.

'Drew Peterson: Untouchable' is One Hairy Movie

If nothing else, Rob Lowe's lip fit right in with reality.

In an earlier review, I proclaimed that the 2011 film was the most hirsute film since the hairy 1995 classic Braveheart. But sorry, Matt Damon and company, Drew Peterson: Untouchable just beat you out for the shaggiest film of the last 10 years.

Everyone here, from Drew Peterson (played by a capable Rob Lowe) to the minister that marries Drew and Stacy Peterson (Kaley Cuoco), sports a lip full of fur. I even saw some fuzz above the mouth of the Petersons’ female next-door neighbor (who is never mentioned by name here).

But the mustaches add to the realism. Look around, Will County: From Westfield Louis Joliet Mall to Pilcher Park and every empty barber shop in between, we’re the mustache capital of the free world and this made-for-TV movie confirms it.

In all seriousness, there’s nothing funny about double possible homicide, and this film confirms that. Looking back now, the real-life TV excerpts even look downright tasteless, with a Today Show anchor calling prime suspect Peterson a “Romeo who is extremely unlucky with women” at one point. Romeo? Sorry, even William Shakespeare couldn’t concoct a plotline as bizarre as this.

The film is based on Patch editor Joe Hosey’s book Fatal Vows: The Tragic Wives of Sergeant Drew Peterson, and Joe is portrayed as a crafty print reporter penetrating Drew Peterson’s inner circle, leaving the blow-dried TV reporters befuddled and clueless.

The newsroom of the Joliet Herald-News is completely glamorized here, with flat-screen TVs and colorful maps of Illinois adorning the walls. The filmmakers failed to capture the dirty coffee mugs, stained carpeting, crusty editors and bad lighting that characterized the old McDonough Street office.

The plot of the movie remains true to the real-life saga, which is a relief. After all, you can’t get much weirder than what we can only imagine really happened to Drew’s third and fourth wives.

Rob Lowe really did his homework on the South Suburban accent here. Lowe nails the flat nasally voice that we’re all familiar with. I can easily imagine him perfectly ordering up a poor boy at Merichka’s.

One minor complaint about the overall film: Where was Will County State’s Attorney Jim Glasgow? With his neatly trimmed ‘stache and muscle Ts, he would have been an easy cast fit here.

“Drew Peterson: Untouchable” airs on the Lifetime network on Saturday, January 21 at 7 p.m.

Tom Selleck January 18, 2012 at 01:00 AM
Let me r-e-p-e-a-t my self! No physical evidence !!!!!!! No physical evidence!!!! As far as the neighbor, once again hearsay and personal observation on his part! That's not proof, but speculation! Drews being held this long and on a 20 million bond, because it's a political and personal issue! There are other's that are caught with a actual smoking gun in their hand and committed far worse murders and only get 500,000-1 million dollar bonds ! This case like I said ,is and only is based on hearsay! There is no physical evidence , other wise D.P. would already be convicted ! My point is that hearsay sucks and is a bunch alof B.S. for anyone to be convicted with ! Show me the physical evidence? What physical evidence? None !!
Michael January 18, 2012 at 01:05 AM
original post
Tom Selleck January 18, 2012 at 01:07 AM
Oh I forgot! Drews lawyers asked numerous times for a bond reduction and they are refused ,but others do get bond reductions for murders, rapes and other violent crimes with far more evidence against them! So why is that???
Tom Selleck January 18, 2012 at 01:35 AM
Harold how am I crazy? I'm speaking facts here!
Flora Dora January 18, 2012 at 01:41 AM
Thanks for yet another good review, Dave.
samuel January 18, 2012 at 02:00 AM
Sellek, you may repeat yourself ad nauseum, but it makes you no more correct than they first time you stated your unfounded opinion that there is nothing but hearsay evidence. The reason Peterson has been denied bond reduction, and the reason he is staying in jail during the appeal process has not been made public, but the fact remains that four justices have looked at the evidence and deemed it in the best interest of the public that Drew Peterson remain in detention (numerous times). They don't make such decisions based on hearsay but on legal precedent. As for physical evidence, let's take a look at what pathologist and coroner Dr. Larry Blum saw when he examined the body of Kathleen Savio. His opinion was that her head injury occurred after her body had settled in the bathtub. He also determined that she had deep bruising around the area of the diaphragm "down to the bone" that was not consistent with a fall. He said that althoughhe had seen numerous bathtub drownings he had never seen a body in the position of Kathleen Savio's. Etc. Etc. Peterson is accused of murder and he's going to get his day in court. Like it or not, that's the reality. It's too bad no proper investigation was done at the time that Kathleen Savio was found dead. It might have saved the life of yet another woman.
Tom Selleck January 18, 2012 at 02:15 AM
The autopsy the second time is another ones opinion ! It will come down to one pathologist exam vs. the others! And why should he stay in jail! He's no more of a threat to the public than other murders that get released on bond!
Tom Selleck January 18, 2012 at 02:22 AM
Samuel say that the second autopsy is correct! That's not physical evidence or proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Drew committed the crime! The question is what physical evidence is there that Drew went into the house and killed Kathleen? None! The second autopsy is only telling us it was murder, but by who! That's the big question!
Watchful Eye January 18, 2012 at 03:25 AM
Ah, Selleck, now we're getting somewhere. IF the jury does firmly believe that Kathleen WAS murdered and didn't die by an accident, then the next logical step is to consider WHO had the ways, means and most to benefit by murdering her. If the circumstantial evidence paints a clear and obvious picture of the crime and a motive, it can be powerful. I've yet to see the laws changed to say that a murder defendant has to be seen on video committing the crime, leaving behind absolute proof of DNA and specimen, in order to be convicted. Any juror that goes into a trial clearly biased either way is dangerous. How can you be so sure there won't be jurors with views opposite of yours that wind up on the jury, win over the others and and call for a guilty verdict, especially after considering the testimony? You refuse to acknowledge what is already known about the circumstances of Kathleen Savio's death, but just keep repeating there is no evidence, except hearsay. Selleck, you say there's no proof Drew went into Kathleen's house, but you refuse to accept the possibility he can't account for his whereabouts during crucial hours of her death, and his "alibi" is no longer available. Talk about biased and boneheaded. Meh, I guess some people expect video or it didn't happen. As much as I believe it does not look good for Peterson because of what I've seen and heard via testimony, I refuse to insist he'll be found guilty. You go right on ahead and talk nonsense. :-)
Tom Selleck January 18, 2012 at 03:45 AM
That's the big question! Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?If I was on the jury I would make my own decision and would not be swayed by other jurors to vote their way! He did account for his where abouts including his son, or can't he be used? As far as testimony, once again hearsay! One more thing ! Why do you see a lot of murders walking these days! No DNA , eye witnesses , concrete physical evidence and so forth!
Tom Selleck January 18, 2012 at 03:49 AM
One more thing no one can answer ? Why should he be held on 20 million bond when other murders even caught red handed get lower bonds and get out on bond!
Watchful Eye January 18, 2012 at 03:56 AM
Never mind.
Tom Selleck January 18, 2012 at 04:17 AM
My issue is the high bond too! It's not because he's a threat to society, but it's a political statement because he made a mockery of everyone ,i.e. Jim Glasgow and the judicial system !
Joe January 23, 2012 at 06:59 PM
I don't know if the word "taint" is the right word, maybe remind is a better fit word. Remind them what a douche bag this guy really is and what he has done to 2 of his wives.
Joe January 23, 2012 at 07:02 PM
Well, there is enough evidence that Kathleen was murdered. That's what the prosecutors are trying to get him on, not Stacy, btw!
Joe January 23, 2012 at 07:08 PM
It's amazing once again how someone can lack common sense as a human being. Wake up ya idiot! Yeah it was a black man in the middle of the night that killed Stacy. Yeah that's it! Dude wake up you fool!
Joe January 23, 2012 at 07:18 PM
If people like you are on the jury, we are indeed in trouble!!! That's why OJ got off cause of idiots like yourself that don't have any bit of common sense to put 2 and 2 together and think for themselves. I bet you're a liberal too if I had to guess? DDDUUUUGGH, DNA is not proof that OJ did it. What's DNA? The reason why OJ got off is because of ignorant people like yourself in this world. Do yourself a favor and stop posting on here, you sound more ignorant each time.
Joe January 23, 2012 at 07:19 PM
Why don't you pay it for him if you feel he's getting the short end of the stick, mr. ignoramous!
Tom Selleck January 24, 2012 at 04:32 AM
If I had the 2 million I would !!
Tom Selleck January 25, 2012 at 05:36 PM
Hey Joe it's stupid and ignorant people like you that have Drew already convicted without a trial! In the U.S. we are innocent until proven guilty! Stacy is missing!What evidence could they find in he house? None! Other than she lived there!
Joseph Hosey (Editor) January 25, 2012 at 05:40 PM
Tom Selleck, who are you talking to?
Tom Selleck January 25, 2012 at 05:43 PM
Joe, What do you mean!
Tom Selleck January 25, 2012 at 05:46 PM
Joe, I don't know anything that can help the Kathy or Stacy case, but I know what I know about Drew!
Joseph Hosey (Editor) January 25, 2012 at 05:47 PM
Who are you calling ignorant and stupid, and accusing of having "convicted Drew without a trial?"
Tom Selleck January 25, 2012 at 05:51 PM
Joe, I believe it's another Joe leaving comments here that I'm talking too! I see from your comments you use your first and last name! My comments are directed to Joe who likes to call me names over my comments!
Michael Waugh January 25, 2012 at 05:51 PM
The sad truth here is" SOMEONE "got away with murder! Human behavior is stronger evidence than DNA. It dosen't take a FBI profiler to see what a sick person Drew is. We all know people like him,but he will tell ya " I'm just a nice guy! A real lover"
Tom Selleck January 25, 2012 at 05:58 PM
Joe Hosey I respect your comments as long as you respect mine, but I don't need other jerks here calling me names just because I believe in what I want to believe and what I may think of the Drew case!
Watchful Eye January 25, 2012 at 06:17 PM
Hey Selleck. Your issue is the high bond. We get it already. I think the needle is stuck on the scratch in the record, dude. Fix it, would ya?
Tom Selleck January 25, 2012 at 06:28 PM
Watchful eye I still have a right to my opinion and you should respect mine as I respect your opinions! Even if it was you or anyone else in his situation I would feel the same about the high bond! If Drews guilty , he's guilty, I've got no problem with that,but we don't know that yet until there's a far trail!
joe greenberg September 13, 2012 at 02:23 PM
I think Tom Selleck is either Drew Peterson or one of his lawyers. Wow. Its obvious!!

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something