Copycat (1995)

Going into this, I had no idea what to think. I forget how and where I got introduced to this work of art but I am glad that I got around to watching it. It has a number of stars in it that all have their equal share of time and no one is in it more than the other. Before I begin, if you really want a suspenseful mystery that will leave you asking for more, this is certainly it.The movie begins with Dr. Helen Hudson (Sigourney Weaver) giving a speech at a college university and she get distracted when she supposedly sees Daryll Lee Cullum (Harry Connick, Jr.) in the audience and threatens her with a slashing across the throat gesture. She eventually gets back to business and finishes her lecture.She is then attacked by Cullum following the lecture and the police come in to stop him. Fast forward some time later where she's plagued by agoraphobia and she tries to calm herself after a nightmare that jolts her out of sleep. Then come Ruben Goetz and M.J. Monahan (Dermot Mulroney and Holly Hunter, respectively) who are called to a crime scene where the victim was strangled in the style of the "Boston Strangler."It is then they have to figure out the style of the killer before he/she kills any more people. As time wears on, the killer claims victims in the styles of the "Hillside Stranglers," "Son of Sam," and Jeffrey Dahmer...which is when things get too close to home when the killer makes Helen's assistant Andy one of his victims. After that, the police finally catch up to the "Copycat Killer" by the name of Peter Foley (William McNamara), who is nothing more than a lab tech who wants his 15 minutes of fame.Eventually Peter kills a couple more cops and then kidnaps Helen, which alerts the attention of M.J. The bold cop then finds Helen at the university where the initial attack took place with Daryll Lee. A fight ensues and Helen eventually breaks free and runs to the roof, completely forgetting about her agoraphobia. Peter saunters after her and tries to shoot her, only to be stopped by M.J....who eventually kills him.If you're not into the realm of serial killers, I advise you do some serious reading on them before you go into this movie. Even though the characters explain what the real killers have done, you will be better off knowing about them before they tell you. I guarantee that you will not regret it. Enjoy this gritty film and make sure you watch it on an empty stomach. There are some parts in here that may very well turn it if you're not used to it.

Psychologist Helen Hudson (Sigourney Weaver) is giving a guest lecture on serial killers. Daryll Lee Cullum (Harry Connick, Jr.) surprises her in the bathroom and kills her police protection. Thirteen months later, she has become agoraphobic haunted by the experience. There is a serial killer is on the loose in San Francisco and she figures out his m.o. of copying other famous serial killers. M.J. Monahan (Holly Hunter) and Reuben Goetz (Dermot Mulroney) are the investigative officers and they recruit her to help.Sure, it's the same old serial killer movie. It does add a couple of interesting wrinkles and with solid female leads. Hunter is confident and fully realized. Weaver and her point of view deliver a sincere and fragile personality. The movie opens with the memorable bathroom attack. The other memorable aspect is Weaver struggling in her home. The investigation and the serial killer are less compelling. This follows the formula and it does it pretty well.

Back in the 1990s, it seemed that not a month went by when cinemas were not welcoming yet a new entry into the serial killer genre. After a while, the repetitiveness and predictability siphoned off the thrills, so there were attempts to add flourishes. None more so than Copycat, which was one of the few (perhaps the only?) film of the time to feature two leading ladies at the head of the action.Copycat opens with an attack on OCD-afflicted psychologist Sigourney Weaver by serial killer Harry Connick, Jr. While she escapes, it is not unscathed. Now afflicted by severe agoraphobia, Weaver never leaves her apartment and relies solely on computers and her gay assistant to aid her in day to day life. When a separate serial killer (William McNamera) begins a killing spree emulating serial killers of the past, Weaver realizes the similarities and tries to alert the police anonymously, only to be pulled back into the fold by cops Holly Hunter and Dermot Mulroney.Where to begin. I could lament the utter tastelessness of utilizing real-life serial killings as a basis for the murders in this film, but why bother? I will argue about the misleading trailers, which seemed to indicate that Connick was the main protagonist, when in fact he has little more than a glorified cameo here. This is a point of contention because Connick is actually creepy and menacing in his time on screen, while McNamera barely registers, which is a problem when your villain fades into the background.While I commend producers/writers for giving us two actresses in the leads, it sounds better on paper than in practice here. Weaver, an actress I normally love, is uncharacteristically hammy here. Her psychologist heroine feels less like a real person than a grocery store list of tics and neuroses. The scene where she thinks her apartment has been invaded, but her agoraphobia forbids her from leaving is too laughably over the top. By contrast, Hunter is almost disastrously miscast. With her annoyingly lilting Texas twang and designer cop duds, Hunter feels less like professional police officer at the top of her game and more like a little girl playing dress up in mommy's work clothes. She does not convince you for one moment. Even worse, she has no camaraderie or chemistry with either Weaver or Mulroney, her romantic interest/partner in the film.Plus the film's predictability is off the charts. Given this is set in the notoriously less PC 1990s, we know pretty much by rote the moment Weaver's effeminate gay assistant is introduced that he is dead meat and the film has little sympathy for him. Truthfully, the film has little sympathy for any of the victims. Even more repellent is the entire subplot surrounding Mulroney that the film telegraphs way too early. We open with Hunter's character wounding a suspect and her providing rather persuasive reasoning as to why she disarms rather than kills suspects. Mulroney is introduced as her partner/lover (because in TV and films obviously no man and woman could conceivably ever be partners without being lovers, unless one of them is gay, old or ugly), but the relationship seems like an afterthought and the film holds it like its a contrivance. In a completely unrelated moment later, Mulroney is taken hostage at the police station and Hunter wounds/disarms the suspect, only to have said suspect a moment later grab a firearm and blow Mulroney away in front of her. This sets up a bunch of contrived soul-searching as to why she did not just kill the culprit when she had the chance leading to some badly thought out unbelievable psycho-babble dialog between Weaver and Hunter; when truthfully we know this is just setting up for that pivotal climactic moment when Weaver is taken hostage and Hunter will know just how to handle his hash.If any of this sounds exciting, then it must be my wording because the film is nearly devoid of suspense after its opening moments. Director Amiel seems more at home in dramas than thrillers, and it shows here in spades. If you are in to these types of films, there are worse, but there are also far better. You would do well to seek the betters ones out.

Well, this movie is the usual flat story about a serial killer but it manages to be a bit remarkable for two things : first, the director has the sense of thriller : sure it's not Brian De Palma but there's something ! Next, the female cast is really top-notch : the big Sigourney who has fought Aliens, ghosts is really moving as a totally afraid, agoraphobic specialist ; On the other hand, small, fragile Holly reveals to be tough and very courageous ! Their meeting is well balanced, the choice of San Francisco is a good change… The only thing that i haven't understood is that if the last scene involving Connick Jr who delivers also an inspired portrayal of a lunatic means that a sequel would be likely ???