I don't even remember when I laughed. That is not a good sign when the good jokes aren't even memorable.Now, understand that I have nothing against this movie's premise. A comedy about a serial killer could've worked, as could a movie analyzing a serial killer's delusion about himself and what he does. However, this movie tries to be both. As such, it was impossible for me to take the serious bits seriously due to the attempts at comedy and the comedic bits aren't exaggerated enough for me NOT to take them seriously. If you want to be comedic, be comedic. If you want to be serious, be serious. Don't try to meet halfway. The only point where I started taking the film completely seriously was at the end during the climax, and even then I didn't like what I was seeing. While I held high hopes for this movie at the beginning thanks to its title, those hopes were quickly dashed when we were introduced to our resident serial killer, Mike. Now, nothing against the actor, but in a comedy with as dark a subject matter as this, there is no place for people. And that's my main problem with Mike: the film tries too hard to portray him as a normal person while forgetting that comedy comes from the abnormal, the twisted, and the weird. Mike wasn't any of those things. He was just "normal", and as such, the movie's attempts to portray his character comically fall flat. Then again, maybe I was supposed to take them seriously, but because of the unclear tone the movie had I was unsure whether I was supposed to laugh or be horrified. Most of the time I was horrified.Despite that, while I might not have liked this movie, I let it keep two additional stars on the merit of its premise and the fact that while the problems in this movie are big ones, they're hardly rage-inducing.And please, if you're going to make a movie about a serial killer, go full-bore. Don't try to meet the two ends of the spectrum halfway.

The best black comedies, such as Fargo or Dr. Strangelove have the genius of the Coen brothers or Stanley Kubrick behind them. How to Be a Serial Killer is an interesting concept which never really develops into anything memorable. Written and directed by Luke Ricci, a man who will never be in the same company as the aforementioned directors of the past(Kubrick) or present(Coens). Mike Wilson is a combination of the articulate and charismatic Ted Bundy, and the fictional Dexter from the Showtime series. Mike is on an infomercial, promoting the killing of annoying people. He takes on a student, Bart, and instructs him on how to dispose of corpses and the many different and creative ways of committing murder. The result is a mildly amusing comedy, which sort of breezes along and is at the level of a made for TV movie.

Offbeat and mostly satirical, this film gets off to a great start and ends with a bang. But the script has a somewhat weak middle section. With gusto, and dressed mostly in black, cocky motivational speaker Mike Wilson (Dameon Clarke) appears on a dark stage and presents us with his "ten easy lessons" on how to get more out of life by being a serial killer.A narrator begins the TV infomercial. "Is it hard for you to get up in the morning? ... Well don't despair, because Mike Wilson can help you. Mike's unique formula has helped millions of people ... Since becoming a serial killer, Mike has achieved a level of success ... he never thought possible. And now he's going to share his secrets with you in this amazing life-changing seminar". Marvelous.The plot alternates between Mike's on-stage lessons and his field experience mentoring a young nerdy-looking video store clerk, Bart (Matthew Gubler). Together, as buddies, they excise a number of people whom they take a disliking to. Trouble is, their victims don't really deserve their fate. I would have preferred people who really measured up: a Wall Street swindler, some crooked politician, a rapist, a CEO whose company products hurt innocent people, for example.At various points in the plot, a psychiatrist, who talks directly to viewers, imparts some legit background information on serial killers. Which contrasts nicely with Mike's false "perception is reality" creed.I like this film less for its comedy (though the beginning is funny) than for its originality and thematic depth. Clarke and Gubler are well cast; and their performances are fine. A digital, high-definition camcorder captures the visuals; and with characters occasionally breaking the fourth wall, the film conveys a documentary look and feel.Most of the film is satirical and meant as black comedy. But in the final few minutes the film turns serious, as it communicates a profound sense of fatalism, by way of an amazingly potent rendition of an old gospel hymn and the stark visuals of a man entrapped by delusion.

When my buddies asked me to check out the Horror Film Festival this weekend, I did not suspect to view such a modern twist on the traditional "horror" genre. Rather than drinking in the normally comedic levels of blood and gore, this film let the audience laugh with it. Interestingly, it was at its least gory at the most cinematic points, whether it was the entertaining relationship between Mike and Bart, or the conjured fantasies of the former. The acting of both Dameon Clarke and Matthew Gray Gubler were refreshingly believable, given the set up. I call this a darkumentary because that it takes on the form of a crew following around a spontaneous (not quite serial) killer, Mike, and his apprentice/pupil/friend/video store employee, Bart. As with other "mockumentaries," this creation has a tongue-in-cheek tone throughout. Nonetheless, its humor surpasses what has become banal in horror films of a more traditional ilk. I haven't a strong background when it comes to Horror, and was bashful of my lack thereof while at this horror festival, but I recognized this movie as a new breed of horror. I laughed at the sheer inhumanity because the movie was at that level; I did not laugh when Mike questioned Bart's loyalty, nor when Bart hypothesized worst-case scenarios of getting found out. In fact, the characters in this horror might be its most distinguishing element. Most horror films, even Army of Darkness, are carried by a single lead role. In "How to be a Serial Killer," we follow the progression of 2 men, albeit one in the shadow of the other. Thanks to its documentary side scenes, we get a chance to separate the fourth wall in a genre that is rarely looked at as being multi-dimensional. The more I think about this movie, the more I like it. Funny, well written, impeccable blood and gore, and more thought provoking than I had initially felt. I'll say it here, I think this movie could shed new light on what horror is really all about. Apparently Matthew Gray Gubler has somewhat of a following, and I agree that both leading actors are deserving of future roles.