Copycat (1995)

It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

What happens when a serial killer expert has to face off with the real thing? That's what happens when Dr. Helen Hudson (Sigourney Weaver, Alien) is cornered and attacked by a man she profiled, Daryll Lee Cullum (Harry Connick Jr.).For the next 18 months, Dr. Hudson is a recluse, refusing to leave her computer and high rent apartment, only allowing her friend Andy into her world. A new series of murders - right in her neighborhood - threaten to draw her out. Joining up with Inspector Monahan (Holly Hunter) and Rueben Goetz (Dermot Mulroney), she begins to realize that this killer is copying the world's worst serial killers.It also turns out that the killer is following the script she presented on the night that Cullum attacked her. Along the way, Rueben is killed in a police standoff and Monahan has to deal with her feelings of loss.After her friend Andy is killed like Jeffrey Dahmer, they figure out that the killer is Peter Foley. As the police get to his house, they realize that it was a ruse and he's kidnapped Helen, placing her back into the same crime scene she was in 18 months before. Will Monahan be able to save her friend? Will Dr. Hudson be able to deal with her crippled agoraphobia?This is a fine 90's crime drama, with Connick quite good in his role. Weaver has stated that of all her films, she was most proud of Copycat, as she worked hard to understand how an agoraphobic would behave and she's regretted that the movie is not better remembered.

CopycatIf you are going to imitate a serial killer mimic one who has never been caught.Sadly, none of the murderers in this psychological thriller copy the Zodiac Killer. When dead bodies start appearing around San Francisco, Inspector Monahan (Holly Hunter) and her partner (Dermot Mulroney) seek the expertise of a renowned criminal psychology, Dr. Hudson (Sigourney Weaver), who became a shut-in after she was attacked by a serial killer, Cullum (Harry Connick Jr.).But when the new maniac's MO matches Cullum's, Hudson must face her jailed assailant in order to prevent the copycat from concluding Cullum's work before they get to her.With solid acting - save for Connick Jr. - and a twist filled script that keeps you guessing, this 1995 cat and mouse caper also offers up much insight into the methodical mind of a serial killer. Nevertheless, plagiarizing other murderers will not win you a Stabby Award. Yellow Lightvidiotreviews.blogspot.ca

Copycat was a good movie. Underrated. It does not get the spotlight other similar films get such as The Silence of the Lambs and Seven for some strange reason considering it looks similar. I think it's just as good as those films. The movie is very suspenseful. It keeps you on the edge of your seat – makes you wonder!!! The plot was good and interesting; in fact, it reflects the title. I actually found it pretty scary to watch: probably due to the suspense. The way the movie begins is what strikes me, but you have to see it in order to realise what I mean by that. It's something other similar crime movies such as the ones I mentioned earlier are unable to provide. I saw this movie particularly because I'm interested in Psychology, and it's a film that really got me to study this subject. It's a good film to watch if you're already studying Psychology. Copycat in my view is along the same lines as the other films I have mentioned. A really good movie.

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.