Review: Psycho Killer

Image courtesy of 20th Century Studios.

A new serial killer thriller from the writer of "Seven" and "8mm" would seem like a movie of some intrigue, but unfortunately Gavin Polone's "Psycho Killer" is a mostly lumbering affair, much like its villain. It feels like a movie that is scraped together with pieces of other, better movies of this type as well as some lesser efforts (the killer's gas mask seems to be borrowed from the grisly and mostly unseen "Found").

The picture follows a young state trooper, Jane Archer (Georgina Campbell), who becomes obsessed with catching a killer who preys on those along the nation's highways and is known as the Satanic Slasher, whose name is more descriptive than it is creative. Her obsession started after she watched the killer murder her husband, also a cop, along a desolate stretch of Kansas highway.

The killer leaves satanic symbols in the wake of his murders and his trail seems to be heading toward a specific purpose. That, at least, is what Jane believes, though she's stymied at every turn by the FBI, which seems pretty bungling, whereas Jane appears to be unbelievably resourceful.

One of the problems with the film is that the Slasher, as portrayed by James Preston Rogers, isn't particularly compelling or convincing. His victims could probably hear or see him coming from a mile away as he's always stomping around in big, loud boots; he wears a radiation mask; he's about seven-feet tall; and has a voice so deep that it sounds as if it should be reading the scripts for movie trailers.

As Jane continues to track the Slasher across the country - a journey that begins in Kanas and makes its way to the east coast - the film begins to get progressively stranger. It all culminates with a bloodletting at a satanic orgy where Malcolm McDowell is acting as the master of ceremonies and everyone is eating boxed Chinese food. It then veers into a plot line that could best be described as "The Silence of the Lambs" meets "The China Syndrome."

Campbell, who was the lead in Zach Cregger's breakout film, "Barbarian," is good enough here as Jane, though she's stuck with some ridiculous dialogue - "go to hell, psycho!" - and her character seemingly exists only to seek revenge for her murderer's husband. But she still can't save a mostly mundane serial killer thriller that gets increasingly ludicrous. 

"Psycho Killer" was apparently stuck in development hell for years before it was finally released this week. That it is now finally seeing the light of day is, perhaps, only a cause for celebration for those who made it.

Review: How To Make A Killing

Image courtesy of A24.

There have been wiser and more thematically rich movies about the haves and have-nots (Bong Joon Ho's "Parasite") and others that are more scabrous ("Triangle of Sadness"), but John Patton Ford's "How to Make a Killing" - a comedic thriller that follows his promising debut, "Emily the Criminal," which explored some similar themes but more seriously - is one that is merely amusing without getting too heavy about the topic.

The reviews for the film, which is a remake of the 1949 film "Kind Hearts and Coronets," have mostly been middling, perhaps because other films have explored the ideas therein in a manner that was more reflective of the times or had more to say. This is probably true, but I still enjoyed Ford's film, which makes up for its lack of rich thematic content with dark humor and some solid performances.

The story follows the tale of Becket Redfellow (Glen Powell), whom we know must have been born into a rich family because who else would give their children such a name? Becket's mother was one of the children of a rich man named Whitelaw Redfellow (Ed Harris) - again with the names - who disowned her after she became pregnant with a poor man's child.

She is ostracized and her son, Becket, faces a lower middle class upbringing. His desire to attain wealth first finds its inspiration in a haughty young girl who will grow up to be a sinister femme fatale played by Margaret Qualley. The other inspiration is that he learns that his mother, despite being kicked out of the family, is still in line to obtain the family fortune.

Becket gets an idea to get close to the seven family members ahead of him on the family tree and, learning that most of them are terrible anyway, decides to bump them off. The first murder is amusingly simple, although they become more elaborate from there.

During this scheme, Becket meets two people of worth - Ruth (Jessica Henwick), the girlfriend of a layabout artist cousin who is among the seven to knock off, and Warren (Bill Camp), an uncle who is among the seven but has a kinder heart, helping Becket to get a job in the family business, where he quickly ascends the ranks, all the while killing family members in manners that he attempts to make look like accidents.

Soon enough, a pair of FBI agents begin sniffing around and, considering his recent appearance on the scene, make Becket their prime suspect. Meanwhile, Qualley's horrific Julia pops back up and, when he spurns her for Ruth, begins to blackmail Becket.

Like other recent films such as "The Menu" or "Blink Twice," Ford's film finds humor in awful rich people getting their comeuppance. The murders in "How to Make a Killing" are not particularly gory, but they are pretty funny. And most of the family members - especially Topher Grace's televangelist character - are absurdly awful individuals. 

So, while "How to Make a Killing" doesn't particularly say anything that films like "Parasite" or "The Menu" didn't say better, it's still an enjoyably well made, well acted, and darkly comedic remake of the classic British film by Robert Hamer. It's certainly better than some of the reviews out there may have led you to believe.

Review: Wuthering Heights

Image courtesy of Warner Bros.

There are times when a director of some acclaim or success becomes drunk on their own style and, in the process, goes a little off the deep end. 

Such is the case with Emerald Fennell, whose "Promising Young Woman" was a critical success - and it remains her best film in my opinion - although some have taken aim at the way it portrays justice for survivors of sexual assault. Her second film, "Saltburn," was effectively made, while at the same time making it very clear that Fennell's primary interest is pushing buttons.

Her latest, an adaptation of Emily Bronte's masterpiece "Wuthering Heights," finds her taking a beloved Gothic tale and turning it into a horny harlequin romance - but one that's a bit on the dark side. Yes, it's stylish in the manner of her other films and features a soundtrack by Charli XCX, which is honestly the least distracting thing going on here.

Remember in Bronte's novel when a man on the gallows gives all new meaning to being hung as the crowd giggles at his prominent erection and the executioner shouts, "It's a fucking hanging!"? 

Recall that scene when Heathcliff ties up poor Isabella and makes her bark like a dog? Or that scene when Heathcliff and Catherine watch two servants get randy in the barn? How about that other sequence in which Heathcliff catches Catherine masturbating on a rocky cliff?

Me neither. Before being accused of being a prude or someone who doesn't like to see great works deviate from the text in new adaptations, I must point out that my problems with Fennell's "Wuthering Heights" has less to do with the fact that she is mucking about with a story that has been done better in 1939 by William Wyler and in 2011 by Andrea Arnold, but rather that the film is concerned more with style over substance and button pushing over providing a new perspective on a classic tale. It also conveniently skips over the possibility of Heathcliff being of mixed race.

Both Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi do their best as Catherine and Heathcliff, while Alison Oliver is amusing as Isabella and Hong Chau is an effective Nelly Dean, but it's the material - or rather, the interpretation of it - that fails them.

This is an often visually gorgeous film, and the set design is immaculate, from Isabella's somewhat creepy doll houses to the interior decor at the home of Edgar Linton (Shazad Latif), the rich man whom Catherine marries. There are beautiful shots of snow falling and scenic views of the cliffs surrounding the home where Catherine and Heathcliff face a cruel childhood, only to reconvene years later for a fated romance.

The film ends somewhere around the novel's midway point, perhaps because the second half of the novel would have made for a too long and expensive film - or maybe because it lends itself more to being the kind of tragic romance to which the filmmakers seemingly aspired.

I've read in interviews that Fennell said the film was inspired by her reading it as a teenager and how it made her feel at that time. The picture was borne out of her 14-year-old's obsession, apparently, with the novel. This might explain why the film could best be described - to quote the Sex Pistols - as oh so pretty... vacant.

Review: Crime 101

Image courtesy of MGM Studios.

There's a famous quote that "good artists copy and great artists steal." While I'm not sure whether director Bart Layton's L.A. saga "Crime 101" is a case of theft, it certainly borrows some elements in terms of visual style, film language, and other elements from some other films - notably, Michael Mann's "Heat," but also Nicolas Winding Refn's "Drive" and Walter Hill's "The Driver."

The film marks the British director's second foray into narrative filmmaking and his previous efforts - the docudrama "American Animals" and documentary "The Informer" - both were centered around crimes, so this new film seems like an obvious step in his oeuvre.

But regardless whether it borrows from Mann's film - this one too centers around a cop chasing down a high-profile thief in Los Angeles - "Crime 101" is a crackerjack crime thriller that boasts a number of strong performances from its cast. It's also slickly made with superb cinematography - it's yet another picture to do a great job of capturing L.A. at night - and even has a few surprises up its sleeve. It's the type of film that ends up in some places that might stretch credibility, but I was willing to play along because of how effective it is.

In the film, Chris Hemsworth plays a thief named Mike Davis (assuming that's his real name) who takes part in complicated heists. But he never resorts to violence and doesn't take unnecessary risks. He works with an older man played by Nick Nolte, although their relationship is a bit nebulous, and there's a creepy fellow played by Barry Keoghan whom Nolte calls in to keep a tail on Mike after he starts to lose trust in him. 

Mike has an on-again-off-again romance with a woman named Maya (Monica Barbaro) whom he meets during a fender bender. Not surprisingly, he doesn't want to give her his registration information. And she sees something in him - perhaps a touch of mystery - that she finds compelling.

There's also an insurance agent named Sharon (Halle Berry) who is trying to land some high-profile rich clients for her firm, where her male bosses give her the runaround when she asks about moving up the ladder. Her boss spits her age - "53" - at her like an epithet during one scene that makes her wonder if she should take up Mike's offer - it's too complicated to explain here how they meet - to pass him some valuable information for a payout.

Meanwhile, a cop (Mark Ruffalo) who's on the outs with his corrupt chief and other members of his department believes that the robberies committed by Mike are the act of one person, while his department is primarily concerned with their arrest rate - and not so much getting it right.

While "Crime 101" follows some familiar beats - the criminal trying to land one big job that could provide him with "getaway money," the cop going up against his department to solve the crime spree, and the desperate character (Berry) who is looking for a way out of the life in which she is stuck - it never feels like just an homage to the films that came before it. 

Instead, it's a stylish thriller that runs at two hours and 20 minutes, but speeds by because it is compelling. Although Keoghan's character is, perhaps, slightly underwritten (his performance is still good), all of the film's leads give strong performances, especially Ruffalo, whose world-weary cop goes to great lengths - including taking yoga classes - to get to the bottom of things. This film is 2026's first genuine surprise.

Review: The Strangers: Chapter 3

Image courtesy of Lions Gate.

 

The third and final chapter of "The Strangers" saga is the least worst of the bunch - which is not the same thing as being good. It's still pretty bad - and the question of characters' motivations and their inability to behave in a way that resembles anything that humans actually do remains a complete mystery - but at least there's no wild boar attack in this one.

The film picks up where the previous one left off with Madelaine Petsch's Maya hiding in the woods after killing one of her masked attackers. But first we get a flashback several years in the past during which the three murderers stalk yet another woman, this one at a hotel room, before killing her.

Flashbacks pop up throughout the film and even if they don't exactly shed a light on why the killers are doing what they do, it at least provides some sort of precedent. As for motivation, all we're left with as usual are dead-eyed stares and sinister smirks from the villains during the rare moments when they have their masks off.

As to the question whether the entire town in which the film is set is in on it, or whether they merely know what's going on but won't say anything, at least gets answered. A few new characters are introduced for the sole purpose of quickly dispatching them. There is some catharsis in the final reels, but it's still dragged out like much of the rest of this entire series.

I haven't been much of a fan of this series, even the 2008 original, which was given pretty decent reviews at the time and has been ranked among some critics' favorite horror movies of recent years. I wasn't having it then - and I'm no convert now. The best thing I can say about chapter three of this reboot series is that it's better than the first two chapters.

This final entry may not do much in the way of furthering the story, but it amps up the gore. Several people are whacked to death with axes and other sharp tools, while one body gets fed to a wood chipper. And yet, everything about the film moves at a disinterested pace as if the characters - and, perhaps, the cast - is bored with what they're doing.

Chapter three is only slightly better than the two that came before due to the fact that the first two films felt like the exact same movie, whereas this one at least goes in a direction that introduces some new information and finds a resolution. This is, again, not to say that it's that much of an improvement - but I'll take it. The only reason why "The Strangers" series isn't my least favorite of the 21st century is due to the existence of the "Terrifier" and "Saw" franchises.