Eat the Night is a new dramatic thriller heading to a theater near you. It follows two siblings who share an obsession with the online video game Darknoon. When the developers announce they will shut down the game soon, the siblings’ unbreakable bond is tested. Apolline (Lila Gueneau) becomes more attached to the game, attempting to spend as much time as possible in this world before it is gone forever. Meanwhile, Pablo (Théo Cholbi) abandons his sister as he falls for Night (Erwan Kepoa Falé) and gets in over his head with rival drug dealers.

Caroline Poggi and Jonathan Vinel have directed a very nice drama with a queer romance at its center. While that’s not what most of us came to this thriller expecting, it does not make it an awful movie. The sooner you realize this is a drama with a few moments of violence, the sooner you adjust to the world. Eat the Night is very much a story about three young people who are adrift desperately looking for connection. 

Apo’s world is the video game (that I wish we had gotten more time with), and she has difficulty communicating via any other means. This is why she is initially standoffish with her brother’s new boyfriend. Pablo is a small-time drug dealer who seems to be in love for the first time. He does not understand how much the end of Darknoon means to his sister because he does not need it as much as she does. His disappearing into his new relationship while growing his drug business is part of the reason she cannot let the game go. She knows they have little in common in the real world, and the game keeps them bonded to each other. Eat the Night is very much about two siblings growing apart after spending countless hours forging a bond.  

The script, penned by Poggi, Vinel, and Guillaume Bréaud, is reminiscent of 1990s after-school specials. They add quite a few sex scenes, but it still feels very safe and predictable. The movie is not Earth-shattering or remarkable. However, a few moments reminded me of bonding with some of my siblings over random video games we made it our mission to beat. Eat the Night made me want to text some of them to see if they remembered cheat codes or if they know what happened to our old Nintendo systems. This is not what most of us come to the genre for, but it proves the film was effective in one regard. 

Eat the Night’s “thrilling” moments feel akin to most doomed lover narratives. We know Pablo is pissing the wrong people off. We know his boyfriend, Night, will get caught up in the crossfire. Smart audience members will also surmise that Pablo will get revenge for what was done to his boyfriend. However, we keep waiting for this to connect with Apo and the game. I wish I could tell you these threads connect in a way that blows your mind. Sadly, it culminates in the siblings realizing they will miss their time in Darknoon and with each other—yet another obvious conclusion to round out a rather obvious film.

The biggest problem with Eat the Night is that it tries to shove a few different movies into one film. This results in none of the ideas, characters, or relationships getting fully fleshed out. It also makes it noncommital toward any of the genres it flirts with. It denies the audience a payoff for whatever thread they were rooting for because the ending further squanders any potential. The film instead goes for an emotional moment and misses before cutting to the credits. While I have no doubt this movie will find a few fans, possibly people who miss 90s after-school specials, I cannot say it is a great use of time. However, we have all seen so much worse that I cannot be too mad at this.

Eat the Night will be available in select theaters starting January 10. Check the website for more details.

When thinking of the theme for January, “based on a true story”, many films came to mind. Many films boldly claim to be “based on a true story” and so many of them get it all wrong. If you think a real story is great enough to be adapted into a film, then why do filmmakers find the need to change myriad aspects of what made the story appealing? The first film I wanted to look at that was “based on a true story” is one I’ve scrolled past many times, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. True crime stories fascinate me, as they do many, and this story is one I always thought was interesting.

Henry Lee Lucas was nicknamed the Confession Killer due to his confessions of over one thousand murders. Why was he allowed to confess to so many crimes that he obviously didn’t commit? It comes down to his addiction to nicotine and police laziness. Before we try to analyze whether or not this is a faithful adaptation (it’s not), let’s take a look at the film proper.

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer follows nomad serial killer Henry (Michael Rooker) who is currently shacking up with his prison friend Otis (Tom Towles). The two men are eventually joined by Becky (Tracy Arnold), Otis’s sister who comes to town after escaping a particularly bad relationship. As Henry and Otis slip further into depravity, Henry finds himself getting closer to the off-limits Becky. Will Becky cast a wedge between Henry and Otis? Can she drive him out of the devil’s grips?

As a film, Henry succeeds. It depicts a fascinating delve into the mind of a serial killer. While Henry Lee Lucas probably killed four to five people, this film paints him in a much more questionable light. (I’m not saying he was a good person by any means, but we’ll get to that later.) Co-writer/director John McNaughton sets the scene with a seedy salaciousness. You can feel the dirt, grime, and blood pulsing from the screen. Henry was McNaughton’s directorial debut and oozed controversy; it’s an impressive debut.

Unfortunately, this film is little more than flashy. It’s controversy, for controversy’s sake. The most frustrating aspect about Henry is why it was even made. McNaughton could have easily written a slasher film about a degenerate serial killer and called it a day. Instead, he spits in the face of the people Lucas actually did kill. It should be noted that Michael Rooker and Tom Towles (rest in peace) give exceptionally authentic performances. There’s just no need to set their performances against the backdrop of supposedly real crimes.

A frequent criticism of true crime adaptations comes from the families involved. Recently, the mother of Tony Hughes (one of Jeffrey Dahmer’s victims), came out against the the Netflix series Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story. Did McNaughton specifically pick Henry Lee Lucas because the victims were considered “the less dead”? It’s easy to spit in the face of the victims if their families don’t care about them/know they’re dead.

So what’s the point of trying to tell the Henry Lee Lucas story when you can’t even tell the basic information correctly? Lucas was missing an eye, which caused him many problems growing up. Do you think this was addressed in the film? Nope. Otis’s name in real life was Ottis (pronounced ah-tis). Why change his name? Becky was Ottis’s 11-year-old niece and not his 18-year-old sister. If you’re trying to tell a story about a serial killer that the audience ISN’T supposed to like, then why sugarcoat things?

McNaughton finds it necessary to show kills that Henry Lee Lucas definitely did not commit, yet he finds the need to whitewash the relationship between Henry and Becky. Becky had developmental issues in real life. So why don’t you show the true awful side of Henry? Instead, they decide to show us a consenting relationship between Henry and Becky. It’s truly distasteful. The number of times they try to find ways to make you sympathize with Henry rather than beg for police intervention is astounding.

While Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer succeeds as a film, it completely fails at shedding any light on the true horrific story beneath the fiction. For a film that was post-release deemed X-rated, it is rather tame. With this film’s notoriety, I was expecting something more historically authentic and truthful. The final product is nothing more than two writers’ picking and choosing of history. I know that not every bit of detail can go into a film and some things need to be left out. It’s just confounding as to what was left out and which inauthentic aspects were added.