And in honor of M. Night Shyamalan’s latest thriller expertly allowing us to see through the eyes of a cold-blooded murderer, we’ve decided to come up with a list highlighting six other serial killer movies told from the killer’s perspective. After all, there are plenty of interesting cinematic killers out there, and not all of them are as charming as Josh Hartnett in Trap.

As usual, don’t forget to comment below with your own murderous favorites if you think we missed a particularly thrilling one. And while we won’t be including it on the list, I’d also like to give a shout-out to Chris Nash’s avant-garde slasher In a Violent Nature, which follows a Jason-Voorhees-inspired murderer as he embarks on a vengeful rampage.

With that out of the way, onto the list…

6. Mr. Brooks (2007)

I can’t be the only one who wishes Kevin Costner did more horror movies. While Bruce A. Evans’ deep dive into the mind of a fractured man is more of a psychological thriller than a proper scary movie, it’s still proof that Costner can be legitimately terrifying when he chooses to be.

Telling the story of a seemingly normal man who secretly struggles to keep his murderous alter ego under control, Mr. Brooks doesn’t exactly re-invent the serial killer wheel with its ruminations on addiction, but you can’t help but sympathize with Costner as his double life spirals out of control.

And if you like this one, don’t forget to check out our interview with the director as he explores the film’s unmade sequels!

5. Maniac (1980)

It’s rare that both a horror film and its remake are equally good explorations of their respective subject matter, but since we already included Franck Khalfoun’s Maniac on our list recommending six experimental slashers, today I’d like to highlight the grimy thrills of William Lustig’s 1980 original. It may not feature the same POV gimmick as its 2012 successor, but Maniac still does a phenomenal job of putting viewers in the shoes of a deeply disturbed individual.

Following a murderous landlord as he slays (and scalps) his way through New York City, this brutal character study is only enhanced by its low production value and seedy Manhattan backdrop. Lustig makes the most of eerie street corners and dark alleyways here, making this film a memorable portrait of urban chaos – as well as one hell of a disturbing gore-fest.

4. The House that Jack Built (2018)

Even Lars von Trier’s more conventional films tend to tackle controversial subject matter, but The House that Jack Built takes the director’s penchant for dark stories to the next level with its portrayal of a deeply malevolent man that embodies all the worst traits of famous serial killers. Feeling a lot like an art-house companion piece to American Psycho, this mean-spirited romp is so gruesome that you often forget it’s meant to be satirical.

From animal cruelty to the disturbingly realistic slaughter of innocent women, this is one of the most uncomfortable movies on this list, but it also features a mesmerizing performance by the incredibly talented Matt Dillon. That alone already makes it worth the price of admission. I wouldn’t recommend this one to duck lovers, though.

3. Peeping Tom (1960)

Moral panics are nothing new, especially when it comes to media depicting grisly acts of murder. And while some desensitized viewers might not understand why this 1960 thriller nearly ruined its director’s career, I think Peeping Tom still holds up as one of the UK’s earliest example of schlocky exploitation.

A surprisingly meta story about the thrills of watching others die on celluloid, Peeping Tom introduces us to an aspiring filmmaker who secretly murders women and produces snuff films about their dying moments – a decidedly modern premise for a movie produced decades before the slasher craze.

2. Man Bites Dog (1992)

One of the most shocking examples of Found Footage/mockumentary filmmaking that doesn’t involve the paranormal, this pioneer Belgian flick is way more influential than most genre fans give it credit for. Inspiring everything from Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon to What We Do in the Shadows, Man Bites Dog is another case of storytellers using serial killing as an excuse to explore our fascination with violent media.

And while the film is presented as a serious documentary about a charming murderer who slowly recruits the filmmakers to his cause, it’s the satirical undertones that make it so effective. That being said, you’ll likely forget the humorous elements when Ben commits some of the most heinous acts ever put on film.

1. Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986)

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer is loosely inspired by claims made by real life murderer Henry Lee Lucas (as well as his partner in crime Otis Toole), and while most of the supposed 600 deaths once attributed to Henry have since been proven to be false confessions, John McNaughton’s low budget character study escapes its sensationalist True Crime origins due to its honest and unflinching portrayal of antisocial behavior.

From the gritty 16mm photography to the frighteningly realistic death scenes, there’s plenty to love about this controversial indie flick. However, the film’s greatest asset is a young Michael Rooker in a career-making role as our disturbed main character.

Just make sure you don’t choose this one for family movie night.

The post 6 Serial Killer Movies from the Killer’s Perspective to Watch After ‘Trap’ appeared first on Bloody Disgusting!.

Welcome to Phantom Limbs, a recurring feature which will take a look at intended yet unproduced horror sequels and remakes – extensions to genre films we love, appendages to horror franchises that we adore – that were sadly lopped off before making it beyond the planning stages. Here, we will be chatting with the creators of these unmade extremities to gain their unique insight into these follow-ups that never were, with the discussions standing as hopefully illuminating but undoubtedly painful reminders of what might have been.

“The hunger has returned to Mr. Brooks’ brain. It never really left.”

For this entry, we’ll be taking a look at the sadly unproduced sequels to the 2007 psychological thriller/horror film Mr. Brooks, which starred Kevin Costner, William Hurt, Dane Cook, Demi Moore and Danielle Panabaker. Though that first film was left somewhat open-ended and was intended to be the first installment in a trilogy, it has seen nothing in the way of follow-ups since its release well over a decade ago. In researching these second and third films, this writer was fortunate enough to be able to speak with Mr. Brooks co-writer/director Bruce A. Evans, who provided what information he could on the continuing adventures of one of cinema’s most fascinating serial killers.

For those who haven’t yet seen Mr. Brooks, a recap: wealthy Portland businessman Earl Brooks (Costner) is the very picture of success. He owns a thriving box manufacturing company, he’s well respected in his community (even being named Portland’s “Man of the Year”), and is a loving husband and doting father to his daughter Jane (Panabaker). But beneath his facade of normality, Mr. Brooks is hiding a dark secret: he is the serial slayer known as “The Thumbprint Killer”, a methodical and wicked murderer guided through his crimes by Marshall (Hurt), a sardonic extension of Brooks’ id. Strangely, Brooks doesn’t delight in his bloody transgressions, but is tortured by them. He wrestles with his psychopathy as though it were an addiction that can be curbed, attending AA meetings, reciting various prayers like mantras, and doing his very best at all times to keep his dark side at bay, all while displaying a set of moral principles that push him to try and be a better person.

Marg Helgenberger as Emma Brooks, Kevin Costner as Earl Brooks and Danielle Panabaker as Jane Brooks

After two years without a single murder, Brooks falls off the wagon and kills a young couple in their home while they’re in bed. Unfortunately for him, this act is caught on camera by Graves Baffert (Cook), a sleazy amateur photographer using the alias “Mr. Smith”, who uses the pictures he took to blackmail Brooks – not for money, but for the opportunity to accompany the Thumbprint Killer during his next murder. Brooks reluctantly takes Smith under his wing, showing him the ropes of hunting victims and preparing for their murder. Running parallel to Brooks’ story is a subplot involving Tracy Atwood (Moore), a driven detective hot on the Thumbprint Killer’s trail, who is currently being stalked by an escaped serial killer called “The Hangman” that she’d previously put behind bars. Brooks takes an interest in Atwood, using his skills to aid the detective while also dealing with the shocking revelation that his own daughter Jane has begun displaying her own telltale signs of being a vicious murderer.

As written by the Starman/Stand By Me writing team of Evans and Raynold Gideon, Mr. Brooks tells a tale which is at turns engrossing, pulpy, frightening, and genuinely exciting, all while presenting a fascinating character study of its titular, self-medicating serial killer with a conscience. Though the film’s ending hinted at more to come and interviews teased the possibility of a trilogy of films, Mr. Brooks currently exists solely as a standalone feature. In agreeing to chat with us about the sequels that never were, Mr. Evans did caution that there were never any treatments or screenplays penned for the potential follow-ups, so the following, minimal descriptions of what the second and third films would have entailed is sadly all that exists of them. Nevertheless, Mr. Evans was gracious with his time, and was happy to detail what he could when it came to Mr. Brooks 2 and 3.

Demi Moore as Detective Tracy Atwood

“One of the initial ideas that we weren’t able to fully incorporate into the first film [was that] Mr. Brooks was fascinated by [Detective Atwood],” Evans says. Though Demi Moore was cast as Atwood in the final film, her part was initially written for someone a bit younger, allowing Brooks to begin feeling oddly paternal toward her. “He was impressed with her. It wasn’t a love story. He saw her as the daughter that he’d always wanted. He’s tortured by his relationship with his own daughter [who ultimately reveals herself to be as murderous as her father], whereas [Atwood] represents who he had always wanted as a daughter. And that engagement would have continued on with the second film.”

As described by Mr. Evans, the plot that he and Mr. Gideon had concocted for the second film would have found Brooks working with Detective Atwood to find his wife and daughter, who would have been abducted. “Someone would have kidnapped his family, having no idea who they were dealing with,” Evans notes, pointing out that the kidnappers would not only be contending with the murderous Brooks, but his burgeoning psychopath of a daughter as well. It’s a fun and fascinating setup for a sequel, which no doubt would have deftly juggled the type of psychological thriller elements, grisly horror and jet black humor found in the first film.

Also returning to the fray would have been Marshall, Willam Hurt’s snarky, scene-stealing manifestation of Brooks’ id. Named after actor Marshall Bell (A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge, Total Recall), a friend of Evans and Gideon, the enigmatic and darkly humorous character would have figured prominently in the sequels. However, Mr. Evans revealed that Brooks would have decided at some point that he needed to do away with Marshall, shoving down and killing this part of his psyche. “There would have been a visualization of this death,” Evans says. “And Marshall would have eventually been resurrected, and that would have been visualized as well.” Evans says that there may have even been several deaths and resurrections for Marshall, with the character coming back “angrier and more perverse” with every go.

Danielle Panabaker as Jane Brooks

Sadly, even less information is available for what would have been the third film, as only the basic idea had been discussed in broad strokes. However, the plot did spring from one crystalline image, provided by Mr. Brooks himself, Kevin Costner. “Kevin’s idea was for Mr. Brooks to drive himself and his daughter off of a pier.” The bulk of the third film would have found Brooks’ daughter Jane turning against her father and framing him for murder, setting up a battle of wills between the two as the younger Brooks tries to “get back at Daddy”. In realizing that there would be no hope for his daughter, he drives them both off into the water, ending his daughter’s reign of terror and his own tortured life.

So why weren’t these sequels made? Well, sadly, it all comes down to money. While the first film initially had only one financier, the interest in the movie was ultimately sold off to numerous investors, creating a muddy quagmire of rights issues when it comes to who exactly owns the film. Couple that with the fact that the movie’s initial spring release date (when the movie was pegged as being a likely hit) was bumped to a crowded summer blockbuster slate, hindering the film’s chances at a larger success than it wound up having, and you have an utterly pedestrian end to what should have been a captivating and enduring franchise.

Nevertheless, Evans and Gideon were at one point keen to continue Brooks’ story, and all of the cast members were willing to come back. So is there any chance that we might yet see these Mr. Brooks sequels some day? Well, according to Mr. Evans, it isn’t likely. “About ninety-nine percent not a chance. The rights are a mess.”

And so, ultimately, it appears as though Mr. Brooks has indeed met an untimely end. “It’s a tragedy to us. As a writer and director, you sit in a room and write something down and you anticipate it being one thing, and you give it to somebody like Kevin and Bill Hurt and Danielle and Demi … I guess the tragedy would be not seeing the words that you’d write [being placed] in the mouths of those actors again. [They] surprised Ray and myself with their interpretations of our work. They were all delightful to work with. Kevin couldn’t have been more supportive, and Hurt is a genius. And Dane Cook was a huge find. Always very inventive. It’s sad that we didn’t get to continue the story of those people.”

Very special thanks to Bruce A. Evans for his time and insights.

Mr. Brooks (2007) Theatrical Poster

The post Director Bruce A. Evans Details the Two ‘Mr. Brooks’ Sequels That Never Happened [Phantom Limbs] appeared first on Bloody Disgusting!.

It’s not that the actor/director has lacked opportunities to make sequels, though. Michael Blake, the novelist and screenwriter behind Dances with Wolves, wrote book continuations to Costner’s biggest hit as a filmmaker and reportedly long tried to get a sequel movie off the ground, but Costner never showed interest.

Hits like Bull Durham and The Bodyguard also had sequels in early stages of development at one point or another, but the star never jumped too hard on them. Even major box office successes like Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves surprisingly came and went without followups.

There was one film, however, that Costner showed an uncharacteristically enthusiastic desire to franchise early on in its promotion — Mr. Brooks, a 2007 cult film that found Costner playing the role of a serial killer fighting his taste for ending human life.

The rare villainous role for Costner, Mr. Brooks was a play on the horror genre that was released across the country over a summer that included sharp competition like the third installments to the Pirates of the Caribbean and Shrek franchises. Perhaps if Brooks had debuted in a year like 2017, where mass audiences seem more open to horror movies that bend the rules, it would have found some modicum of success at the box office. In 2007, it did, well… just okay.

On a $20 million production budget, the film took in just under $30 million domestically. It had a worldwide total gross just below $50 million.

The film has since earned more of a following, but it never became the breakout success that Costner and company needed to justify two promised sequels to round out a trilogy telling the tale of Earl Brooks, a successful business and family man harboring an addiction to murder.

After decades of fictional serial killers like Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger being embraced by audiences, screenwriters Raynold Gideon and Bruce A. Evans (who also directed) delivered a horror film from the killer’s perspective. In a wonderful and kooky twist, Brooks’ killing is not something he takes major delight in, but rather a weight on his shoulders and an addiction he can’t kick – sort of like alcohol or drugs. Except way bloodier.

There’s even a scene of Brooks attending an AA meeting, so how can you not love this wacky movie?

Though the trilogy of Mr. Brooks films was touted by Costner, Gideon, Evans and everyone in between through press interviews, it just never came to be.

Entirely on its own, as it ended up being, Mr. Brooks is a one of a kind killer thriller starring some seriously great actors. There’s Costner as our titular killer, plus William Hurt as the id of Mr. Brooks, brought to life as an adult imaginary friend who has a surprisingly gripping emotional relationship with our main character.

Then there’s Demi Moore as the detective hot on the trail of Brooks, a criminal who is providing a nice distraction from her own personal turmoil, which includes a messy divorce and the possibility of losing much of her family’s considerable wealth. There is also Marg Helgenberger and Danielle Panabaker as Brooks’ wife and daughter, respectively. Rounding out the cast is a surprisingly strong Dane Cook as a young man blackmailing Mr. Brooks into an apprenticeship in killing.  

The final product is lightning in a bottle. It manages to be darkly humorous in parts and surprisingly moving in others. It’s an absurdist concept molded in the hands of craftsmen looking to create a true character drama, no matter how out-there the twists and turns get.

“When the writers first presented the notion [of a sequel] to me, I said, ‘Oh, bullshit!,’” Costner told Entertainment Weekly in anticipation of the film’s release. “I haven’t done ‘Tin Cup 2,’ or ‘Bull Durham 2,’ or ‘Open Range: The Early Years,’ so you don’t have to try to hook me with that.’ But when they told me their idea, the hair on the back of my neck stood up. We’re hoping this little movie develops a following so we can play this story out the way it should.”

There’s no telling where Mr. Brooks 2 and Mr. Brooks 3 would have gone with this world. There is one thing we know for sure, though — the options were endless. Would Brooks have become some sort of anti-hero, helping Demi Moore’s detective solve cases? How would he have dealt with his daughter, a (spoiler!) killer the film suggests is far more disturbed than Brooks could ever be?

Costner’s Brooks was a truly original creation who could have only grown with sequels. He was Freddy Krueger or Charles Lee Ray, but with the twist of a moral conscience. He craved the same things those lunatics craved, but he was filled with regret over his desires. And we buy into all of this because Costner and the writers so deeply commit to the idea of realistic addiction and recovery at the center of this chaotic and unpredictable world. The first film presented a redemption arc for Brooks that would have been superb to see played out until the end.

Costner has never been a great admirer of the sequel in his career, which is what should make people even more disappointed that Mr. Brooks 2 and Mr. Brooks 3 don’t exist.

After all, they had to have been pretty special to get him excited.  

The post ‘Mr. Brooks’: The Kevin Costner Horror Franchise That Should’ve Been appeared first on Bloody Disgusting!.

That’s the creed that savage convict Jericho Stewart (Kevin Costner) lives by and boy does he ever mean it.  Mean being the operative word, as this actioner is a good deal more bloody and violent than the usual similar fair we get these days.  As far as I am concerned, that’s a good thing.

Criminal opens with a CIA agent named Bill Pope (Ryan Reynolds) in London and en route to complete a trade off with a mysterious hacker named Jan Stroop (Michael Pitt), who goes by the handle “The Dutchman”.  It seems that, under the guidance of a political radicalist named Heimbahl (Jordi Molla), Stroop has taken control of a special U.S. defense program.  He now has the sole ability to launch U.S. missiles at any target at the drop of a hat and no one can stop him.  Lucky for us, Stroop had a change of heart and has betrayed Heimbahl.

Pope’s goal is to pay Stroop for the access and offer him safe haven in America.  Unfortunately for Pope, he gets intercepted by Heimbahl’s people before he can complete his mission.  After refusing to give him Stroop’s location during torture, Pope is killed.  For Pope’s boss, Quaker Wells (Gary Oldman), all hope appears to be lost.  Not only do they still not control the missile defense system, but they have no clue as to where Pope had hidden Stroop.  As always, this is when someone has an idea to try a radical, government-funded program.

Enter Dr. Franks (Tommy Lee Jones), a scientist who has been experimenting with the transference of memories from dead mammals to live ones.  Naturally he’s yet to try this on a human, but the government doesn’t care.  They want Pope’s memories placed into the brain of a suitable candidate, so Franks chooses death row convict Jericho Stewart.  Stewart is a violent, nominally intelligent sociopath with no sense of remorse or empathy.  Simply put, he’s a murderous dirtbag.

Stewart received head trauma as a child when his father intentionally tossed him out the window of a moving car, causing his frontal lobe to not develop like it should.  This rare brain defect makes him an ideal candidate for the experiment and he’s forced against his will to participate.  This film wouldn’t be half as much fun if the experiment didn’t work, so obviously Pope’s memories take hold, but not full-time.  At least half, if not 75%, of the time, Jericho is still a mean, somewhat dumb, murderous sonuvabitch.

Imagine, if you will, a half-as-intelligent and half-as-humane Napoleon Wilson (from John Carpenter’s Assault on Precinct 13) being injected with the memories and emotions of Tom Clancy hero Jack Ryan.  That should give you the gamut that Jericho is running intellectually and emotionally throughout the film.  Because Pope’s memory are only triggered by sensory stimuli, Jericho slowly finds himself retracing the man’s steps, including interacting with Bill’s widowed wife, Jillian (Gal Gadot), and daughter Emma.  At first the interactions are scary for both parties, but eventually both come to care for one another in their own odd ways.  After all, it’s not as if things like this happen every day.

The plot is fairly straight-forward and lacks over-complicated twists and turns, so don’t go in expecting stuff to come flying in out of left field.  You can probably guess that Jericho eventually comes to not only understand the importance of the mission, but of Pope’s family as well.  You can probably guess that they are eventually put in harm’s way by the villain and Jericho is, for the first time in his selfish existence, forced to put the lives of others before his own.  You’re right on all counts, but the entertainment comes from the journey, not the story itself.

Costner is the real star here, chewing scenery left and right more than he has in any film since at least Mr. Brooks.  He’s so pissed at what’s going on around him at times that he outright growls, both at the situations he is placed into and the fact that he has someone else living inside his head.  When the Bill Pope side comes out he can be empathetic and even touching.  The Jericho Stewart side always remains to a degree, however, and it springs forth in a variety of brutal ways throughout.  He slits throats, burns people alive, bashes them to death with blunt objects, etc.  Our “hero” is not a nice guy.

Gary Oldman puts forth his usual mentor-ish good guy effort here and he is backed by a nice supporting cast comprised of Alice Eve (Star Trek Into Darkness), Amaury Nolasco (“Prison Break”), and B-movie action star Scott Adkins (Undisputed 2-4).  The former two sadly aren’t given much to do at all, but Adkins surprisingly ISN’T positioned as a fisticuffing goon.  Instead, he’s given what I like to call the mid-‘90s Michael Biehn role: standing around in the office of the good guys spouting off exposition and reacting angrily when things don’t go their way.  By god, the man’s only job is this is acting and he’s pretty solid at it.  This might disappoint fans who were looking for some flying foot action, but I’m sure he relished the opportunity to just be an actor this time ‘round.

Tommy Lee Jones doesn’t dish out much energy in his performance, for what was likely just a paycheck gig for him between directorial efforts.  That said, he doesn’t phone it in either, giving just enough nuance at times.  Pitt sadly isn’t given much to work with, mostly just sitting around freaking out, but at least he does a good job of it.  Gal Gadot probably could have used a bit more to work with, but her scenes are given enough emotion and agency to not make her the usual widowed wife caricature that we tend to receive in films of this type.

Molla is surprisingly playing against type here as well.  Instead of giving a sweaty, coked-out performance along the lines of his turns in Blow and Bad Boys 2, here he comes off as a mostly proper and occasionally bookish adversary.  The dirty work is left to his lover/henchwoman, who is played by Antje Traue (Man of Steel).  As for Reynolds, he’s pretty much around to be instantly likable and then killed off.  It might be a cheap way to get audiences to buy into the flashbacks and family interactions later on as Pope’s memories flood into Jericho’s brain, but it mostly works.

If this came out in the mid-‘80s, it probably would have had stronger sci-fi elements.  Hell, it might have even been directed by someone like Jack Sholder, Stephen Hopkins, or Renny Harlin.  Maybe even John Carpenter.  It has a bit of that vibe, both in its characters and the overall mean streak running through the center of the film.  Hell, it even has a synth-ish score, courtesy of Brian Tyler and Keith Powers.  Given the lack of mid-budget films these days and a stronger push for name actors than for special FX in such films, those elements are played down.  They are there, however, and help set this film a little bit apart from the usual Millennium Films (who produced this) and EuropaCorp action fare.

In addition to feeling rather trope-y, it’s that modern action look and feel that really weighs it down.  Ariel Vromen’s (The Iceman) direction isn’t sloppy like efforts of Olivier Megaton (Taken 2&3), but it is rather middle-of-the-road when it comes to films of this nature.  The action is usually coherent and there are occasionally interesting visual flares at work, but on the whole this could have used a director with a bit more style.

Of all the levels to enjoy it on, I had the most fun with it as a Costner fan.  I don’t know about the majority of you, but I’ve always liked the guy as an actor.  He doesn’t always pick the best films to star in these days, but even when a movie is a dude, he’s usually giving an interesting performance within it.  As a result, I can find a lot to like within films like Mr. Brooks, The New Daughter, 3 Days to Kill, and yes, even the bonkers ride that is 3000 Miles to Graceland.  This film might not be a classic Revenge and Open Range or a tasty piece of cult trash like Waterworld, but it is still pretty entertaining.

Criminal isn’t the kind of film that is going to wow anyone, be they a big action fan or just a regular audience member looking for some popcorn entertainment.  The story isn’t that original and the execution is pretty typical for similar modern efforts, but the performances (particularly Costner) are enough to get the job done.  If you’re looking for something better made than the dreadful Megaton films we keep getting subjected to or with a bit more oomph than even some of Liam Neeson’s more recent efforts, you’ll likely have some fun with this one.

If what I’ve written about (at length) above doesn’t stir some interest within you, well, then you should still know where you will stand with this one.  This is the first action movie review that I have written for this site and it will not be the last, but it should give you an idea as what tends to get my engine running with these kinds of films.  We still seem to get quite a few of them these days, so let’s collectively hope that most of them continue to be as watchable as (if not better than) Criminal.  And also that Costner continues to make more of them now and again!

The post [Review] ‘Criminal’ Is a Violent, Trashy, Spy-Fi Actioner appeared first on Bloody Disgusting!.