What To Watch Tonight

Copycat

A criminology detective and a psychologist specialized in serial killers try to trap a psychopath who is copying the murders of famous criminals.

A 1995 psychological thriller, the kind of film I really enjoy. Even though on rewatch I found several weak points, it’s still a movie I like a lot and always enjoy.

Clearly influenced by the school of the great Hitchcock, I found it quite clever, with a very good Sigourney Weaver—so expressive, especially in her panic scenes, that I found her delightful.

Holly Hunter here is okay, though I can’t say I was thrilled, and the same goes for the rest of the cast.

It has a complex and multi-layered plot that keeps you engaged until the end (although the final scene left me a bit disappointed, to be honest—I expected something more imaginative).

Directorially, I also liked it quite a bit, despite some exaggerated touches. The dark cinematography worked well, and I really liked the claustrophobic feel and the fact that it relied mainly on psychological tension rather than gore, even though it did have a few violent outbursts.

It doesn’t avoid some of the genre’s clichés, but still—I definitely recommend watching it.

The Amateur

Charlie Heller is a brilliant but deeply introverted CIA employee who works as a code-breaking expert in a basement at headquarters in Langley. His life is turned upside down when his wife is killed in a terrorist attack in London. When his superiors refuse to take action, he decides to handle the situation himself. You might say you’ve seen this before—and you’d be absolutely right.

🟢🟢🟢🟢

• Interesting angle: a seemingly “nerdy” character who sets out for revenge.

• Cosmopolitan backdrop (Istanbul, London, Madrid, Paris).

• Some engaging action sequences.

• Nice cinematography.

• In several places the editing is at a good level.

🔴🔴🔴🔴

• It has the expected clichés I anticipated.

• The ending didn’t excite me.

• Rami Malek, although a good actor, didn’t feel right for the role.

• Scriptwise it’s overall predictable and shallow for the genre.

• Fishburne seems to be there just to have his name in the credits—underused, in my view.

• Doesn’t dare to take risks.

• Lacks the suspense you’d expect.

• The overall result feels like it lacks identity and comes off as just another formulaic film, even though it is a well-intentioned effort.

• Could have been shorter in runtime.