User reviews

(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.

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.

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.

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.

... 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

The blood trace tells the full story! No doubt to his guilt