Gaskins: The Hitchhiker Killer is a new true-crime film about Donald “Pee Wee” Gaskins, one of the most notorious serial killers from South Carolina. The film is based on true events and attempts to portray the life and crimes of Gaskins. On paper, that sounds like an interesting premise. After all, Gaskins was a figure who provides more than enough material for a dark, disturbing and, above all, psychologically interesting film. Unfortunately, Gaskins: The Hitchhiker Killer does very little with that material.
Gaskins: The Hitchhiker Killer Is Based on a True Story
The fact that Gaskins: The Hitchhiker Killer is based on a true story actually makes the end result even more frustrating. This is not a fictional serial killer who can be shaped however the filmmakers see fit. These were real people, real victims and real families who had to live with the consequences of Gaskins' actions.
That is precisely why you would expect a film like this to try to understand who Gaskins was, how he developed into a serial killer and why he was able to get away with his behavior for so long. The film falls seriously short in that regard.
Gaskins Gets Almost No Background
One of the biggest problems with Gaskins: The Hitchhiker Killer is how little the film does with the background of its main character. Who was Donald Gaskins before he became a serial killer? What experiences shaped him? What motivated him? How did his mind work? The film provides satisfying answers to almost none of these questions.
We are certainly shown that Gaskins is a murderer, but the film gives us very little reason to understand why we should be interested in this particular man. As a result, the character remains remarkably shallow.
That is especially disappointing because the official synopsis describes a man who used charm and manipulation to build a criminal empire. That concept could have provided an excellent foundation for a psychological thriller.
A Story Told From a Single Perspective
The story is primarily told from Gaskins' perspective. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. In fact, a limited perspective can be extremely effective in a film about a serial killer. But that perspective needs to add something to the story. Here, it rarely does.
A film like this could have been much more interesting if it had incorporated several different perspectives. Those of the victims, their families, people from Gaskins' life and eventually the authorities trying to understand him could all have added something valuable. Looking at the events from different angles could have provided a much more complete and compelling portrait of both the man and the damage he caused.
Instead, the audience remains largely trapped inside the perspective of the killer.
There Is Absolutely No Build-Up of Tension
Perhaps the biggest problem with Gaskins: The Hitchhiker Killer is the complete lack of tension. The murders keep happening, but the film seems to have very little interest in doing anything with them. Something is set up, something terrible happens and then the story simply moves on. And the same pattern repeats itself.
The way the murders follow one another is, at times, almost unbelievable. Not because the events themselves are implausible – these were real crimes, after all – but because the film simply places them one after another without any real dramatic build-up. It just lets everything happen.
As a result, there is almost no sense of tension, danger or horror. You are watching a series of events, but rarely feel that anything is actually at stake.
The Victims Barely Feel Like Characters
This lack of attention to the victims is also one of the most troubling aspects of the film. Because Gaskins: The Hitchhiker Killer is so heavily focused on the killer, the victims barely feel like characters. They appear, briefly become part of the story and then disappear again.
That is not only a missed opportunity from a storytelling perspective, but also deeply unfortunate on a human level. In a true story about a serial killer, you would expect the film to show who these people were. That they had lives, families and stories of their own. Instead, they primarily become part of Gaskins' story.
This makes the film emotionally detached and can even come across as downright insulting to the victims and their families. At times, the film seems far more interested in the serial killer than in the people whose lives were destroyed by his actions.
A Film Made Up of Disconnected Moments
Perhaps the biggest structural problem is that Gaskins: The Hitchhiker Killer barely feels like a coherent film. It mostly consists of disconnected moments. One scene happens, then another scene follows, and then something else happens. Yet it rarely feels as though these events are naturally leading toward one another.
There is very little sense of a clear dramatic progression. As a result, you will regularly find yourself wondering what exactly the point is. Where is this story going? What is the film trying to say? Why are we seeing this particular event? What does it change about the character? Too often, the answer seems to be: something else simply happens.
The Editing of Gaskins: The Hitchhiker Killer Is a Mess
The editing certainly does not help the film. It frequently feels rushed and disjointed. Transitions between events can feel abrupt, and the film seems to struggle to turn its various scenes into a coherent whole. This makes it even harder to establish any real sense of time, development or continuity.
Good editing can sometimes make even a mediocre script considerably more effective. Here, the opposite happens. The editing only emphasizes how little cohesion there seems to be in the material.
Taylor Stiles Fails to Convince as Pee Wee Gaskins
The lead performance is another problem. Taylor Stiles plays Donald “Pee Wee” Gaskins and is therefore at the center of the film for most of its runtime. The problem is that Stiles simply does not radiate much charisma.
And that is a rather significant problem when the film wants us to believe that Gaskins was an exceptionally charismatic man.
Gaskins is supposed to be someone who could easily win people over. Someone who inspired trust, impressed those around him and attracted women with seemingly little effort. His ability to manipulate people is an important part of the character. Yet when watching Taylor Stiles, it is difficult to understand where exactly that charisma is supposed to come from.
There is simply very little remarkable about this version of Gaskins. The film tells us that he is charismatic, but it rarely shows us that charisma. And that distinction is crucial.
The Acting Is Often Almost Amateurish
On top of that, the acting throughout the film is hardly impressive. At several points, the performances feel almost amateurish. Emotions come across as unnatural, dialogue is not always delivered convincingly, and some scenes consequently have more of the feel of a cheap production than a serious true-crime film.
That makes it even harder to care about the characters or become genuinely invested in what is happening on screen.
A Missed Opportunity for an Interesting True-Crime Film
And that is ultimately the biggest disappointment about Gaskins: The Hitchhiker Killer. The source material is interesting enough. Donald “Pee Wee” Gaskins was a serial killer with a history spanning several decades. The film therefore has all the ingredients for a dark true-crime story centered around manipulation, psychological terror and the consequences for his victims. The story also covers a period stretching from the 1960s through the 1980s.
Yet almost none of these possibilities are used effectively. Instead, we get a film that jumps from one event to another without sufficient background, meaningful character development, tension or genuine attention to the victims.
Gaskins: The Hitchhiker Killer Review – Conclusion
Gaskins: The Hitchhiker Killer has an interesting subject, but unfortunately does very little with it. The film is based on a true story, yet barely uses that foundation to give its characters or events any real meaning. Gaskins' background remains largely unexplored, his motivations are unclear and the victims are not sufficiently portrayed as people.
There is also virtually no build-up of tension. The murders follow one another as if the film is simply ticking items off a checklist. The editing is messy, the story feels like a collection of disconnected moments and the acting is often painfully weak. Perhaps the biggest problem of all is Taylor Stiles as Gaskins. The film wants us to believe that this man was enormously charismatic, yet Stiles struggles to convey that charisma.
What remains is a shallow and remarkably uninspired true-crime film that could have been so much more.
Rating: 3/10
