Night Killer (1990)

Sometimes you watch a film and you are left asking 'what the fuck was that?'  Night Killer is one such film.  Except that you don't just ask 'what the fuck' at the end, but all the way through the film.  At no point is it ever clear where it is going, let alone what is going on.  The plot is structured in such a way that the motivation, let alone the identities, don't become clear until the very end.  Which would be fine, but the audience are offered nothing in the way of hints or clues before this.  Now, if this were entirely intentional on the part of the film's makers - a genuine attempt to create an experience which deprives the viewer of the usual comforts provided by conventional cinematic structure, leaving them in a continual state of anticipation and intrigue - it might be considered a legitimate cinematic experiment.  In the case of  Night Killer, however, much of the confusion and befuddlement felt by viewers is actually down to post-production interference by the producers - inept interference at that.  While credited to director Claudio Fragasso, before its release the producers hired Fragasso's editor Bruno Mattei to shoot additional scenes in order to boost the blood and gore quotient.  While himself an experienced a prolific director of exploitation films, Mattei's sequences jar badly with the rest of the film, not so much in style, but more because of their complete lack of continuity.

What seems clear is that while Fragasso thought he was making some sort of psychological thriller, the producers were expecting at least a Giallo, preferably a slasher movie, (the original Italian title translates as Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3, despite it having no connection with the series, not taking place in Texas, nor featuring any chainsaws).  Consequently, Mattei's sequences seem to be trying to evoke the spirit of the Nightmare on Elm Street movies,focusing on the grotesquely masked killer murdering women with his Freddy Krueger-style bladed glove - which he punches through their bodies, implying a supernatural angle not reflected in the rest of the film.  (The impact of these scenes are undermined by the fact that the blades on his glove are clearly rubber and bend on contact with any hard surface).  Unfortunately, apart from the mask, these sequences have little relation to the rest of the film - in the main plot it is clearly stated that the killer also rapes his victims, (actually, as it turns out, a key plot point), whereas in Mattei's sequences he merely murders them.  Very gorily.  Worse, they are so clearly tacked on and bear no relevance to the rest of the narrative.  This is particularly true of the two opening murders, in a theatre, where the viewer is left thinking that the other characters in these scenes will be significant, or that they are in for some kind of modern day Phantom of the Opera scenario.  Yet, after these scenes, the credits roll and we find ourselves in a completely different scenario - we never see the theatre again.  It is the same with the other two murder sequences - they are completely isolated from the rest of the narrative.

What seems obvious is that Fragasso intended these murders to remain off-screen, instead focusing on his main narrative concerning the psychological dramas of his protagonist.  While Fragasso clearly wanted to back peddle on the gore, he certainly had no qualms regarding gratuitous nudity, judging by the number of times the main character, Melanie (Tara Buckman), bares her breasts for no particular reason.  Indeed, we've barely met her, post-credits, when she whips them out in front of a mirror and starts to caress them.  Fragasso's main plot concerns Melanie being targeted by the masked killer/rapist, who has struck twice already (the theatre murders) - she survives the ordeal, despite having been tied to her bed after he breaks into her house and repeatedly raped, when the killer is disturbed by a neighbour.  She is, however, left so traumatised by these events that, despite seeing the killer's face, she has no recollection of what has happened to her.  In fact, Dr Willow at the hospital where she is being treated claims that she doesn't even remember that she has a young daughter, (now in the temporary custody of the neighbour and his wife), let alone an estranged husband, a drunken ex-cop.  The scene then abruptly cuts to Melanie driving her Pontiac Firebird along the sea front when, out of nowhere, she is accosted by a sleazebag (Peter Hooten) in a Jeep, apparently at random.  He then confronts her in the toilets of a nearby hotel, where she holds a gun on him and humiliates him.  Next thing, she's on the beach, about to take an overdose, when the sleazebag turns up again and stops her, forcing her to drink saltwater (and nearly drowning her in the process), in order to make her vomit up the pills.  He then takes her to a hotel room, where he effectively holds her prisoner and engages in various sado-masochistic sex games with her, (involving her being tied to the bed and baring those breasts again).

All of this is interspersed with the murderer killing two more victims, the police hunting for Melanie, Dr Willow giving statements to the police and the neighbour and his wife (who hates Melanie, it seems), bickering.  At which point the average viewer is left bemused as to what is going on and where this all going.  Now, to be absolutely fair, Fragasso, by presenting his narrative in such a disjointed way, without providing apparent motivation for any of the characters, not even giving us any proper introduction to most of them, is trying to put his audience in the same position as his protagonist: knowing nothing of their past, of any of the people around them, let alone the events unfolding around them.  The plot then takes another left turn as it is revealed that Melanie's situation is actually part of a scheme hatched by Dr Willow and the detective leading the investigation to shock Melanie into regaining her memory by subjecting her to an ordeal similar to that which caused the amnesia in the first place.  So they arrange to have her abducted, subjected to violent sex games and raped!  But wait, it's OK because that sleazebag who is doing all this is actually the estranged drunken ex-cop husband.  Except that it is still rape, as she doesn't know this and is in no position to give consent.  But, hey, this is the nineties when attitudes toward marital rape were far more lax.  

Quite apart from the fact that this whole plot development is morally reprehensible, (the way to treat a woman traumatised by rape is to 'give her a good seeing to'), not to mention bat shit crazy, but it doesn't even work.  Melanie only remembers what happened to her after she gets away from her ex-husband (who she still doesn't know is her ex) and is abducted again by the real killer on the pretext that he is rescuing her.  Only when puts on the mask and starts menacing her again does she remember everything and stabs him in the crotch, just before the ex turns up and fills him full of lead for good measure.  Not that any of this stops Dr Willow from taking credit for stopping the killer.  In reality, of course, if he wasn't struck off for coming up with this scheme in the first place, then he should have been for its spectacular failure.  The film then hits us with a completely out of left field 'twist' at the very end which makes no sense whatsoever, as there has been no build up to it, at all.  Presumably this was another Mattei addition, whose earlier segments are likewise full of unresolved loose ends which seem to be pointing toward something but are never alluded to in the main body of the film.  (For instance, why does the killer have some kind of art studio filled with weird paintings?  When his identity is revealed there is no hint that he might be an artist of any kind).

Any serious intentions that Fragasso might have had are completely undermined, not just by the plot, but by some truly awful performances from his cast, particularly Tara Buckman in the lead.  Peter Hooten is at least suitably sleazy as her ex, but unable to elicit any sympathy even when he is revealed as the 'good guy'.  He apparently didn't act in another film for over twenty years.  The stilted performances of the cast are mirrored by stilted dialogue.  The few times the script goes for more baroque dialogue, the results are more likely to elicit laughter, as when the killer menaces Melanie, spitting out lines such as "I won't kill you right away - first I'll fuck your brains out!"  On the positive side, the film is at least well shot, making good use of the rainy and overcast locations in Virginia Beach, Virginia, (clearly not the sunny Florida it purports to be).  While, at times, Night Killer provides an enjoyably insane viewing experience, with its sudden changes in tone courtesy of Mattei's inserts, which really do seem to come from a different film, it ultimately leaves a bad taste in the mouth, thanks to the fact that, morally, it is rotten to the core and its central plot device distasteful.  (I know, I know.  It's a bit rich for someone who watches so many of these films to complain about a lack of morality and taste, but even I have standards).  Not only that, but it isn't even particularly suspenseful - despite all of the script's misdirection, the identity of the killer is pretty obvious from very early on.  Still, Night Killer could never be described as boring - crazy, yes, morally questionable, yes, but boring?  Certainly not.