small pneumothorax, which sounds terrible but which a doctor would recognize as not in itself life threatening.

    And this quartet of murderers in MacDonald's description is pretty interesting in itself. The sort of group that everyone at the time carried around in an easily accessible part of his or her memory, because everyone had been so shocked at the Manson family shortly before. But they are a square guy's cliché of what senseless murderers would look like. I was working on a research project into LSD use at the time of the murders and interviewed dozens of acid heads and dopers from all walks of life. (They included the entire fencing team at an Ivy League university.) They didn't have much in common except that when tripping they were one hundred per cent nonviolent. As one reporter put it, "When people are on acid they can't even organize a trip to the men's room." And nobody would dream of saying something like, "Acid is groovy," while trying to slice somebody up. Any acid head knew that things were a lot more complicated than that. (Nobody involved in the case seems to have had any idea of what the effects of recreational drugs were like. One young woman suspected of being the girl in the floppy hat, can't provide an alibi for herself because she "was out on marijuana" for four hours.) The "pigs" written in blood was a direct ripoff of the Manson family murders, whoever put it up there.

    The film follows the book pretty closely, painting a picture of Jeff MacDonald that is distinctly unflattering. Smart but shallow, he got out of the army pronto and lived in a Marina del Rey condo with blonde airheads seriatim. I'd like to see him put away if only out of envy. But was he guilty? Well, there was hardly a rush to judgment. It took years to convict him, long after the immediate sensation of the case died down. What leaves me with some lingering doubts, however, is the lack of any apparent motive. There was evidently no history of spousal abuse, nor of previous violent acts on MacDonald's part, nor of any nucleus in family dynamics for a murderous outburst. There is a sizable hole in the film where motive should be. The book and the film, despite some revisionist statements I've read, convince me that MacDonald probably did it. His alibi is almost impossible to swallow. Still -- I wouldn't have wanted to be on the jury.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    "Fatal Vision" is an excellent TV movie, based on the novel by the same name. All of the cast give top performances. Karl Malden clearly deserved the Emmy he won for playing Freddy Kassab. Eva Marie Saint was equally good as Mildred Kassab. Gary Cole portrayed Capt. Jeffrey MacDonald, MD, superbly. The supporting roles all were played very well – from the defense attorneys, to the prosecutors, to the judges, to author Joe McGinniss, to the murder victims.

    I haven't read the book, so I have only the movie to go on as to MacDonald's guilt or innocence. But, I have checked other historical sources for accuracy, and checked the Internet for Web sites about MacDonald. The story seems to be presented factually, and the screenplay, direction and technical aspects of the production all excel.

    All of the opinions in the world on the Internet won't change a court verdict or determine the guilt or innocence of a person convicted of a crime. Yet, one can understand how people will form opinions or be interested in expressing their views. I wouldn't do it normally, but for one thing. In all the reviews on this film as of the time of my writing, no one has said they have the experience of jury service. Perhaps such comments will help people understand the jury process and the resolution of this case.

    I have served on three juries for criminal cases in the past. In each case, I sat through the jury selection process. Out of the 12 people finally selected for a jury (or 9 or fewer in lesser crime cases), there always will be some, however few or many, who take the charge seriously that a person is innocent until proved guilty; and that a verdict of guilty can only be reached when the jury is convinced beyond a doubt. The three cases I sat on were not murder, and ranged in type and seriousness. One of them was dismissed before the jury deliberated. In both other cases, the juries found the accused innocent. I was one of a few people who had many doubts and questions based on the prosecution's case.

    The only sure-fire, clear-cut cases of a person's guilt in committing a crime are when there are witnesses. But, most murders don't have witnesses. Therefore, circumstantial evidence often is the only basis on which to try and judge a case. And that's precisely where the conscientious conclusion of each and every juror must be the same to find a person guilty.

    So it was in the MacDonald case. Regardless of the poor handling of the crime scene, what was there and wasn't there amounted to a mountain of circumstantial evidence along with MacDonald's testimony. The movie shows how Colette's parents believed in their son-in-law's innocence for so long, and how Freddy Kassab campaigned to have him cleared. But after the lengthy investigations failed to turn up any of the hippies that MacDonald said committed the murders and attacked him, Freddy went over the transcript of MacDonald's original military hearing. The discrepancies he found there moved him to pursue further and that led to his belief that MacDonald had lied and had committed the murders himself.

    These various matters are covered in the movie. One thing that wasn't in the movie was a demonstration by the prosecution of how the puncture wounds through MacDonald's pajama top could be so clean and smooth, as they were found to be. The prosecution used an ice pick on a shirt identical to MacDonald's, and stabbed it repeatedly against a ham. The results were just as those with his PJ tops that were found on his wife's body, which had been stabbed multiple times. They also repeated the demonstration shown in the movie. One person held the shirt as MacDonald said he did, while the prosecuting attorney stabbed at the shirt with the ice pick. As in the movie, that action tore the shirt in the various punctures. Yet, MacDonald repeatedly stated that he defended himself in that way against his attackers.

    Now, if I'm sitting on that jury, I have just seen proof beyond a doubt that MacDonald has lied about fending off attackers with his pajama top. How much more has he lied about, or will he lie about? But even more obvious, then, is the question – who stabbed his wife's body through his pajama tops if not him? And why would they? You see, the man convicted himself. There was a mountain of evidence against him. The different blood types of each family member, his foot print in blood, the use of weapons from his house that he denied were his and were all left behind with no finger prints, his being overpowered by three addicts high on drugs at the time that he says he heard his wife screaming in the other room, the lack of any signs of a real struggle – all of these things built a case of undoubted guilt in the minds of the jurors. I would have come to the same conclusion.

    Reading the Web sites today that keep alive MacDonald's protest of his innocence, I find nothing to question or challenge his conviction. Nowhere do his defenders refute the core evidence – the blood samples and locations, MacDonald's pajama top, and the murder weapons found so conveniently with fingerprints wiped off. Nowhere do his defenders provide any new evidence. They just protest his innocence while picking at straws of legal procedure and loudly blame everyone else. These seem to be red herrings, perhaps to elicit sympathy and donations to milk this horrendous murder case for all it can earn the protesters.
  • strosstrup12 September 2002
    Fact-based movie depicting the case of Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald, an Army Special Forces group surgeon accused of murdering his wife and daughters. This two-part heart-wrencher is incredibly gripping, and chock-full-of powerful acting. Karl Malden and Gary Cole deliver such incredible performances, it is no wonder Malden was nominated for an Emmy. Very sad and moving, but clearly worthy of watching. I give it 8.5 out of 10 stars.
  • Ron-17414 June 1999
    The movie shows how guilty he was, but read the book by Joe McGinness. Ironically, the book MacDonald wanted written about his case actually incriminated him even more.
  • ... that time being 1984. It's been at least ten years -maybe 15 - since I've seen this film on TV. Channels are too busy broadcasting commercials for shamwows and anything else of questionable value that will fit in a paid programming slot to air good old made-for-TV fare like this anymore, so forgive any holes in my review that may be caused by my memory.

    By 1984 the pendulum had swung in society and thus in the justice system from slapping embarrassingly guilty criminals on the wrist (circa 1960-1980) to locking them up for mandatory sentences - the era of zero tolerance had arrived. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it also swept up lots of people who weren't necessarily guilty at a time when DNA forensics were not in existence that could validate a verdict. This transitional phase in American justice is the setting of the film (1970-1979), and ironically the pendulum swung precisely because of the emergence of the kind of people - often violent drug addled hippies - that Jeffrey MacDonald claimed entered his home one night and changed his life forever.

    The two great performances here are Karl Malden as Freddy Kassab and Gary Cole as Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald. One night in 1970, when MacDonald was still a captain and surgeon in the army, someone kills MacDonald's entire family in their home as they all sleep in their beds - his wife, their unborn child, and his two daughters. However, Jeffrey MacDonald has only superficial wounds and survives. He is instantly suspect number one as far as the military is concerned, and at first father-in-law Freddy Kassab is on his side. An investigation is launched, and eventually the military drops the case for lack of evidence. After MacDonald appears on Dick Cavett and seems to joke around about the murder and the ordeal, Freddy begins to have a change of heart and becomes convinced of MacDonald's guilt.

    It doesn't help Freddy that he seems to be a black-or-white all-or-nothing kind of thinker and renderer of snap judgments. It doesn't help MacDonald that he is a bit of a narcissist who seems to really be enjoying his new-found bachelorhood and that he was less than a saint when he was married to Freddy's daughter - he did cheat, and he did use mood altering prescription drugs to deal with his grueling schedule while in the army.

    Then both men have to deal with what is really the luck of the draw in any criminal or civil case for that matter - how good is the attorney on your case, and how good is he in particular on the day(s) that he is in front of a jury on your individual case. Of course, Freddy doesn't really have an attorney, but the hard-charging D.A. that decides to go after MacDonald (Andy Griffith as take-no-prisoners Victor Worheide) dies before much progress can be made. Who takes his place? A seemingly mild-mannered southern gentleman (Gary Grubbs as James Blackburn). Freddy, a New Yorker, thinks this guy is just too bland to go after his son-in-law with the necessary vigor and considers drastic action. Meanwhile, Jeffrey MacDonald, now a wealthy doctor, having hired the best counsel, is planning TV appearances, getting manicures, and putting people who were originally on his side ill at ease with his carefree disposition.

    How does this all play out? Well, google will give you a better and more complete answer than I ever could, but watching this drama play out on screen is worth your while, even if the film is obviously biased against MacDonald.

    There is one scene that is a real eye-roller - I don't know if it actually happened but it lets you know that even in 1984 Hollywood thought gun control would work. Kassab is confiding to his wife that if Jeffrey gets off this time - the 1979 trial - he is considering taking justice into his own hands...by getting a gun permit??? If this film has taught us anything is that murderers don't knock and they certainly aren't stopped by gun permit paperwork.

    This is a long one at 200 minutes, but worth your time. It may never be on TV again because to air it they'd also have to air a bunch of disclaimers, particularly about some of the prosecutors in the case, several of whom turned out to be less than of the purest motives and ethics themselves. But don't be too hard on them, after all prosecutors ARE actually lawyers. What would you expect? Highly recommended.
  • I remember being riveted by this movie when it first appeared on TV in 1984. It was a really well done TV movie, especially the acting by Gary Cole. As far as McDonalds guilt goes, I really don't know, but the film will make you lean towards definite guilt. The one question is why? Those children being brutally slain goes beyond comprehension. The movie gave me a real feeling of being there by capturing the mood of the late sixties-early seventies. If McDonald was a true sociopath this film did an over the top job of presenting it. To this day McDonald vehemently denies his guilt and actively pursues legal routes to free himself from jail. I'm waiting for the DVD release, and I think I'll be waiting a long time. I have the rare laserdisc which will have to do.
  • Although this is a truly powerful piece of drama it shows how dangerous these "based on a true story" concepts are. Like most people I accepted this film as gospel in what it delivered. For anyone interested I suggest you check out a follow up book Fatal Justice which points out how Dr MacDonald has encountered many injustices and points out new evidence and confessions which basically places these "crazed hippies" at the house. Also the author of the book on which this film was based has since been discredited in relation to the false characteristics he attributed to Dr MacDonald which simply were created to sell more books and they sure did.
  • Tara-719 September 1999
    This was a great story, but the book was even better! The fact that it is based on a true case makes it even better. If you like suspense movies and legal thrillers, this movie has it all. If you liked this movie, definitely definitely read the book.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Use some common sense: The jury at MacDonald's trial convicted him YEARS before Fatal Vision was published. Indeed, the jurors, who didn't even know Joe McGinniss or why he was attending the trial, deliberated for only six hours because they found the evidence so convincing. McGinniss himself was convinced that MacDonald was innocent when he agreed to write the book, only to be won over by the strength of the evidence. Therefore, in spite of what dtucker and MacDonald himself say, the book had NOTHING to do with the verdict or the fact that all appeals have failed. An army of high-priced defense lawyers -- including none other than Alan Dershowitz, who won acquittals for O.J. Simpson and Claus von Bulow -- has been unable to overturn the original verdict even now that DNA technology is available to them.
  • Verau26 September 2006
    I have always been interested in the the McDonald (Fatal Vision) murders. Ever since I read Joe McGinniss' book I have tried to keep up with any developments in the case. Unlike dtucker86, I am not totally convinced that Jeff McDonald is innocent. I also can't say with 100 percent certainty that he is guilty either, but I do lean toward the latter. First of all, most doctors will tell you that if you receive an injury to the head severe enough to knock you out during a traumatic event, your memory of that event is usually either non-existent or severely impaired. McDonald had total recall. He even remembered many minute details. How was he able to do that? Furthermore, how many criminals walk around intent on killing innocent women and children without even bringing their own weapons? Speaking of motive, why would these people kill children who were not even a threat to them? The children were in bed. If the intent of the hippie murderers was to kill McDonald, then why didn't they do that? It would also seem to me that a violent struggle on the first floor would have awaken everyone in the house. So, why were all the victims still upstairs in their bedrooms? Why didn't they come down the stairs or at least run and hide? Also, why didn't these killers bring weapons with them? If their intent was to kill innocent people they should have come prepared with guns, knives, etc. Instead they brought "candles." Where they afraid there would be no electricity? All of the weapons used were from the McDonald's house. Furthermore, the drug-crazed killers "hid" the weapons (but not the candles) in the bushes where they could be found but were careful not to leave fingerprints on the weapons. Am I to believe that these four people cared so little about what they were doing that they answered the phone while in the commission of these horrendous murders, risking tipping off whoever had called, and that the dropping of the telephone receiver was the only sound the neighbors below heard? Am I also to believe that these killers cared so little about being caught that they talked openly about what they had done and walked around wearing bloody clothes (all four of them)? If so, they had to not only be drugged out of their minds but they also had to be insane. I just can't believe four people in that condition could pull off such a thing without waking the whole neighborhood. McDonald admits he had several affairs while he was married. His wife's pregnancy might possibly have been an unwelcome development. That is a motive as far as I'm concerned (see Charles Stuart and Scott Peterson). Unfortunately, some men do kill their wives and children. These men generally don't look like or act like killers either (What does a killer look like or act like before he kills anyway?) I think the only way that McDonald's wife and children died upstairs in their bedrooms is because the only threat to them was from someone they knew and trusted.
  • alliesmom9724 January 2004
    I have my own opinions on the guilt or innocence of Jeffrey McDonald, but I do not intend to get into a sparring match over it here. I wanted to comment on the movie itself.

    I found this to be a very well made and well acted movie. I'm not a real big fan of Gary Cole but I thought he was great here--he had to display a whole gamut of emotions and did so quite admirably. The only thing I could really remember Karl Malden from other than this was "Pollyanna" and his acting has definitely improved over the years--I thought he did an excellent job. And Andy Griffith is a hoot, even in such a serious role! I also liked the flashback scenes that were used to help fill in the blanks in the couple's past.

    The only complaint I have is that by the movie starting with the minutes following the murders, you don't really get to feel you "knew" Collette and Kimmy and Kristy. It was a VERY effective opening scene but at the same time it sort of robbed the viewer of having any kind of relationship with Collette and the girls. The flashbacks helped--maybe if they had found a way to squeeze in a couple more? You couldn't help but feel horrified by what had happened to them, but I think it could have been felt more deeply if you had time to get more "attached" to them.

    Overall it was a good made for TV miniseries.
  • Joe McGuinness wrote about the McDonald case. First, I am skeptical about the doctor's role that night. Why did his beautiful pregnant wife and his beautiful two daughters get brutally murdered is still much a mystery to me much the Sam Sheppard case. Anyway the role of the doctor is played well by Gary Cole. The in-laws are played by Oscar winners, Karl Malden and Eva Marie Saint. To tell you the truth that I haven't read the book but I think the mini-series shows the tragedy carefully without being too gross. It does make you ask a lot of questions about why the doctor survived his wounds. Since McGuinness obviously is convinced by McDonald's guilt, you wonder too about it. There is still supporters like his second wife who appeared on Larry King Live once in a while trying to prove her husband's innocence. Unless he confesses, we will just never know but the mini-series provides a nice explanation anyway.
  • rindner224 August 2017
    Warning: Spoilers
    I have watched the movie several times. I have read the book 2 times. Mc Donald is an obvious sociopath. His behavior throughout the entire film is consistent with the actions of a sociopath. The physical evidence presented at trial clearly pointed to his guilt. The blood testimony in itself painted a pretty tough nut to crack. This case and the Scott Peterson case prove that a sociopath does what he has to do to protect his or hers way of life. Logic may or may not apply. Mc Donald had affairs. He obviously wasn't overly comfortable with his lifestyle. As with Peterson, he was deeply involved with other women. That is motive enough for a sociopath. Their wants trump anything anyone else would want or need. Murder is not a moral decision for a sociopath. It is a means to achieve an end. The issue of conscience doesn't exist for a sociopath. So judging Mc Donald using conventional logic just is not a good fit. To people of conscience, how could Mc Donald murder his wife and children? However, to a sociopath it is just a ways to a mean. Don't be fooled by Mc Donald's line of bull. This is what a sociopath is good at.
  • hellraiser723 June 2022
    Warning: Spoilers
    Warning do not read unless seen movie.

    It's always the last thing you would think would happen and even want to, but for all families it's a terrible reality we must face because it does. What makes this even more devastating is sometimes the perpetrator is someone within your circle of trust.

    This is one of my favorite TV miniseries and True Crime films, and an under the radar gem. It wasn't overlooked, this film was a big hit by the time it aired in 1984 but sadly as time went on it became forgotten, like most other TV movies and mini-series. Also, it became a bit of a lost gem as it's only had a VHS release from that wonderful company "Star Maker" which also rereleased other mini-series like "Donner Pass" and "Echoes in the Darkness", which will be stories for another time; however, this never a DVD or Blu Ray release. "Mill Creek Entertainment" should think of rereleasing this mini-series since this company has rereleased a long line of others so this should be next.

    This may sound strange but, in a way, this is also one of my favorite Father's Day films. I know, know strange as this isn't really an uplifting film (true crime never is) though it's kind of is by the end of the film. If you think about it, it makes sense as the film is mainly about a grandfather/father on a long crusade to seek justice for his lost daughter and grandchildren, this to me makes the film uplifting because he's doing what any good father figure would do.

    I really like the production value of this film, you can easily tell there was a great amount of effort and professionalism to this film as there are some good bits of cinematography, pacing, I even like some of the music in the film. One piece of music was in the promos, I know they weren't part of the original track though should of, but anyway that music just really gave me chills just really hammered the fact on how heinous and series the crime the film is based on truly is.

    But what really powered this film was in its level of intrigue and even a little dash of suspense. Despite this film about a real case from a long time ago and anyone that has read Joe McGuiness's true crime book or learned about this case in any other way, you probably already know how things turn out in the end. But the way the film just steadily unfolds it really puts you right back in that decade long gone and gives you a feel on the long and hard crusade to put a monster behind bars.

    This film has a very good cast which consists of a lot of familiar faces from veterans of TV and movies or even a few before they became familiar faces today.

    From Andy Griffith who was solid in this film despite not really in the miniseries that long though it makes sense due to what happened in reality to Victor Worheide. But it was just interesting just seeing him in a really serious role and movie and shows how underrated an actor he really is. Really like how he has a dry sense of humor but also is downright serious when he gets down to business. Though also the role he's in you can say is a foreshadowing for the other show he's famous for "Matlock" which came two years after this mini-series.

    Gary Cole who is another on my list of underrated actors, he is very solid in this film. This film was one of his debuts and a lot of famous and well-known faces have had their start playing bad guys. Gary is always good at playing both good guys and bad guys but this kind of bad guy he play's is different because he's one that exists and once again reminds us how monsters don't have to look inhuman to be monsters.

    We never really know the reason why Jeff did what he did, that is the billion-dollar question to this day that I honestly still have no answer for along with a lot of other serial murderers where reason is nonexistent. By the end of the film, we see a small montage of photos of Jeff MacDonald over the years and from those you can't help but ask the question how can someone that has achieved so much throughout life, making him almost the ideal guy turn out to be a monster. I don't know if something somewhere along the line made him turn this way or bring it out of him; or if he was always a monster, he just better at hiding it than others, which I'll admit that possibility chills me the most.

    It's understandable as to how no one could have suspected this guy of the inhuman acts he's done. You see him as a nice guy that is clean cut that pretty much has everything he wants and needs that doesn't seem like he hasn't told a lie in his life and has good relations with is family and everyone. From all those things it's easy to see how some people could easily dismiss this guy.

    But of course, as Robert Frost once said, "Nothing Gold Stays.", we see latter see from Jeff some of that golden boy mask begin to slip off, and we see those slip ups. Like in one scene, I'll admit just seeing the scenes of him living it up in California was just disgusting as if the guy hasn't lost anything despite the fact his loss took place one or two years ago; I've heard of bouncing back but no one who is human and has grieved deep loss can bounce back that fast.

    There is another moment when in a way he gives himself away to his lawyer when there is this overaggressive outburst when he makes a derogatory and non-ironic remark to the opposing lawyer who passed away years ago. That moment you can say he's shown his true colors which aren't gold but also if there is irony it's mainly toward himself as just like with Jeff the Nazi's have killed families without question, feeling, and no reason at all.

    However, what really gets to me is that after the tragedy throughout the film from beginning to end, he never really talks or acknowledges his wife and two children at all or much; some would see it as someone that finds it too painful to talk about but here it's like they never existed at all to him which I'll admit really made my guts boil.

    I like there is this one cinematography shot which is at the end of part one of the mini-series, we see him wave goodbye to his mother, but we see his mom along with ourselves are looking though a grated window. We see Jeff though that window at first clearly but then the camera slowly zooms out and window obscures our view of him, making him out of focus where we can barely see him at all. This in a way reflects both his relationship to his mother but also to everyone around him, how he was never a very close person at all. Throughout the years had this veil of illusion that has divided him from us, to see him for who he really is.

    Karl Madden another underrated actor is great as Freddy Kassab in a way he's the main protagonist in this whole film from beginning to end and one you feel deep pathos for as he's a grandfather having to endure an unthinkable loss. It's interesting how at first this guy was one of Jeff's strongest supporters which is understandable, Jeff was his friend and almost like the son he never had. To suspect your best friend or someone in your circle of trust of murder is almost unthinkable and hard to swallow.

    But then of course after a while Freddy and we begin to see one by one some of the red lights turn on. Like in one scene where Jeff is in this talk show and we present some facts, like the number of wounds he received, Freddy and we see that red light because we both know that's not the correct number. It also is another give away by Jeff, despite being highly intelligent he's not that good of a liar or at least not as good as he thinks.

    And this shows once Freddy goes over the testimony in the hearing of Jeff and here, he notices there are inconsistencies in his testimony and he's right things just aren't adding up. Like the fact there was blood in three rooms of the home but not a single speck in the area where Jeff was, which makes no sense. Just seeing Freddy work he really should have been a Police Detective as he's got the right stuff as we see him investigate the house and goes over the fact and Jeff's testimony to get physical positive conformation of his suspicions.

    But also see his determination and the reality he faces in dealing with how hard it is to prosecute and retry a suspect. And of course, there are some bumps along that long hard crusade which gives Freddy along with his wife longer aching grief. That just even more makes us want them both to win, despite the fact we know the results, the amount of intrigue and suspense the film creates really puts you with them and in their place.

    There are some emotional moments, like those flashbacks which I'll admit really tug at my heartstrings as we see both Freddy and Mildred (Eva Marie Saint) remember their times with their daughter and grandchildren and knowing those were the very last times, they had with them. I'll admit seeing those scenes made me grateful and thank God, that I had the time with my grandparents, and they saw me grow up to be an adult.

    But there is one moment which is haunting when the Criminologist describes in graphic detail which I'll admit made me sick. But also, just what happens after it's done when we see Freddy just break down and cry. I'll admit that part really made me cry and want to hug the guy. I can't really imagine how hard it was for him to hear all that, but the truth is the truth, it never is. It also is one of those times I honestly wish I could of been there, done something anything to stop it from happening but the sad reality is there really wasn't anything I or anyone else could of done because we weren't nor could we have known.

    What you see truly isn't always what you get, because you could be missing a bigger, darker, and sinister picture.

    Rating: 4 stars.
  • iainsmith-1806114 February 2021
    Gripping true life drama, not to be missed. Tells the story of Dr Jeffrey McDonald who is accused of murdering his family . Guilty or not ?
  • laurapacino-869365 December 2020
    The blood trace tells the full story! No doubt to his guilt
  • I have a theory about what happened: That early morning Colette confronted Jeff about his constant cheating on her. They began arguing. She told him she was taking the kids to her parent's house and staying there awhile. He shouted back that she wasn't going anywhere. He then flew into a rage (which he was known to do) and killed her. He killed the children to eliminate witnesses. As for those hippies, he met them or saw them sometime in his life! All the new evidence was proven to be bunk; there is an answer for all of it! He made up a story too close to the Manson Murders. Pig in Blood; COME ON NOW! He constantly lied throughout the case and has lied since the case! He needs to rot in jail then go straight to hell upon his death! I base my theory on the fact that the day before the murders, Colette told friends she was leaving Jeff! His story is ridiculous! Everything the defense came up with has been disproved including bogus new evidence. All you people who think he is not guilty are wrong! Why was he left alive? End of story! Just wanna add that Colette might have been packing a suitcase when Jeff flew off the handle. There was clothes all over the floor in the hallway. She definitely was leaving him.
  • There has been so much written about the MacDonald case that it's hard to find an objective opinion. There is indeed circumstantial evidence to convict MacDonald, but there are many troubling aspects of the case, including the lack of any coherent motive.

    Those who believe in his guilt claim he's a sociopath, but this is largely based on Joe McGinniss' book, "Fatal Vision" and the TV movie. However his (McGinniss) credibility has been severely compromised through the years, the most recent example being his book on Sarah Palin, which has been condemned even by those hostile to her. There has been no psychological evaluation proving MacDonald capable of such a brutal murder, and his actions before and after the murders likewise do not support that theory.

    DNA hair evaluation has been inconclusive, showing hairs with MacDonald's DNA but also showing that others were in the apartment.

    Did MacDonald murder his family? He could have . . . but I would not judge him on the basis on a TV-movie obviously biased against him, and written by an author whose objectivity has been discredited.

    Based on what I know, I would have to find MacDonald innocent. The prosecution simply has not proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as it must do according to our laws.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I find it ridiculous that one can even question Macdonalds guilt. There is no question, HE IS GUILTY. Sure there may have been a small, very small amount of doubt, but opposed to the GREAT amount of EVIDENCE that piles high, in fact shows his guilt. As far as Joe McGinness, Macdonald wanted and gave him information for the book. Yes he may have sued, how strange after it bit him in the ass. People need to comprehend that sociopaths are just that, as was Macdonald, clearly he lacked remorse, judgment and creditability (when it came down to it,pain ). Watching this monster on court TV interview, it would be guaranteed if he got out he would kill again.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    a movie so good that 3-hrs will pass unnoticeably thanks to the shocking and mind blowing content and great acting delivery. upon reading about the facts when not familiar about any details, the only defense angle played more recently was the hippie revenge for a lack of drug supply from a doctor. the illogical part is why would they not kill him too ...the motive is not confirmed but more plausible based on display of character hence he's in prison till today. the movie portrays the evidence and father-in-law persistence and determination despite his pain in having have to discover the true horrific details needed for prosecution. a very satisfactory 3-hr spent. We'll see what the ID TV brings new to the case on dec 10, i hope they add more common sense and character analysis.
  • owenthorsen20 August 2023
    Jurors come into a trial with a lot of pre-determined thoughts. Sure, judges tell them not to make decisions based on their thought but that's had to do.

    The vast majority of people detest anyone who injures a child or a woman. If children or women are killed they hate the person who is thought to have killed them.

    Throw in the facts - my opinion - that McDonald came off as arrogant, he cheated on his wife, he had almost ridiculous claims of what happened in the crime scene, his injuries inflicted by the killers were about the level of what a guy could get mowing the lawn, and the jury is going to convict.

    Guilty.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    It shows the Green Beret doctor who is shown to be a loving doting husband and father. But it also shows him as a smug womanizer there who is way too overconfident.

    But really it shows the late Karl Malden and Eva Marie Saint as the concerned parents that are grieving the loss of their daughter Colette and grandchildren and took nine years to bring Dr. Jeffrey McDonald to justice. Never give up nor give in attitude.

    Still Gary Cole brings both warmth and that of smugness to his breakout role as the anti-hero antagonist.

    Sadly two tragedies occurred, Judith Barsi who plays a murdered daughter would be murdered in real life by her own father along with her mother and father later taken his own life in 1988.

    Albert Salimi who played the no nonsense judge would kill himself and his wife due to depression in 1990.

    Still such a thrilling classic and that is why the late Andy Griffith as the quirky but wise prosecutor would get his title role on "Matlock!"
  • emoly552 April 2007
    Warning: Spoilers
    I have not seen the movie but have read about the actual case the movie and book is set on. MacDonald did not kill his family. The author of the book made this story up and real facts of the case and MacDonald's life prove that the author is lying. MacDonald is in jail right now for these murders but only because the Army officials investigating the case lied, changed actual evidence to make him seem guilty, and did a poor job of gathering evidence at the crime scene. The truth as been slowly coming out since MacDonald's conviction. The real murders and a girl who was with the murders and witnessed the murders, have even confessed to the authorities and other people.
An error has occured. Please try again.