what was your */10 rating ?????
mine - 6/10 - could have been great .. but something was kinda missing
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Copycat (1995) Discussion > what was your */10 rating ?????
7 it's a good film. Underrated
share6/10
shareIt's between a 6 or a 7 for me, but I ended up giving it a 6. I think the IMDb rating at 6.6 is just the right rating. It's good, but not amazing. I did enjoy the movie and would recommend it to others, but there were definitely some cookie cutter scenes and dialogue, and the ending was clichèd, but overall an enjoyable film. Sigourney Weaver was good in it. It's pretty forgotten these days. I think it got lost in the shuffle of all those similar type murder thrillers released in the early to mid '90's.
At least, at least yeah, everyone is hollow.
I gave it a 10 to try and balance out all the low ratings you people are giving it!!
share8/10
The last 45 mins was intense as *beep*
5/10. Couldn't really work up any enthusiasm towards the thing, very little of which seemed fresh or added any new, interesting angles to the familiar cop/serial killer movie beat (and the most original touch, the murderer's M.O., also happened to be pretty ludicrous). The acting's okay, but the dialogue's often kinda hokey and of course there have to be time-worn cliches like the buddy cops "humorously" bickering and bantering amidst themselves and, in the end, the good guy seemingly shot dead miraculously recovers off-camera and blows the baddie away at the last second. That kind of deal.
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan
3/10.
Absolutely terrible in many ways with very few redeeming features. Weaver seemed very lacklustre, but the lead cop was very good, building a fairly unique and interesting character with little to go on.
Everybody else was TV Movie of the week average.
*spoilers follow*
I guessed the male 'partner' cop would die from the first scene he was in. I guessed his entire 'bit of an *beep* -> sympathetic *beep* -> full empathy -> now is his time to randomly die via deus ex Chinese-guy' storyline immediately.
Shoddy cinematography made this look like a TV movie. Check out the wobbling scenery in many (badly composed) shots. If an actor bumps into something and it moves in a ridiculous fashion, you shoot it again. I'm thinking specifically at of the moment an ornament (a particularly horrible prop BTW - the set dresser needs shooting!) wobbles when Weaver dashes indoors after trying to retrieve the newspaper (I think).
The 'killer' at the beginning was the cheesiest, most appalling, most poorly-played 'serial killer' I have ever seen portrayed. A sixth form drama group could write and act more convincingly. It was like a ten-year old's idea of an 'evil murderer'. Licking the knife? Really? The over-acting, directing of said actor, and the script were amateurish at best. This guy left the set with chinks of scenery in his mouth. I can't express how awful I felt this performance was and how much it put me off. I put the blame at the feet of the director, since the tone was consistently horrible with the 'copycat killer' also over-acting and gurning into the camera.
Every scene this guy was in made me face-palm.
The plot was a ploy to suck in readers of 'true crime'. Here's a hint, if you want to know about Ted Bundy, read 'The Stranger Beside Me'. In-fact, if you want to know about any of the serial killers mentioned in this movie, read a good book. This is literally just a list of very well known serial killers and a depiction of their MO. Very badly done. It could have been done well, but no.
The ending was a complete nonsense. The bad guy doesn't check the pulse of a good cop, that was meant to be dead. Again - the telegraphing was horrible. It referred back to a scene from earlier in the movie in the most hamfisted fashion. The lesson - always shoot people dead. Something the killer could have done with learning - although it's not something that troubled him up to this point.
Just inconsistent, badly played, badly directed, badly shot, badly scored garbage.
The computer scenes were unbearably embarrassing. The technology doesn't work that way - so loses points for believability. The 'scary videos' were bordering on 'Scream' series silliness. Just laughable rubbish that wasn't genuinely scary in any way.
The portrayal of an anxiety disorder was similarly bad. Ohhh, the camera has become wobbly.... ohhhh there is a mild distortion effect. It didn't portray anxiety to a realistic extent at all - although Weaver did OK here.
I can't believe people are rating this along with Se7en and Silence Of The Lambs - two bona fide classics of the genre. Look at Zodiac, Dirty Harry and Summer Of Sam to see how this stuff *should* be done.