I must confess that I'm sort of addicted to Nick Broomfield's documentaries, where, he never takes no for an answer and his relentless pursuit of subjects whether paid or not. If they are paid, and wont grant an interview, he throws such a guilt trip on them as he does with Arlene, one of Aileen Wuorno's friend. A testimonial for his stubborn pursuit, is the list of calls that were not returned or shunned as the end credits roll! This adds a certain humor to the otherwise drab movie meant for intellectuals and not for people who watch imbecile animation movies. The only one that comes close to Nick Broomfield is Mike Wallace of "60 Minutes" but Wallace, is chasing con artists and broiler room operators and not serial killers. I have seen "Monster" and the other "Wuornos" Doc. from Broomfield. Suffice to say it makes a riveting piece of a movie. Since we know the subject of the movie has been found guilty by a jury and the only question remains, is how she could have avoided the death penalty? The most chilling scene is the rundown of an execution in an actual chambers.It's obvious that she hated males of certain age, who resembled her father and self defense could not have been the motive for seven murders! I think she would have been serving life, if she was represented by some one like F. Lee Bailey, which brings up the crucial question that public defenders are not in the same league as private lawyers. This movie shows that there is legal system but no justice when pedophiles are free and a serial killer is executed.

This film, and Broomfield's follow up, should be viewed by anyone who wants to reexamine their feelings about capital punishment. Wurous is abused by everyone, obviously at least half mad, and in a state of terror at being incarcerated. A ghoulish group of hanger ons try to exploit her at every turn (interestingly, the lawyer is given a questionable reprieve in the sequel) and even grease her path to the electric chair. The system to takes a crack at exploiting her "fame." Some dismiss Broomfield's work as egocentric and cheap shot ridden; I find it honest and actually quite compassionate. I think he was derided for presenting an unflattering portrait of the then in vogue Courtney Love. Well, looks like he was right on that one too. This is, I think, his strongest film. But see the sequel too; one the grim jokes turn themselves inside out.

I thought this movie was awful. I give it no stars. Arlene Pralle, and her husband are nuts. Adopting a serial killer, excuse me? I'll say it, there are just some odd people in this world.I thought the Pralle's were also very greedy people, who only did it for money. Aileen is one scary and intimidating person who needs to grow up. She obviously never did and hated men with every fiber of her being.She was married to one guy for three months, until Aileen beat him with his own walking stick. That's when she hit the streets again. She started on the streets at age 15.

The movie jacket claims this film is along the lines of Michael Moore's Roger and Me and Errol Morris' The Thin Blue Line, I wouldn't go that far. This film uncovers the injustice Aileen received throughout her legal process, but it was lacking stylistically. The lighting was poor, unnecessary pauses distracted the viewer from the content of the interviews, and the editing could have been cleaner. Regardless of these stylistic faults, the film's subject matter carries the film, that and Wuornos's chillingly perceptive outbursts in court. This woman's story--told correctly--is a valuable lesson to Americans and brings to light the need to reform the criminal justice system, which for Aileen, was corrupt on every level.