No. No. No....Not more ludicrous liberal propaganda!

Rating: Null/10 (2 June 2004)

First off, as far as Miss Theron's performance in this film goes, there is no argument. Charlize is simply incredible and although I thought Naomi Watts deserved the Oscar, I can live with the Academy's decision. But awards aside, let's consider the film. The film is a docudrama about the life of Aileen Wuornos, a hitchhiking prostitute who became an infamous highway serial killer. The film was produced by Theron because she wanted no studio interference with the project. Her bravado in this regard is admirable, as is her courage in selecting such a daring part so early in her career. Her honest attempt at portraying Aileen is without question a thing of beauty to behold. What is NOT beautiful, is the message the film attempts to try to get across. Contrary, to Roger Ebert's opinion (incidentally Ebert remains one of my favorite film critics) the film attempts to persuade the viewer that Miss Wuornos was an unloved, desperate, confused and mistreated street hooker who was pushed into her horrid actions by an alienated, uncaring society. Certainly, IF Charlize Theron's Aileen and the real life Aileen are the same person, then yes, I would agree with this. However, having done a good deal of research on the REAL Aileen Wuornos, I realized that the film leaves out important details to manipulate its audience.
Rookie director Patty Jenkins chose to emphasize Aileen's wild and wacky relationship with her lesbian lover, incorrectly called Shelby in the film and portrayed by Christina Ricci. Aileen's real lover's name was Tyria Moore. She was freckled-faced and red headed. The writers have obviously made deliberate changes to avoid a lawsuit since she's still alive! But back to the missed details of the film. The film leaves out the fact that Wuornos often beat her ex-husband with his cane when he wouldn't give her money. It leaves out the fact that she propelled a billiards ball into a bartender's temple when she was in one of her angry moods. It leaves out the fact that she once held up a convenience store at gunpoint while dressed in a bikini. Those are some of the facts the film leaves out. But let's consider what the film covers about Wuornos. The main problem is the overemphasis on Aileen's lesbian lover. The love scenes are long and sometimes unnecessary.
Also, Jenkins shows us only three of the six (possibly seven murders) committed by Wuornos. In two of the three murders, Aileen is shown as defending herself. Actually, she herself claimed that she was only raped and sodomized by Richard Malloy, her first victim. She admitted to cold-bloodedly killing the six others. (Of course she changed her stories between self-defense and murder many times throughout her arrest, trial and incarceration). The biggest flaw of the film is its failure to show any flashbacks about Wuorno's traumatic childhood which was complicated, intriguing and sad. Overall, Ricci and Theron were outstanding performers in the piece and Jenkins certainly is a promising newcomer, but the suggestion of the film that Wuornos was a victim of circumstance is unacceptable. The families of the victims were horrified by this film and if you know a few basic facts about the real Aileen Wuornos, you will be too.