‘Copycat’: Taut Thriller or Just an Appalling Film?

Having wasted two hours of my life viewing an appalling and disgusting piece of cinematic trash titled “Seven,” I felt compelled to write to convey my agreement with the opinions expressed in Kenneth Turan’s review of “Copycat” (“ ‘Copycat’ Is a Troubling Reflection of Cinema,” Calendar, Oct. 27). We need responsible journalists to remind producers of such films that little artistic merit is achieved by wallowing in the blatantly offensive. Although “Seven” has been successful in terms of box-office receipts, I have yet to encounter anyone who did not regret attending the film. It must be assumed that the film’s drawing power is related to the popularity of its two fine leading actors. Since “Copycat” also has appealing leads, it may likewise find financial success. I would like to hope, however, that actors and actresses of such prodigious talent would be able to find material more worthy of their abilities.

GARY L. GRAY

Los Angeles

“Copycat,” whether it’s good or bad, doesn’t deserve the non-review that Kenneth Turan gave it. Following up on his tiresome piece on rape in film in a recent Sunday Calendar, apparently his views are so pronounced he can’t objectively critique any film with violence against women.

“Copycat” is meant to be a taut, tense thriller. Excitement is created in such films by putting people in jeopardy--is Turan suggesting women simply are not to be threatened in this genre? In “Copycat,” Sigourney Weaver and Holly Hunter portray talented professionals who get the job done--better than males, in fact. That they are women and therefore physically weaker only makes their job more difficult, and any success they have is proof of their resourcefulness.

ROBERT OTEROS

Los Angeles