JFK - Back When Conspiracy Theories Were Fun

I find myself watching JFK (or at least the beginning hour or so as I go to sleep at night) once a month because it’s almost always on a streaming service I have (currently on HBO Max). Each time I watch it, I plan on watching Nixon soon after, but rarely get around to it, as Nixon is almost never on a streaming service. And because of my idiotic principles, I refuse to rent it or buy it on digital because I already own it on DVD…and the basic premise of this site concerns movies I physically own, so I finally got the DVD out and watched Nixon the old fashioned way. But first, some thoughts on conspiracy culture and JFK.

Back When Conspiracy Theories Were Fun

JFK had a huge effect on me when I first watched it. I already fancied myself a history buff and was proud of my knowledge of the era. My stupid high school mind was not ready for the all out attack of this film. I became obsessed with the JFK assassination which resulted in reading a few books and writing way too many essays on it once I got to college. 

At the time, I just wanted to believe every bit of Oliver Stone’s conspiracy fever dream. I wanted to know who those hoboes were that were arrested by the train station. Who killed Lee Bowers? How many fake Oswalds were there? Did Clay Shaw really admit to being Clay Bertrand? Was X a real person? And on and on and on.

As I’ve gotten older, I’ve calmed down, though I still think that head shot came from the front. But I’m no longer making people look at fucked up pictures of David Ferrie like I did to my intro to speech class in college…definitely got a few bewildered looks that day. 

I still want to believe everything in the Stone movie, but common sense (and light research) show that a lot of it is pure fiction/fantasy. JFK is a perfect example of how a conspiracy can scratch an itch you didn’t even know you had. 

Take an accepted historical event or common fact, present the unknown “truth” behind it, follow that rabbit hole to the center of the fucking planet. It’s very satisfying. Watching JFK the first time, I felt like part of some secret club finding out all kinds of cool secret shit the CIA never wanted me to know. But just being aware of the “truth” isn’t enough. Then I had to read some books so I could throw out some extra facts that weren’t in the movie to prove I was more in the know than your basic conspiracy theorist. Eventually, though, I had to accept that there isn’t “truth” out there, only belief. And that’s when this shit gets scary.

I finally accepted that there will never be the evidence I need to prove exactly what happened on that day. The closest thing I’ll ever get to that is suspending my disbelief and rewatching JFK, which is exactly why I’ve watched it so many times. This is when conspiracy theories were fun and mostly harmless. But at some point, the conspiracies got crazier and the facts were even more ignored, and it became dangerously close to becoming mainstream. 

People would often give me weird looks when I would go deep on the JFK stuff while we were hanging out, and rightfully so. I was being a fucking weirdo about something that didn’t really matter and could never be proven. But now, mainly thanks to the internet, instead of ranting and raving at sane people who will eventually calm you down (hopefully), now all the conspiracy theorists find an online echo chamber and things get too dark. 

It’s as if being a conspiracy theorist went from being a hobby to a deranged profession. JFK didn’t necessarily create this problem, but it’s tied into it by bringing a major conspiracy theory into pop culture. I feel like this is one of the most acceptable conspiracy theories out there thanks to this film. 

These days, I watch JFK for entertainment purposes and as a cautionary tale for going too deep into a theory. The cast is insane; you have guys like John Candy and Vincent D’Onofrio showing up for just a few moments. It’s hard to find a scene that doesn’t have a recognizable actor in it. And most of them are fucking going for it. Kevin Bacon talking shit to Kevin Costner is a standout moment, and Joe Pesci deserved an Oscar nom just for how he smoked during his first scene with Costner. For a three hour movie that has a dozen plot threads and red herrings, JFK never drags and is always entertaining thanks to Stone’s frenetic style and the aforementioned cast. 

Because of those elements, I can turn my brain off and enjoy it all. When I want to engage with the film a bit more, these days I focus on Costner’s home life in the film. The first few times I watched it (before I had a family of my own, by the way), I wrote off Sissy Spacek and all their kids as the typical hindrance to the hero’s devotion to the “right” thing to do. Watching now, I see Spacek as the real hero of the film, putting up with Costner’s crazy shit. If I ditched my wife on Easter and left her to take all the kids to a busy restaurant, I wouldn’t be here typing this nonsense right now. In this film, though, Costner just brushes it off to “not checking the calendar.” As if Tommy Lee Jones couldn’t wipe off the silver body paint and come into the office on another Sunday? Come on!

That’s the story of the film that gets lost in all the magic bullet and “back and to the left” (and realizing that Newman was in the magic bullet scene and the Keith Hernandez magic loogie scene in Seinfeld) stuff. Now I watch this and see the damage fully committing to a conspiracy theory can cause. The victory at the end of the film isn’t that the jury agreed a conspiracy existed and Costner brought about the only trial for it; it’s that Costner, even though he swears to keep fighting (but he doesn’t sound nearly as convincing as he did in his closing argument), walks away from the crowd with his wife and son. And now instead of reading a book or writing an essay (um…aside from this one just this one time) or going down a reddit rabbit hole, I walk away from it, too.

"The Postman" - The Pro-Government Movie That No One Wanted

*As always, I write these articles under the assumption that you've seen the movie, so...SPOILERS.

When I decided to write about The Postman, the government shutdown had not started yet (this gives you a clue as to how long I procrastinate with some of these articles). I just wanted to write about a huge commercial ($17.6 million box office on a $80 million budget) and critical (9% on Rotten Tomatoes) failure that I actually liked. I wasn’t planning on making it topical at all. So sometimes things happen for a reason. That’s right, I inadvertently willed a government shutdown into existence so my Postman article made sense. But if you’re reading this post-shutdown, then I’m just writing about a crappy movie I like.

R-rated old-timey storytelling about how the government is necessary.

The government shutdown inspired the main topic for this article because when you watch this movie with a shutdown in mind, it turns it into this pro-government manifesto. Before the shutdown, my main takeaway was about hope, especially since the movie flat out tells you that the Postman hands out hope like candy from his pocket. It still is about that, but from here on out, I can only see this movie as a testament to the power of government.

So the world is destroyed by war and whatnot, and civilization, at least in the Pacific Northwest, has devolved into a feudal-type system. Towns hide behind walls, wary of strangers, only opening their gates to provide for the local warlord that controls the area. Costner, a lone wanderer, stumbles across a postal uniform and mailbag after escaping from conscripted military service. He decides to use the mail as a way to get free food from communities. But he doesn’t realize that by restarting mail service, he would remind people what they were missing in their non-government lives. All of this leads to an armed resistance that eventually re-establishes the government everyone missed so dearly.

Perhaps this is one of the main reasons why this movie failed so momentously: people don’t like governments. I think most of us recognize the need for government, but still most people hate how it operates...or doesn’t operate. Either way, the modern movie-goer (and this goes for the audience of 1997, too) isn’t clamoring for a nearly three hour love letter (sorry) to the government. Honestly, when I look at the film in that light, I like it less. So I have to turn off my brain and just enjoy The Postman for its almost refreshing old-timeyness ("old-timeyness" may not be a word, but it still describes this movie).

The Postman is a perfect example of the type of old-fashioned American epic that Kevin Costner liked to make, and it marks the last time someone let him do it. From the music to the length to the patriotism to the good vs. evil simpleness to the inspiring speeches, this movie just feels like it was made by someone from the 1950s who was tired of all this depressing crap Hollywood keeps making! And that works for me. The film isn’t without it’s problems; in fact, there are a lot of them (check the Random Thoughts section for examples). But it is kind of nice to see a movie this straightforward and simple. It can be hard to get past that running time, though.

And that is kind of what I love the most about this movie (that, and the casting of Tom Petty as himself). The film takes its time, and (I can’t believe I’m about to write this) it could have been longer. Seriously. Some of my biggest issues this time around was the confusing passage of time. Olivia Williams is seemingly pregnant for years yet never shows. So this means the movie takes place over the course of a few months. Over those months, a dude who takes the coat off a dead postal worker inadvertently creates a rebellion, takes out the local warlord (Will Patton, who I liked in this movie but have a hard time buying as some militaristic badass), and re-established the United States Government. Just take out the pregnancy subplot, and the timing isn’t an issue. And without that example of how little actual time has passed, the film would be free to flesh out these rapid events. Instead of just having Costner saunter back to town to discover a fully functioning postal service, have a few scenes of Ford Lincoln Mercury getting it going.

So perhaps the film doesn’t need to be longer, and some of the plot needs to be rearranged. Of course, I might be crazy for even thinking this much about The Postman. I imagine a lot of people completely forgot about this movie, if they ever knew of it at all. But it has stuck with me all these years later, and it turns out a movie about the postal service re-establishing our government can be topical. Perhaps if the current shutdown included the post office, a Postman-type situation would happen. Let’s hope we never find out. God bless America!

Who would dare challenge this man?

Why do I own this?

I’m kind of embarrassed to admit this, but I think this might be the seventh or eighth time I’ve watched The Postman (easily putting me in the top ten list of most viewings of this movie). So it makes sense to own a movie that I’ve revisited so many times. Plus, look at that case. This DVD is a relic of the early days. But really, I do like this movie, despite the new faults I seem to find with it each time I watch it. I make fun of it quite a bit, but I truly find it to be an enjoyable, simple movie.

Random Thoughts (This is my equivalent of live-tweeting the film, so some of this won’t make much sense if you haven’t watched the movie recently.)

...and it took five seconds for me to see this film as a warning about our current political situation. Radio samples mention a rise in hate crimes and racially motivated attacks.

I love that Nathan Holn is referred to as a motivational speaker. That's who brought about the apocalypse?! Fucking Tony Robbins?

He's shown as a little delusional at first (talking to the donkey, seeing a glimpse of the past in the mirror, hearing actual TV shows on the destroyed TV), but that's never really explored. He's just presented as an excellent bullshitter and actor who ends up growing into the character he inadvertently created.

Reciting Macbeth leads to some foreshadowing I didn't pick up on previously. (Bethlehem being an unworthy leader.) Probably because this is the first time I've seen this since I've read Macbeth.

The guy giving Costner shit for his bad acting seems like a meta moment since Costner has faced criticism for his performances in the past.

They take men between “15 and 50” to serve in the Holnist Army. Now I get that this range will make it clear who is eligible, but this being post apocalypse, it would be very easy for young looking teenagers to claim to be under 15 and middle aged men to claim to be over 50. Why not just say all men “in fighting shape” or something?

I've hated Giovanni Ribisi ever since this movie. This is a compliment to his performance as an annoying, sniveling suck-ass.

“Men, strong men, have been denied their destiny.” This definitely sounds like some shit I’ve heard in the last couple of years as men have felt threatened by women.

His job system is really flawed. So if you dig holes, now you fill them? And if you were a doctor do you now kill people? I would claim I used to be a cook, so then my job would just be to eat.

That's a brutal training regimen they have. Twenty miles a day with no food for three days?

Choke on that mule, Ribisi!

I don't care if the world ends, I'll still prefer Universal Soldier over The Sound of Music. But I get the point.

It seems like more people would challenge for leadership. No offense to Will Patton, but I don't think of him as some bad ass. I know we get the story about Getty challenging him, but why did the fight only last six seconds? At the end of the movie the fight between Costner and Patton is just them rolling around on the ground. They couldn't do this two and a half hours earlier?

So if Bethlehem used to sell copiers, then by his own logic shouldn't he now be buying them?

I like the transition from the movie screen to the next scene. I wish this movie had more interesting little moments like this.

Ribisi, you tattle-tale motherfucker!

That shot of Costner swimming in the foreground while the two men jump from the bridge in the background is pretty great.

My God, you earned that stabbing, Ribisi.

The uniform on that skeleton being intact is one thing, but a zippo still lighting after years is ludicrous. I used to use a zippo, and if I let that thing sit for a month without use it would dry out.

Why did the kid send his tooth to his grandpa? Leave that shit for the Tooth Fairy, dummy!

Holn is referred to as a farmer in the letter he delivers. So he was a motivational speaker/farmer? I'm not saying you can't be both, but that's very unlikely. How could he tend to his crops if he was out giving speeches? Or did people come to his farm to listen to him speak? That seems...odd.

Good to know that the apocalypse at least ended the two party system. Long live President Starkey!

I always thought it was odd how the music swelled when Olivia Williams was riding him in the overly long, unnecessary sex scene. Sure, they eventually fall in love, but the sex was purely for procreation. Just an overall uncomfortable moment.

He's going to do a “figure eight” in a world where 8 is a symbol for evil? That's like restarting the postal route in Germany circa 1946 in the shape of a swastika.

The little girl singing “America, the Beautiful” as he leaves is a bit much. How does she even know that song? The United States was abolished before she was born.

I have got to hear the rest of Bethlehem's story about the goat. What an odd, random bit of dialogue.

Bethlehem is going to make America strong again.

Costner shaves his beard and now Bethlehem doesn't recognize a former prisoner he spoke to individually and that eventually escaped?

Shouldn't they say, “You misspelled ‘tyranny'” instead of “You spelled ‘tyranny’ wrong”?

Who is that little kid sending a letter to anyway?

How did Elvis not have a name before the Postman named it? Who the fuck just lives in a place but doesn't call it something? I've got a name for them: Dumbfuckville.

In defense of the people who hated this movie, it wasn't the best idea to make a movie that glamorized a militarized postal service during a time when disgruntled postal workers was a thing.

I love that Tom Petty plays himself, even though he should be 16 years older. It's just a smart way to deal with a distracting casting choice. There’s no one who saw him and thought, “Gee, what nuanced character is Tom Petty playing?” They just thought, “Look, it’s Tom Petty!” And they were right.

“You give out hope like it was candy in your pocket.” What an awful line. I really do like this movie, but moments like that make it very hard.

He never went to Saint Rose? He couldn't take a day off? How much was there for him to do after the Holnists were done?

The special features are odd. Most of them are text-based, which used to be a thing. The only featurette is about the cable car sequence. It's pretty lame. But special features were in their infancy when this came out.

Halloween Month: "Mr. Brooks"

*As always, I write these articles under the assumption that you have seen the movie, so...SPOILERS.

Mr. Brooks was not initially on the lineup for Halloween Month, but I happened upon it the other day and wanted to watch it again. Plus, it fits with the theme, so two birds with one stone and whatnot.

I’m sad to say that my overall impression after rewatching this is negative. It still has moments I enjoy, most notable William Hurt and Kevin Costner, but I realized this time that it’s a bit of a mess. There are way too many plot lines and Dane Cook’s casting was an unfortunate byproduct of his flash in the pan fame that was occurring at the time. Still, it’s fun to watch Costner play a killer, and Hurt’s performance makes it worth watching alone. It’s not that he’s doing amazing, nuanced work; it’s just that he’s so clearly enjoying himself.

Costner and Hurt

I’ll start with Kevin Costner. He has become a bit more low key these days, showing up in a few movies a year, some good, some mediocre. But he was a big deal when I was growing up. He went from huge successes (Dances with Wolves, JFK, Robin Hood, etc.) to unmitigated failures (Waterworld and The Postman). It seemed like people enjoyed the fact that his films had underperformed. (I actually like Waterworld, and I flat out love The Postman, and I have never understood the hatred it gets.)

Despite that, Costner has kept at it. And because of that, he still shows up in a great or interesting film (or TV series) from time to time. Mr. Brooks was one of those movies for me. I had never seen him portray such a troubled, evil character (even if he arguably does not want to do the terrible things he does). It was interesting, and it renewed my interest in his career. But Costner is elusive. He works steadily, but it seems like only one movie every five years is worth revisiting. And it doesn’t help that he’s now entered Dad mode (Man of Steel and Molly’s Game). Don’t get me wrong, he makes for a great cinematic father, but those characters are just side notes; they aren’t the focus of the film.

I suppose his erratic success is why I never think of him as one of my favorite actors, even though he is once I remember him. It’s doubly odd when I look back at his filmography and realize that he’s been in so many movies that I would put among my favorites of all time (JFK, Bull Durham, Open Range, Tin Cup, A Perfect World, The Untouchables, The Postman) and plenty that like but don’t love (Field of Dreams, Thirteen Days, Wyatt Earp, Dances with Wolves, Waterworld). If any other actor had that many movies I owned (all except for Wyatt Earp), I would immediately think of them when asked who my favorite actor was. But because his career is so varied, I tend to forget about Costner. When I do remember his work, however, I realize how great his career has been thus far.

William Hurt, on the other hand, is an actor that I somehow completely ignored before his scene-stealing performance in A History of Violence. I truly had no idea who he was when I first saw that film, but he blew me away. I like that movie quite a bit, but his appearance near the end of the film makes it one of favorites.

Obviously, the filmmakers of Mr. Brooks felt the same, since he’s essentially playing the same character here, albeit in a more playful and, ironically, less dangerous manner. And just as with A History of Violence, Hurt elevates the overall film, helping you to forget its problems every time he shows up in a scene.

Looking back over his career, it’s easy to see why I was late to the Hurt party: he hit his stride when I was a toddler. He was nominated for Best Actor three years in a row (1986, 1987, 1988) and won in 1986 for Kiss of the Spider Woman. I’ve since gone back and watched his most notable work because I was so impressed with him in Violence and Mr. Brooks. It made me realize that while he’s great in everything he does, I mainly want to see him as a villain. I’m not sure if that’s because my first impression of him came from a villainous role or because he’s truly more suited for such roles. Either way, I like Hurt much more when he’s sadistic. He is able to find that sweet spot of being funny while being scary without becoming a joke, if that makes sense. I’m thinking of Jeffrey Dean Morgan as both the Comedian and Negan in Watchmen and The Walking Dead, respectively. Morgan is okay in those roles, but I never really believe him when his character laughs or claims something is funny. It’s clearly a show he’s putting on. Perhaps that’s intentional or due to bad writing; either way, it’s less effective than what Hurt does in Mr. Brooks and, mainly, in Violence.

It’s the sign of a great performance when you finish a movie and wish that actor had been in more scenes. With Mr. Brooks, that ends up being a major problem I had with the film this time around.

Costner: "Honey, I'm going to be in my studio working on glazes for the next three days."
Helgenberger: "Okay, dear, I'll just go about my business as your shell of a wife and act like it's normal to work on glazes all the time, you maniac."

How many plot lines can you fit in a two hour movie?

When I think back on Mr. Brooks, I think about Costner and Hurt giving interesting performances (and I also kind of remember Dane Cook being in it). In my memories, the film is mainly about the two main characters. Upon rewatching it, I was unpleasantly surprised when I came across how much plot they tried to cram into this movie.

Here’s a list of every plot line I noticed:

• A family man lives a second life as a serial killer.
• A serial killer is addicted to killing and wants to stop.
• A man witnesses Costner kill and wants to be mentored by him.
• Costner’s daughter drops out of college due to pregnancy...and more.
• Daughter is a murderer too.
• Daughter’s mess needs to be cleaned up.
• Daughter might end up killing him.
• A detective is getting closer to finding him.
• Detective is going through a messy divorce.
• Detective is being stalked by an escaped murderer.
• Killing is viewed as addiction, and Costner goes to AA to help with it.

This was originally pitched as a TV show. With this many plot lines, I can see why. Also, while researching the movie, I found plenty of references to a planned trilogy, so why jam this much plot into the first film? There’s enough going on here for three movies already. It’s not that any of it is all that bad, but when you put all of this plot in one two-hour movie, it gets pretty damn silly. You end up with Costner tying a neat little bow on top of six or more plot lines in the last five minutes. In an already slightly silly movie, the unnecessary extra plots made it laughable near the end.

If they just went with 2 or 3 of these, this movie could have been focused and better. Not to mention they could have spent more time with the strongest aspects of the movie: Costner and Hurt’s interactions. Did they not feel confident with that initial plot line or something? Were they worried the trilogy wouldn’t happen (it obviously didn’t), so they tried to fit it all in one? Did Demi Moore only sign on if her character was given more to do? Did the studio push for more Dane Cook since he was popular at the time? With that in mind, did the studio push for him to be in the movie in the first place? There are so many questions that will never be answered, at least not truthfully. But I do want to focus more on Demi Moore’s character and Marg Helgenberger’s lack thereof.

To start, is Demi Moore’s character even necessary? Rewatching this, I’m not sure it’s important to have Costner actively chased by the cops at all. I suppose having no police presence at all might seem odd, but just make it a one note character that we check in with sparingly. Why complicate the plot with a detective who has just as much if not more going on than the main character?

If Demi Moore has to stay, then they should have at least cut one of her plot lines. Either lose the silly divorce (there are at least ten minutes of screen time devoted to this) or lose the escaped serial killer out for revenge (which felt tacked on anyway). You know what? Never mind. Demi Moore’s character should not be in this movie. It’s as simple as that. It felt like she was in a completely different film, and that other film was predictable and boring.

When I think about cutting Moore out of the movie, I realize that that would take away the biggest female presence in the movie, and that’s problematic. But there’s a solution that would have fixed another issue with this movie: give Costner’s wife something to do!

In this film, his wife does four things (if my memory is correct): she goes to an awards banquet, she worries about their daughter, she eats ice cream, she works out. That’s it. She is a shell of a person. Why have this character at all? And why case Marg Helgenberger for such a nothing role? And why is this wife so trusting, anyway?

Take all that stupid drama with the detective and give it to the wife. I’m not saying have an escaped killer go after her, but have her be the one who’s on Costner’s trail. There are so many places this could go. There could have been a confrontation near the end. There could have been a twist revealing she knew the whole time and accepted it. Hell, have her take over the Dane Cook part, too. Why can’t his wife find out about his habit and want in on it? Then he could be worried about her killing him instead of his daughter killing him. That could do away with the stupid theory this film puts forth that the need to kill is an inherited addiction. Instead, make it sexually transmitted! That’s just as stupid, but I like it more.

Maybe I’m going way too far with all of this, but I think everyone would agree that the part of the wife is woefully underwritten. We’re supposed to believe that she accepts his excuse of “working on glazes” every time he disappears for an entire evening? Even if she does believe it, any functioning human would still confront Costner about it. “When are you sleeping?! Why are these glazes more important than me?!”

Okay, I’ve spent far too much time thinking about this movie. Clearly I have some issues with it. It’s fun if you turn off your brain. I just didn’t want to turn it off this time, I guess.

Do I regret buying this?

Yeah. I bought this during my “I must buy one movie every week” phase. I still like the stuff with Costner and Hurt, but if I want to see Hurt play funny/scary, I’ll just rewatch A History of Violence.

Random Thoughts

This movie thinks it’s a lot cooler than it actually is.

The opening text is unnecessary.

What is with the toenail jokes at his award dinner?

The music annoyed me. Especially the wannabe cool music that plays with the opening text, only for the score to give way to a Forrest Gump-esque piano when the title comes up? What?

Apparently the score was nominated for an award. Not an Oscar, but still. Am I crazy? Is this a good score?

Costner’s post-kill twirl is silly.

I think the film would have been a bit more interesting if they had delayed the killer reveal for at least another five to ten minutes. Give us a few opening scenes of him as a normal guy then hit us with the murder. Instead, the movie flat out tells us from the beginning. They were probably worried about wasting time since they had thirty plots to get through…

I completely forgot Demi Moore was in this.

I love Hurt’s performance, but his character is a cheat for the audience and Costner. Without him, we would have to figure out everything on our own, and Costner (and the filmmakers) would have to convey Costner’s thoughts in a more nuanced way...but that wouldn’t be as fun, so I’m cool with it.

Dane Cook...ugh. I don’t hate him as much as a lot of people do, but he makes some annoying choices in this film. Why does he have to add little sound effects to his dialogue? I just wonder if that was him or if it was in the script.

Demi Moore’s boss is inexplicably wearing a bluetooth headset for an entire scene. I get it. It was a different time, but why have her wear that in a scene? It’s not like you can see what brand it is so it’s not product placement. Just, why?

Costner’s daughter bringing up abortion definitely sidetracks the movie into touchy territory for a bit.

Moore and Cook haven’t been in many mainstream films since this…

The director of this also directed Kuffs! And Kuffs had a plot line about a pregnant college girl. Way to recycle a storyline.

How many flashbacks with extra loud sound effects of that couple getting shot do we need?

What’s with the random ET joke about Cook?

Man, Marg Helgenberger must never ask what the fuck Costner is up to.

Hurt’s comment, “Even if he was charming and funny I still wouldn’t like him,” is definitely about Cook the comedian, not the character. That line always seemed odd, and it takes me out of the film. It also makes me think any weird business with Cook (like the ET joke) was added because it was Cook, and he was pretty popular at the time.

If Costner zones out everytime he “talks” to Hurt, then most of his life must be a zombie-like fugue state.

So he makes a trip across the country to do some murder clean-up murder and comes straight home, and his wife thought he was working on glazes all night? Holy fuck, she is trusting!

The hallway shoot was pretty lame. It felt like a Matrix rip off without really attempting to rip it off. Does that make sense? I don’t know. I did not think I would have this much to say about this movie.

I still love the last scene and the song that accompanies it. I’m definitely glad it turned out to be a nightmare. This is a pretty wacky movie as is, but his daughter randomly killing him at the end is too nonsensical, especially since I don’t personally buy into the serial killer as an inherited addiction theory.