Are we not watching the same bad movies[1]? Because “Psycho Killer” (2026) is not one of them. It is just old-fashioned. A Satanist serial killer (James Preston Rogers) kills the wrong highway patrolman (Stephen Adekolu), which inspires another state trooper (Georgina Campbell) to hunt him down. Will she catch him before he opens the gates of hell? If you go in cold, you will enjoy this horror movie unless you have an issue with swapping genders of the fridged spouse and vigilante cop, no deep themes, pleasingly derivative, and the titular character having as much screen time as the protagonist.
The true main character is the Satanic Slasher, whose face we never see. The cinematic world owes Tom Noonan and Michael Mann for creating the trope of the massive unit of a serial killer, which Vincent D’Onofrio continued in “The Cell” (2000) and Rob Zombie tried to pull off with his one of many unnecessary reboots of “Halloween.” Thanks to first time feature director Gavin Polone, costume designer Natalie Bronfman, cinematographer Magnus Nordenhof Jønck, key hair stylist Lexy Fabiano and the lighting department, Rogers never shows his character’s face, which continues a proud horror tradition. It is not until the final act where the similarities with Michael Myers (original formula) become more obvious, and it feels as if a couple of scenes were accidentally cut that did not connect the dots, but the gist is clear. Rogers is perfect for the role: his voice, his body and his physicality. Bronfman styles him more like the Heart Eyes killer. Only one line explains his backstory, and I would not mind seeing “Psycho Killer” again when it is available for home viewing with the subtitles on to see if I caught everything. If I had to choose between this guy, and the “Longlegs” (2024) killer, I’d choose this guy.
There are lots of different kinds of Satanists, and “Psycho Killer” has never heard of the great work that denominations like The Satanic Temple are doing to preserve civil liberties in the US. These Satanists are old school Seventies throwbacks with a little Goth mixed in for fun. This movie has some hilarious moments as the Satanic Slasher decides that he needs to lean on his community for information and hospitality. The movie takes a break and becomes a comedy of manners meets a comedy of menace as the affluent Mr. Pendleton (Malcolm McDowell) becomes his host holding court with his quiet, admiring and libertine subjects. In contrast, one of Pendletons’ devout followers, Marvin (Logan Miller), is a nervous talker who acts as the Satanic Slasher’s guide and concierge in this world. If you do not find this entire diversion amusing and pivotal to the plot, why do you watch horror movies? Do you hate having fun? Yes, you can tell how it is going to unfold, but sometimes predictable is satisfying and rewarding. Don’t see Hammer Films. Gratuitous violence and sex can be the point.
Campbell is a scream queen without the screaming. Apparently, moviegoers are clutching their pearls at a spouse seeking revenge over the death of their loved one as if it is not a trope for a reason. Yes, it is ridiculous that a Kansas trooper would have any sway cross country, but how many movies have the ex-cop or detective with no state power doing the same thing? The main problem may be sexism and seeing her as irresponsible because of some news that she gets in the middle of her vengeance road trip. It is a spoiler so I’m not going to reveal it, but I do not think that this outrage is a coincidence. It is a manifestation of a culture that would like women to return to gender normative activities and leave the man’s work to men. In addition, it was refreshing to see the vision of what an ole girls club would look like as FBI Agent Becky Collins (Grace Dove) decides to be a functional disgruntled employee and help a sister out. Also was FBI Agent Zolan (Michael Antonakos) a stab at political satire, especially when he orders Collins to get him lunch? It often felt as if writer Andrew Kevin Walker pulled a Dan O’Bannon, then revised accordingly to reflect how it would need to change if it was a woman who was the out-of-control cop.
Occasionally “Psycho Killer” has narrative problems when a scene that feels necessary is omitted. For instance, the first time that Jane intercepts the Satanic Slasher, it feels as if there should be a scene where official law enforcement questions her, but it does not happen until the second faceoff. It felt as if there was a fame subplot when Jane became a public figure. It only gets shown once, and it probably should have started after her husband was killed. Her father (Nigel Shawn Williams) mentioned something early about her mind being in a cage and their shared kinship for revenge, but it felt incomplete or as if the implication was a hint about her history with the other side of the law that got left on the cutting room floor. None of these moments hurt the momentum of the story, but they were little noticeable bumps that signaled that the filmmakers did not have complete creative control.
On the other hand, there are some elements that still shine through despite the obvious cuts. If the Satanic Slasher is evil, Jane is good. It is wordless touches such as wearing a cross, using a Gideon Bible as a weapon (to the throat), her association with the light especially in one of their clashes. Most people are not going to predict the Satanic Slasher’s goal. For a second, I figured it out at the beginning then dismissed it, especially when I saw something that resembled the symbol. There were enough clues but because a franchise involves the same region, I dismissed the guess and gaslit myself. It feels like the prevalent fears of the Eighties are back, baby! There was also a line of dialogue regarding types of killers that turned out to be a deliberate mislead. I also appreciated that unlike most movies, the killer does not suddenly redirect his focus on Jane. He is focused and driven. That man means business!
There was neither a screening nor a screener for “Psycho Killer.” I wish that “Ella McCay” (2025) got that treatment. As one of the few people who enjoyed this movie and paid for the experience with no regrets, it feels as if people are commenting on the film’s long history before coming to fruition, not the actual film. While everyone has different subjective tastes, it would be nice if people discussed details about the movie, not vague insults such as it being derivative without saying what are the film’s true cinematic origins or that it is cringey. Not liking the plot is fair, especially if a critic is specific, but lately I’ve been baffled at the discourse. I’m still stuck on “A Working Man” (2025) getting a higher rating than “Sinners” (2025). It tells me more about the movie goer than the film.
[1] Movies worse than “Psycho Killer” released in 2026: “The Mortuary Assistant,” “This is Not a Test,” “The Haunted Forest,” “Iron Lung,” “Whistle,” “Return to Silent Hill,” “The Dreadful.” Falls into one or more of the following criteria: not fresh, muddled mythology, no story with different acts, one-dimensional characters, bad acting.
Movies better than “Psycho Killer” released in 2026: “Honey Bunch,” “Redux Redux,” “Dracula,” “Send Help,” “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple,” “Primate.” Falls into multiple of the following criteria: excellent acting, gorgeous visuals, filmmaker knows exactly what they want to do & have the freedom to get there, fresh way of executing the genre, i.e. great storytelling, forgivable flaws.
Movies that are roughly the same quality as “Psycho Killer” in 2026: “Diabolic,” “Cold Storage,” “The Morrigan,” “Night Patrol,” “We Bury the Dead.” Falls into multiple of the following criteria: stories that could have been better given more money or experience or if it had chosen a different genre instead of hiding behind a more marketable one, visible flaws, many good ideas that don’t quite come together but are still good enough to work, has enough awesomeness to get through, i.e. maybe shares at least one quality with the better category.
