‘Smiley Face Killers’ review: A film not worth anyone’s time
I hate trashing movies. I really do. Even some of the worst films in existance are redeemable in some way, but Smiley Face Killers is a film made for no one. I’m an easy-going girl. I don’t fret about time wasted or ill-spent because why bother? There’s always tomorrow right, well this damn movie had me bitter about the hour and thirty minutes I wasted watching it. Time I could’ve spent on rewatching Re-Animator. Every now and then I will come across a film that not only baffles me but makes me wonder why the hell they even made the thing?
What is this film? Other than an excuse to ogle over Ronen Rubinstein’s body and to offer an undercooked crime theory, there’s almost no point to its existence. It’s not entertaining, it’s not informative, it’s not moving, it’s not anything. It’s just there. The excessive amount of boob shots that appear in the Friday the 13th remake has nothing on this attempt at a psychological slasher. Smiley Face Killers could be a drinking game, there are over 15 full shots of actor Ronen Rubinstein’s naked chest and a little over 10 shots of his naked ass. The lights in his shower are brighter than the ones in his bedroom. Honestly, the way this movie constantly finds a way to take off Rubinstein’s clothes is the best thing about it because it’s so hilarious.
Rubinstein is indeed a sight to behold but I prefer my objectification with a bit of little plot to go with it. Otherwise, he’s just a lifeless pretty face, like a corpse, a corpse that acts about as bored as I was while I was watching this. May I suggest 9-1-1: Lone Star or Some Kind of Hate if you want to see a more decent showcase of Rubinstein’s face and acting. Don’t go here.
Directed by Tim Hunter and written by novelist Bret Easton Ellis whose strength clearly resides in books and not screenplays, Smiley Face Killers is a big dull dud that doesn’t know what to do with itself. It’s also a complete waste of potential. If the last 20 minutes were separated from the rest of the feature and made into a short film, it would’ve been pretty good. The rest is just excess and such a pointless endeavor that it’s astounding. Did they have some extra money lying around and decide to just poop out a film over the weekend?
The story follows young college student Jake Graham (Rubinstein) as he’s being stalked by three hooded figures who plan on murdering him. Even though he’s somewhat aware of their presence, he doesn’t exactly realize what’s going on yet he can feel their eyes watching and it’s putting a major damper on his social life.
Before we’re even introduced to Jake though, the film offers up an explanation for what’s about to happen. The explanation appears like a written prologue on the screen less than five minutes into the opening explaining that it is based on a true story. “Since 1997, more than 156 young men across US college campuses have drowned under suspicious circumstances. Symbols spray-painted at the scenes have led some to propose these accidents are in fact, serial killers.” This basically just gives everything way and is a sign of the film’s laziness. It prefers to just tell the audience what is happening rather than show it through a story.
What follows is treated as one segment in a long series of events that have already happened. Such a setup makes the film feel like a slasher posing as a documentary made with the quality of a Lifetime movie.
Jake himself is not a very likable protagonist. Almost immediately we’re told about his unspecified mental illness for which he requires medication that he’s recently stopped taking. We’ve seen this before, haven’t we? A poor protagonist is not taken seriously because they are “crazy” and off their meds. Same thing here.
However, we see nothing of Jake’s behavior before the film so his friends and girlfriend constantly bringing up his lack of meds and apparent strange behavior just sounds like white noise. It doesn’t help that Jake himself acts no different between the start of the film and the end of the film. By the way, another thing about Jake…he never brings up the fact that someone is actively following him around for about 99% of the movie. The stalkers aren’t even trying to be inconspicuous. They leave their van in the open, kill Jake’s roommate, chase him down the street, start sending him strange texts, and even break into his room to leave clues of his demise, but he never makes the connection that these actions are the workings of someone dangerous. He never considers calling the police.
Crispin Glover plays the lead killer who has only a minor appearance. The only performance, outside of a brief burst of life from Rubinstein near the end, with any actual weight behind it. He’s joined with two others and together they form a cult that seemingly worships a figure known as Galiel who shares a connection to water.
What their religion is and who they worship is never explained but it’s the reason they’re drowning young men across America for each sacrifice is meant to represent Galiel in human form being sent back to the ocean. All this is crammed into the last 20 minutes when it should have been the premise itself.
What is the real smiley face killers theory?
The backbone of Smiley Face Killers is the alleged true story that it’s based on. It’s the reason the plot goes nowhere as Hunter and Ellis worry too much about going along with these events within their own story that they want to match in menace and mystery. The premise of the film is loosely based on a serial killer theory that’s been floating around in urban legend status for years. The theory largely comes from three individuals, two retired detectives and a professor, who believe that a number of young men who have drowned in various bodies of water across Midwestern America from the late 1990s to the 2010s are actually the victims of a serial killer or a group of killers.
The “smiley face” part comes from the occasional smiley face graffiti mark found near some of the bodies. Many of which were later discovered to have been painted on years before the victims lived in the areas.
The theory hasn’t been well received by experts and isn’t supported by any evidence aside from the few smiley faces (one of the most popular graffiti markings of the 1990s) found at the scenes. Many of the deceased died after consuming large amounts of alcohol and drugs and showed no signs of trauma prior to entering the water. The “research” for this film clearly consisted of just googling “smiley face killers theory” and copying the alleged torture and murder of Christopher Jenkins, one of the victims whose parents claimed he was tortured in a van for hours before getting dumped in the water despite there being no indication that this is true. Jenkins’ body showed no signs of trauma and contrary to popular belief, water does not magically wash away all evidence. Though it does make homicide considerably harder to prove.
‘The FBI has reviewed the information about the victims provided by two retired police detectives, who have dubbed these incidents the “Smiley Face Murders,” and interviewed an individual who provided information to the detectives. To date, we have not developed any evidence to support links between these tragic deaths or any evidence substantiating the theory that these deaths are the work of a serial killer or killers. The vast majority of these instances appear to be alcohol-related drownings. The FBI will continue to work with the local police in the affected areas to provide support as requested.”
FBI National Press Office, FBI Statement Regarding Midwest River Deaths on April 29, 2008
Verdict
Again I will ask, what the hell is this movie? Who made the okay for this? Cats was a better horror movie than this. Mr. Ellis if you’re listening, stick to writing books! This whole thing was a poorly researched take on a seemingly true story about as solid as cheesecloth. The characters were less than one-dimensional but just descriptions of characters reading lines like they were half-asleep.
Smiley Face Killers deserves one star for attempt but the appearance of Crispin Glover and the whole final act brings it up to one and a half. Way to go.
(1.5 / 5)
As we near the end of the series, Dexter Original Sin is heating up. Emotions are running high, and the blood is pouring. But is the story keeping up with the gore? Let’s discuss.
As a warning, I found it impossible to review this episode without a few spoilers. You’ll see why. But if you haven’t yet seen this episode, proceed with caution.
The story
We begin our story with Dexter and Harry in the kitchen after a hard night of work for each of them. Dexter tries to tell Harry that he suspects Captain Spencer killed Jimmy Powell and kidnapped his own son. But Harry doesn’t want to hear it. He’s more concerned that Deb never came home from Gio’s apartment.
The reason she didn’t come home is because Gio invited her on a day trip. He says he has to go for work, but she can come along for the fun.
And fun she has, until she finds something on his boat she wasn’t supposed to see.
Meanwhile, Dexter is following Captain Spencer around. He eventually gives up to go rescue Deb, only to be called onto a SWAT call. One that turns deadly, and was orchestrated by the captain.
As if there wasn’t enough going on in this episode, LaGuerta and Harry are hunting the NHI killer. And we realize who the killer is just as Harry finds out as well. At least, we’re really supposed to think we know who it is.
What worked
At this point, we know that Captain Spencer abducted and murdered Jimmy Powell, and has now abducted his own son Nicky.
So, we already know the killer. And that’s always the big reveal, right?
Well, no. We might know that Spencer is the killer. But what we don’t know is why. What is he after? What does he want so much that he’s willing to not just kill innocent children, but his own son? These are the questions that will drive me to watch the next episode, and the one after that.
This was a great way to answer a question, but leave more questions in the wake of that answer. It’s the perfect way to keep up the momentum of a season.
I was also shocked and impressed by the demise of Laura Moser. No, that isn’t the spoiler, we all knew that was going to happen. We knew it since the first season of the original series. What I didn’t expect was how emotionally invested I was in this. By this time we’ve seen Laura in a way we’ve never seen her before. She is a loving mother and brave as hell. So now, for the first time, we can mourn her. It honestly reminded me strongly of when Dexter lost Rita in the original series. I am crushed.
What didn’t work
Now, we’ve got to talk about Harry. Or more specifically, we’ve got to talk about Christian Slater. Because he just wasn’t good in this episode. He was chewing the scenery so hard I’m surprised they didn’t need to replace the kitchen table. I know he’s a better actor than this, so it makes me wonder what the hell was happening. He was overly emotional. And not in a way a man stressed out might be, but in an overacting kind of way. The whole performance just felt off.
Finally, we’ve made it to the spoiler part. At least, I think we do. Given the events of this episode either we know that the NHI killer is Brian, Dexter’s older brother, or we’re really supposed to think it’s him.
I don’t like this either way. If it’s him, then this feels like a repeat of the first season of the original show in which he was revealed to be the Ice Truck Killer. We’ve done this before. But we know it can’t end with Dexter finding out who it is. He’d never heard the name Brian Moser before as an adult.
- Michael C. Hall (Actor)
- Audience Rating: NR (Not Rated)
Last update on 2025-01-07 / Affiliate links / Images from Amazon Product Advertising API
If it isn’t Brian, though, it feels like overkill. Showing him painting Laura’s nails with that same distinct color pattern. His therapist and nurse were among the victims. If it’s all misdirection, it’s too much misdirection. I honestly thought it was Brian as soon as I heard one of the victims was a therapist specializing in traumatized teens. We’re not dumb. We didn’t need to be beaten over the head with this.
Slater’s acting and the Brian storyline aside, I thought this was a great episode. I know the series could still disappoint me, but I’m holding onto hope. At least, like I said before, they can’t kill Dexter this time.
Right?
(4 / 5)
Okay, Mr. Drew Hancock, writer of Fred: the TV Show and Fred 3: Camp Fred. I hear you have a new, little horror film – COMPANION. Let’s give it a go.
And I am going to try as hard as possible not to spoil a goddamn thing since its marketing did the complete opposite.
PLOT OF COMPANION (SPOILER-FREE)
Iris (Sophie Thatcher) and boyfriend, Josh (Jack Quaid) travel to upstate New York to have a friends get-away with Josh’s best friends: Eli, (Harvey Guillén), Patrick (Lukas Gage), Kat (Megan Suri) and Kat’s boyfriend, Sergey (Rupert Friend).
However, trying to fit in, Iris starts to discover a terrifying secret within this tight-knit group of friends. A deadly secret…
THOUGHTS ON COMPANION (SPOILER-FREE)
Never would I have thought I would be saying that a writer of ‘Fred: the TV Show’ and ‘Fred 3: Camp Fred’ wrote a damn fine film. But here we are.
Writer/director, Drew Hancock, created a funny, clever and interesting gem of a horror film. COMPANION is a great adventure film in the horror genre, focusing on the ideas of identity, self-preservation, the cogito, ergo sum of life, and women’s rights.
And, trust me, I know that sounds like a lot, but that’s pulled off by the superb writing and the acting – it flows together really well. It’s an incredibly precarious job to balance humor, horror and drama. If you go too hard with humor and it’s cringey. You give too much drama and it’s tonal dissonance. If there’s too much horror…well, that’s okay, actually.
But with heavy hitters with incredible comedic timing like Harvey Guillén and Jack Quaid, the cast only elevates the writing and story. Quaid and Sophie Thatcher have so much chemistry and work so well together that the drama feels authentic and raw. Thatcher is such an engaging actress, working with what could have been a very flat role. But she portrays Iris with such intelligence, wit and vulnerability, it sells the idea of COMPANION that would usually require more suspension of disbelief.
I liked the soundtrack by Hrishikesh Hirway. Both the original soundtrack and the songs chosen work well with the tone and plot. Super fun bop. You can tell that the song selections were picked with intent and care, for example, the Goo Goo Dolls’ song playing in Josh’s apartment.
The effects in COMPANION were terrific by being used sparingly but grotesquely, for example, the scene with the slow, tortuous scene with the candle. Most of it is practical, but there are some key scenes with CGI that are really well done.
BRAINROLL JUICE: THIS HAS VAGUE SPOILERS
I love horror films. Yeah, I know, big surprise. But this type of film highlights why horror is such an important and crucial part of our history and culture. Horror is a lens of a society of the times. Looking back, we can see what creatures scared us. What people were afraid of or should be afraid of.
Horror, by large, is a very social and progressive genre. Monster movies and mad scientist movies of the 1950’s were en vogue due to the rising fears of the atomic bomb and the Cold War. The same is true for the rise in space horror as we had the Space Race and landed on the moon.
Movies of the ’60’s and ’70’s had serial killers, delinquents, social rights, and the pearl-clutching fear of losing our innocence as a nation and losing our good, Christian values.
The 70’s and 80’s saw the fear of the faceless stranger, sexual deviance, as well as our growing concern of the expanding powers of corporations.
And so on and so on (this could be an entire article itself).
However, I find this new twist on an old genre interesting – a woman’s story. From the exploitation revenge flicks of the ’70’s to the girl-power vibe of the 90’s and early 2000’s, AFAB stories are getting more attention. More realistic and substantial attention.
Coralie Fargeat has been exploring this with great success with her most recent film, ‘The Substance‘, but first really dove into this with her fan-favorite, ‘Revenge‘. ‘Freaky‘ and ‘Happy Death Day‘, while comedic, explore girlhood, femininity and social expectations. ‘Don’t Breathe‘ turns the trope on it’s head (in a still gross way). ‘Babadook‘ shows the difficulty with being a mother, and ‘Hereditary‘ is a deep drama on matriarchal generational trauma.
Obviously exploring themes of the AFAB horror experience isn’t a new idea, the exploitation of a woman’s story is starting to feel strained and gross. Currently, women are facing a tremendous push back on their rights. From losing the right to choose in a wild turn of events as Roe v Wade was overturned in 2022, to the most recent (at the time of this review) removal of women in the government, a senseless war on diversity and protections in the workplace, and the guttural shout of, “fuck you!” to transwomen and literally putting them in danger of starring in their very own rape-revenge true story.
What does this have to do with horror and COMPANION? Well, pretty much everything. COMPANION is about what it means to be a woman. Her fears are real and reflect the fears of our society currently. Loss of agency. Loss of identity. Loss of her voice and decisions.
But like all good horror, it will stand the test of time. It will be on the right side of history, as they say. With an incel proxy as the villain and a woman learning about herself, it’s clear what Hancock envisioned for COMPANION. It’s a film about empowerment and reflection of our society right now. And unlike the newest Black Christmas, it doesn’t shove a diva cup down your throat.
And all that from a guy who wrote Fred 3.
- Factory sealed DVD
- Jake Weary, Carlos Knight, Siobhan Fallon Hogan (Actors)
- Jonathan M Judge (Director) – Robert Zemeckis (Producer)
Last update on 2025-02-04 / Affiliate links / Images from Amazon Product Advertising API
BOTTOMLINE FOR COMPANION
A funny, terrifying and adventurous romp into what it means to be yourself.
(5 / 5)
Movies n TV
The Formal Introduction of Evil’s “The Demon of Sex”
“The Demon of Sex” is the third episode of Evil’s season 3. The assessors investigate a new marriage that struggles with intimacy.
“The Demon of Sex” is the third episode of Evil’s season 3, created by Michelle King and Robert King. The central cast includes Katja Herbers, Mike Colter, Aasif Mandvi, Michael Emerson, Christine Lahti, and Andrea Martin. As of this review, it’s available through Netflix and Paramount+ and its add-ons.
The assessors investigate a new marriage that struggles with intimacy. Kristen (Katja Herbers) takes control of her family. Ben (Aasif Mandvi) has an existential crisis after facing plumbing difficulties. Sheryl (Christine Lahti) struggles with the new work culture. Sister Andrea (Andrea Martin) battles a demon.
What I Like about “The Demon of Sex”
Ben usually seems underutilized as a character, especially in personal development, but season 3 works hard to rectify that issue. A skeptic’s disillusionment is an obvious choice for this type of character, but the writing and Aasif Mandvi’s performance drive the execution. It also adds another dynamic to his character referenced throughout the series, if rarely shown again, in the Science League.
“The Demon of Sex” is also a good episode for Sheryl, who struggles and triumphs in her new position. While her character trajectory teeters back and forth, “The Demon of Sex” shows what her development can look like when given the attention it deserves.
![Evil: Season Three [DVD]](https://hauntedmtl.com/wp-content/plugins/aawp/public/image.php?url=YUhSMGNITTZMeTl0TG0xbFpHbGhMV0Z0WVhwdmJpNWpiMjB2YVcxaFoyVnpMMGt2TlRGYWJYaGtVVFpFYlV3dVgxTk1NVFl3WHk1cWNHYz18MTczOTUxMjE3MQ=)
- Katja Herbers, Mike Colter, Aasif Mandvi (Actors)
- Robert King (Director)
- Audience Rating: NR (Not Rated)
![Evil: Season Three [Blu-Ray]](https://hauntedmtl.com/wp-content/plugins/aawp/public/image.php?url=YUhSMGNITTZMeTl0TG0xbFpHbGhMV0Z0WVhwdmJpNWpiMjB2YVcxaFoyVnpMMGt2TlRFdGJuQndVRmhtU1V3dVgxTk1NVFl3WHk1cWNHYz18MTczOTUxMjE3MQ=)
- Katja Herbers, Mike Colter, Aasif Mandvi (Actors)
- Robert King (Director)
- Audience Rating: NR (Not Rated)
Last update on 2025-01-31 / Affiliate links / Images from Amazon Product Advertising API
“The Demon of Sex” also furthers the frenemy relationship between Kristen and Sister Andrea, providing ample material for both characters to explore. “The Demon of Sex” shows Kristen’s willingness to compromise and furthers Sister Andrea’s character flaws.
Leland (Michael Emerson) finally finds an attack that might work on Sister Andrea, beginning a plot thread to explore across the season. Commenting on this plot point might give credit to future episodes, but it’s a compelling example of Leland actually being devious and in control.
“The Demon of Sex” leans on Evil’s dark comedic tone, not intending to haunt the viewer but to entertain them. It dives further into the comical nature of corporate evil and marketing, showing a general shallowness in both arenas in which exploitation occurs. It’s dark, troubling, and entertaining without pulling its punches.
Tired Tropes and Triggers
In an episode titled “The Demon of Sex,” the titular demon seems to hold conflicting motives. First, it grows strong in the married couple’s abstinence, which suggests a different focus. But when acts become carnal, it’s the general kinkiness that makes the demon strong. Considering the couple talks about their troubles with a licensed therapist, it seems to evoke a general kink shame to the execution. However, the therapy also fails to resolve the underlying issues.
A slightly gory moment might unsettle some viewers, but it’s a single moment in an otherwise goreless episode.
What I Dislike about “The Demon of Sex”
As mentioned in a previous review, another demon seems to indicate a more direct concept of “sex,” while the motives of this demon seem more complex. It’s a minor point, but I can’t fathom why they didn’t connect this title with the more literal succubus that’s plagued this season already. Addressing that demon also seems like a more logical entry point as the audience sees what it’s been doing.
“The Demon of Sex” sets the groundwork for future plot points. While not a fault of the episode, it blends in the background, doing what it needs to and little more. I don’t mean to pretend this is a negative, but it doesn’t haunt the viewer like past or future episodes.
Final Thoughts
“The Demon of Sex” delivers but remains buried around more memorable episodes with more lasting power. It sets up key points for several characters and allows some to shine, but it doesn’t hold iconic moments to look back on. Ultimately, it functions as intended and keeps the audience eager for future developments.
(3 / 5)
-
Original Creations5 days agoFamiliar Faces – A Chilling Tale of Predatory Transformation by Tinamarie Cox
-
Original Creations3 days ago
Food Prep with Baba Yaga, Nail Polish Art Fig from Jennifer Weigel
-
Movies n TV3 days ago
Things get gory in Dexter Original Sin, Business and Pleasure
-
Book Reviews1 day ago
My Best Friend’s Exorcism: Experience the 80’s, demons and all.
