Psychopaths

Some really cool masks, super weird cheesy shots that make you wonder what the hell? I like a few of the actors in it like Larry Fessenden, Jeff Daniel Phillips's, James Hebert and Ashely Bell is gorgeous! This movie is so ridiculous especially the cop, something is wrong with that guy! Decent movie though I'm a little surprised only 8 others reviewed.

I've loved what Mickey Keating is doing since the day one, I've seen all of his works except for "Ritual", can't find that one anywhere. As an (using cliche words) aspiring filmmaker I relate to Mickeys ever changing style, writing themes, low-budget effectiveness and a filmmakers independce that can be truly felt. Sadly, it took some time for me to catch up with "Psychopaths", but here we are.

Madness, mayhem, darkness, neo-noir, also just neon and just noir - "Psychopaths" is an effortful & mean spirited art-house horror movie, full with beautiful shots, psychadelic imagery, murder and a handful of songs that successfully add to the atmosphere. I read in some review the acting's weak, but I oppose to that, I thought the characters & the performances completely justified the very name of the movie. For all the horror buffs there's a bonus in a form of a few seen names and faces. I'm always happy to see Larry Fessenden getting on screen from behind the camera, even if for just a few scenes. What I can't ignore or deny is the absence of plot, purpose and any kind of structure, the latter of which didn't matter to me much. Being devoid of a more substantial storyline, the 80 minute runtime is quite stretched out & I believe a lot of viewers will be bored by the pacing issues. However, I liked the directors self-awareness at the end, told in two lines by the narrator near the end. I won't tell, because You should see it yourself.

Everyone who knows me knows I hold dear the kind of horror movies which can be described as arthouse / experimental / surreal / weird and so on and so forth - "Psychopaths" fit the bill well. I recommend this one to those who relate to the aforementioned taste, because "Psychopaths" is a movie for very specific audiences. My (intendedly objective) rating: 5/10.

Very weird movie and I really have a hard time getting behind it. It seemed long for as short as it was and I think that was because it was just boring. It wasn't a fun movie at all. 3/10.

Sadly, another well made film by Mickey Keating that is ultimately disappointing (following Darling and Carnage Park and POD - but that was a super low budget first film so the positives outweighed the negatives in that case). Keating has an excellent visual eye, and this film is nothing if not a testament to the skills of it's editing, but it is all in the service of absolutely nothing. And even though I personally prefer films that are intelligent, offer new insights and observations within their genre, and approach their subjects with depth, I can still sit back and enjoy movies that seek only to entertain. And during the first half hour of this film I was willing to cut it a lot of slack, even though it announced its conspicuous lack of depth with the line "There ain't no why to evil" and a faceless narrator whose ramblings skirt perilously close to "crap happens". But regardless of the "hook" the film hangs it's narrative on there is no story to speak of and no characters of any depth or real interest even though many of them are given monologues that frequently serve no purpose except adding to the run-time. Keating is too influenced by other directors so there are extended sequences of figures dancing against black or performing old songs in the white light of a stage spotlight (thank you Mr. Lynch) or too-sleazy characters (a totally unbelievable police officer) who gets to have a lengthy, profanity laced monologue saying nothing worth listening to and punctuated by beating another character (an attempt at Tarantino?). Plot? Narrative? Follow-through? Anything??? He doesn't even develop the idea he started with as his hook. You watch the film without engagement, succumbing to frustration that you wasted your time and the director wasted an opportunity to make a good film. And at the end everything dribbles away and we're supposed to see that as clever because the unseen and omnipotent narrator apologizes if it was all "too ambiguous". Keating obviously needs to spend more time re-writing and polishing his screenplays (or find himself a co-writer who will push him toward creative AND coherent), but there is still no reason for the slew of improbabilities and impossibilities that litter the film even if the director's excuse would be "it's supposed to be stylized", such as a character doused in gasoline who wrestles with another man holding a lit cigarette, before taking out a lighter and using it to ignite even more gas - all without attracting a spark. And tossing the fingerprint-laden metal lighter into the fire. Those fingerprints would remain. Or the fact that the same record album contains stylistically divergent music by completely different artists, or an officer is going door to door at 4:30 in the morning and greets a woman with "I hope I didn't wake you". And that same officer's hair (especially if it's a period film as all the accouterments suggest), and the way characters react around a very public crime scene etc etc etc. This film is almost enough to make me give up on Mr. Keating eventually producing a successful film. But I have nothing, if not hope; which is why I turned this on in the first place.

Charlie is older now & his name is changed to Henry starkweather with the voice of manson? So if your not slightly lost yet, you will be after watching this pointless mess of gratuitous violence. Some ok visual styling & a not too bad backing track may keep you captivated.