Spring is in the air — the weather is getting warmer, the quad is getting crowded and finals have sucked the joy out of life once again. Whether you’re starting co-op, coming back to classes or taking on a new class schedule, spring term is a fresh start after the slog of winter term. It’s also the perfect time to leave your apartment, get some fresh air and go sit in a dark movie theater for two hours. Here are eight movies coming out this spring that are worth taking a study break for:

“The Lovebirds” (Originally April 3, now unknown)

Romance, comedy and crime come together in this offbeat movie about a couple who accidentally become suspects in a murder. Issa Rase (“Insecure”) and Kumail Nanjiani (“The Big Sick”) star in what promises to be a comedy of errors with high stakes and plenty of hijinks. While romcoms can be hit or miss, the introduction of a thriller element suggests that “The Lovebirds” will be a fresh and funny addition to the genre.

“Antlers” (April 17)

Director Scott Cooper (“Crazy Heart”) and producer Guillermo del Toro (“Pan’s Labyrinth”) helm this horror film about a teacher, a local sheriff and a young boy with a dark secret in rural Oregon. “Antlers” is an adaptation of the short story “The Quiet Boy,” a creepy modern fairytale inspired by the legend of the wendigo. It’s pretty standard horror fare, but if the delightfully spooky trailer is any indication, “Antlers” will be a worthy addition to the genre.

“Promising Young Woman” (April 17)

“Promising Young Woman” is a horror-comedy twist on the female revenge thriller, a controversial genre popularized by movies like “Hard Candy” and “Jennifer’s Body.” Carey Mulligan (“Suffragette”) plays a vigilante who pretends to be black-out drunk at parties to trick sexually predatory men into revealing their true colors. While the bright colors and cartoonish sensibility of the trailer clash with the darker themes of sexual abuse, it is clear that “Promising Young Woman” is at heart a clever, stylish social commentary.

“Antebellum” (April 24)

Janelle Monae (“Hidden Figures”) takes on the lead role in a new horror film that appears to be a cross between Octavia E. Butler’s “Kindred” and Jordan Peele’s “Get Out.” While the premise is vague and the teaser trailer reveals few details, it seems that “Antebellum” is a psychological horror involving time travel between the present day and the Antebellum south. Whatever the details of the plot, with Monae in the lead and a premise that draws parallels between the plight of black Americans past and present, it’s safe to say that “Antebellum” will be worth a watch.

“The Personal History of David Copperfield” (May 8)

“The Personal History of David Copperfield” reimagines the classic Dickens novel as an over-the-top comedy starring Dev Patel (“Slumdog Millionaire”) alongside Hugh Laurie, Tilda Swinton and Peter Capaldi. The trailer features gorgeous costumes, witty banter and a fun anachronistic sensibility. According to early reviews, director Armando Iannucci (“The Death of Stalin”) updates the bleak and stodgy “David Copperfield” in a way that is both true to the original story and resonant with modern audiences.

“The Woman in the Window” (May 15)

Amy Adams (“Arrival”) plays an agoraphobic woman whose worst fears about the world beyond her window are proven true when she witnesses a horrific crime. Like “Gone Girl” and “Girl on the Train,” “The Woman in the Window” is an adaptation of a best-selling psychological thriller novel. While the premise isn’t the most original, Adams is a brilliant actress, and her role as the neurotic protagonist is sure to provide her with yet another chance to prove her acting chops.

“The Green Knight” (May 29)

Dev Patel stars in a retelling of the Arthurian tale of “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.” The trailer, somber in tone and beautifully shot, gives little away, but this is clearly no CGI-laden popcorn flick — instead, it seems to be a combination of medieval fantasy and psychological thriller. Given that it’s an A24 film, it’s fair to assume that “The Green Knight” will be a restrained, moody film worthy of the legend that inspired it.

“Candyman” (June 12)

“Candyman” follows an artist (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, “The Get Down”), who accidentally reawakens the hook-handed spirit that terrorized Chicago’s black community decades ago in this spiritual sequel to the 1992 horror-thriller by the same name. Jordan Peele (“Get Out”) updates this cult classic film to address twenty-first-century concerns such as cultural appropriation and gentrification. While the original “Candyman” was brilliant and politically aware, Peele’s remake looks every bit as frightening and thought-provoking as its predecessor.

Nicolas Cage is a rare talent. He’s starred in dozens of bad films, but no film has ever been made worse by his presence. He has the extraordinary ability to give a performance exactly as good (or as bad) as the film he’s been cast in — so when he happens to be in a great film, he shines.

Cage’s latest project is one of those great films. “Color Out of Space” is hallucinogenic film adaptation of the H. P. Lovecraft story by the same name. It features Cage in the starring role as Nathan Gardner, a dorky dad slash alpaca farmer faced with extraterrestrial forces. When a glowing meteorite lands in his front yard, Nathan and his family (a financial advisor wife fighting breast cancer, a neo-pagan daughter, a stoner son and the obligatory creepy kid) begin experiencing inexplicable phenomena. Meanwhile, hydrologist Ward Phillips (Elliot Knight) tries to find a scientific explanation for the strange happenings. As the Gardner family’s property turns into a technicolored Silent Hill, our heroes race against time to escape an otherworldly horror.

It’s exactly as weird as it sounds, but Cage manages to take this oddball movie from bonkers to brilliant with an unhinged performance that complements director Richard Stanley’s everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach to filmmaking.

“Color Out of Space” has a lot going on, and not every element necessarily belongs in the same film. Plot points include an off-the-grid conspiracy theorist, daddy issues, water pollution, blood rituals, corrupt politicians and a scene involving Cage aggressively taking bites out of misshapen tomatoes. Interspersed with chillingly beautiful special effects and stomach-churning body horror are quirky one-liners and humorous scenes that often feel out of place.

Even with the sheer amount of insanity going on, there are moments that drag. The first 20 minutes are all but devoid of tension, although I will admit that it’s a pleasure to watch Cage wander around in a slouchy dad cardigan bickering with his family about alpacas. After that, the pacing continues to be uneven until the electrifying conclusion.

Fortunately, the good far outweighs the bad. For one, there’s not a bad performance in the film. Nicolas Cage is Nicolas Cage. It can’t be easy holding your own with Cage as your scene partner, but Joely Richardson (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) is excellent as Nathan’s put-upon wife, Theresa. Madeleine Arthur (“To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before”) is particularly compelling as teenage witch Lavinia. Brendan Meyer (“The Guest”) as Benny doesn’t get as much to work with as his on-screen sister, but what he does get to do, he does well. Child actor Julian Hillard (“The Haunting of Hill House”) is alternately adorable and unnerving as the youngest child, Jack. And Elliot Knight (“Titans”) provides a refreshingly restrained performance to counterbalance the rest of the madness onscreen.

As for the inimitable Nicolas Cage, it feels like a cop-out to compare his performance to Jack Nicholson in “The Shining,” but I almost can’t avoid it. Of course, Cage isn’t doing Nicholson — he’s doing Cage, as if he has any other choice — but it’s a similarly successful casting choice. Throughout the first 40 minutes of the film, Cage feels woefully miscast. As much as I love any excuse to see him on the big screen, he came across as a little too unstable to be convincing as a semi-functional husband and father. But when the movie descends into madness around the 60-minute mark, he’s fully in his element, and it’s an absolute joy to watch. He doesn’t just chew the scenery; he devours it. His line delivery feels completely arbitrary. And like any good Lovecraftian horror, his actions are completely incomprehensible to man. Whether you want to call it good or so-bad-it’s-good, it’s certainly one of Cage’s more memorable performances.

If you plan to see “Color Out of Space,” it’s worth seeing in theaters. One of the film’s biggest appeals is the staggering visuals and impressive sound design, which deserve to be experienced on the big screen. And like most horror movies, it’s a lot of fun to watch with an audience. It has jump scares to scream at, disturbing your fellow patrons, as well as many laughs throughout. Not to mention, it’s a genuinely creepy film that’s enhanced by a darkened room, a giant screen and an overpriced soda.

Of course, “Color Out of Space” is destined to be one of those films — like “The Lighthouse” or the conceptually similar “Annihilation” — that divides its audiences. Some will find it brilliant. Others will find it baffling. Both are probably right. But if you have a place in your heart for pulpy, artsy horror with a dash of Cage Rage, it’s a wild ride worth experiencing.

By all accounts, “Cats” is a critical and commercial flop with a Rotten Tomatoes score hovering around 20 percent and a devastating opening weekend, bringing in only about $10 million worldwide. This comes as no surprise given that the first trailer, released in July, was met with almost universal disdain. The wildly unsuccessful attempt to turn A-list celebrities into cats with the use of “digital fur technology” has been the subject of countless Twitter memes.

Worse, its Dec. 20 release was heralded by a flood of incredulous reviews from critics that are as entertaining as the film itself, if not more. At this point, the best “Cats” can hope for is that its so-bad-it’s-good reputation will draw in a new audience at midnight screenings, joining the ranks of cult classics like “The Room” and “Rocky Horror Picture Show.”

For those not in the know, “Cats” is an adaptation of an equally bizarre 1982 musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber, which is in turn based on “Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats,” a series of whimsical poems by T. S. Eliot. The plot of “Cats” — “plot” used loosely here — revolves around what I can only describe as a feline death cult, the so-called “jellicle cats.” Each year, the cats compete in a talent show where the winning prize is death. Or, more accurately, Old Deuteronomy (the matriarch, played by a befuddled-looking Judi Dench) chooses one cat to send to the Heaviside Layer, where they will be reborn. What happens on-screen is a bizarre ritual that involves the chosen cat hurtling up into the sun aboard a flying chandelier. This is one of many poorly defined plot points that director Tom Hooper (“Les Miserables”) calls upon the audience to overlook.

For better or for worse, Hooper’s adaptation is mostly faithful to the original musical. He does make one significant change, however (aside from making the characters much less pleasant to look at): Rather than breaking the fourth wall, as Lloyd Webber freely did in the musical, Hooper introduces an audience surrogate — Victoria, played by Francesca Hayward of the Royal Ballet.

The film begins with Victoria’s sudden arrival into the world of the jellicle cats when she is unceremoniously dumped down a flight of stairs in a sack, apparently left to die by her former owners. Within moments, she is surrounded by a pack of cats who emerge from the shadows and perform a mostly incomprehensible song about what it means to be a jellicle cat. Victoria looks equal parts horrified and entranced throughout, which is about how I felt myself.

All of this is mostly an excuse for the real conceit of the show, which is two or so hours of ludicrously named cats introducing themselves through song and dance. Unfortunately, few of the celebrities that make up the cast are dancers, much fewer accomplished singers, which makes for a rather lackluster show carried by a talented ensemble.

There are few performances in this film that can be considered “good,” but some are enjoyable. Hayward is appropriately wide-eyed and graceful as Victoria, although it seems unlikely that she will have a second shot at a film career after this travesty. Ian McKellan appears to be having a good time, although I will never be unable to see the otherwise renowned and dignified actor lapping milk from a bowl. Laurie Davidson is charming as the magician Mr. Mistoffelees, while Robbie Fairchild is utterly invested in the role of Munkustrap — his face journey throughout is potentially the most dynamic part of the film. Idris Elba delivers a delightfully hammy performance as the villainous Macavity. Judi Dench looks confused throughout, as if she had accidentally wandered onto the set of “Cats” thinking it was a different, better movie.

All this comes to a crescendo when Jennifer Hudson performs “Memory” as Grizabella the Glamour cat, an outcast (implied to be a cat prostitute) who has lost the beauty of her youth and wants to sing about it. Of course, Grizabella is chosen to ascend to the Heaviside Layer, at last finding acceptance among the jellicle cats. Hudson is an immense talent, but the scene was far from a tear-jerker, unless you count my tears of suppressed laughter. The camera refuses to stray away from Hudson’s fur-and-snot-covered face for almost the entire duration, and Hudson’s tremulous rendition is a low point in her musical career. I wasn’t able to muster much sympathy for Grizabella, but it was a shame to see Hudson so misused. At the very least, someone could have gotten her a tissue.

“Cats” is by no means a good film, but there’s something magical about a movie where every choice made was the wrong one and where every poor choice was the most entertaining possibility. From a critical standpoint, there is very little good to be said about “Cats.” At the box office, “Cats” is an unmitigated disaster. But from my theater seat, it was the spectacle of a lifetime. What could be more authentic to Andrew Lloyd Webber’s outlandish vision?

When we think of vampires in 2019, we’re more likely to think of the sexier take on these classic horror movie monsters featured in “Twilight” and “True Blood,” or maybe their comedic treatment in “What We Do in the Shadows,” rather than the bloodsucking fiends popularized by Bram Stoker’s “Dracula.”

This isn’t to say that 21st century filmmakers haven’t tried to return to the roots of vampire lore in more horror-centric films like “30 Days of Night” and “Let the Right One In.” However, these efforts are few and far between, and the modern archetypical vampire continues to look more like Edward Cullen than the monsters of European myth.

In “The Shed,” director-screenwriter Frank Sabatella (“Blood Night: The Legend of Mary Hatchet”) makes a compelling argument for revisiting these fanged horror movie monsters.

Sabatella plays with teen movie tropes, combining them with elements of horror to create a dark twist on a familiar storyline. While this indie film has just enough substance to appeal to horror fans seeking fresh blood, “The Shed” ultimately fails to live up to its intriguing premise.

Stan (Jay Jay Warren) is your typical teen movie outcast. He gets bullied by the cool kids, pines after the popular girl and has no one to turn to but his equally uncool best friend, Dommer (Cody Kostro).

In a dark twist on this classic teen trope, we find out that he’s an orphan raised by his abusive grandfather. Also, it turns out that Dommer is kind of a creep — while Stan wants nothing more than to keep his head down until he graduates, Dommer is looking for revenge.

Cue the discovery of a bloodthirsty creature of the night in Stan’s shed. While Stan looks for ways to fight the vampire alone, Dommer sees the monster as a grisly solution to their problems.

The film promises to deliver drama, scares and a few dark twists. Unfortunately, most of what Sabatella offers up is good-old-fashioned teenage angst. I appreciate Sabatella’s willingness to delve into the psychological impact of poverty, abuse and bullying — exploring how far people will go when they are pushed to their limits. However, he doesn’t handle these darker themes with subtlety, veering into melodrama and relying on cliches. A promising beginning devolves into a tiresome teen drama punctuated with mostly unconvincing scares.

Stan and Dommer’s friendship should be the emotional core of the movie. Rather than deconstructing a close friendship over the course of the film, Sabatella presents a compelling dysfunctional dynamic, with Dommer as a manipulative figure. If Sabatella had taken the time to explore the complexities of this relationship, it might have made for a more interesting film with a more satisfying emotional payoff. Instead, he wastes our time with a romantic subplot between Stan and cool girl Roxy (Sofia Happonen). As is typical of on-screen teen romances, everything develops too quickly to be believable, and it ultimately proves to be the less interesting of the two core relationships in the film.

Meanwhile, Sabatella builds up tension around the titular shed. We don’t get much more than a glimpse or two of the vampire until the final act, but it’s clear that this creature has more in common with Nosferatu than Lestat de Lioncourt. Beyond a few gory encounters with the monster, most of the scares come in the form of scenes that turn out to be dream sequences.

The climax of the film is rushed, and the final act deteriorates into a relatively uninteresting 20 minutes of vampire bashing. While the vampire itself is convincingly monstrous, and the special effects are charmingly lo-fi, there’s an inexplicable tonal shift towards the end of the movie. In between one-liners and splatters of fake blood, I found myself wondering what had happened to film I was promised.

All things considered, there is something to be said for a horror film that isn’t afraid to make vampires scary again. “The Shed” brings a lot of the table — a darker take on cliches we know and love, a dose of social commentary and a brilliantly original concept. Unfortunately, it seems like Sabatella was caught between writing a pitch-dark psychological thriller and a campy, cliche-subverting romp. Either version would have made a good movie, but we ended up with an unsatisfying film that doesn’t quite succeed at being either.

Now that Halloween has ended, horror junkies everywhere are going into withdrawal. The holidays are just around the corner, and it just doesn’t feel right to be watching “Halloween” when the Christmas lights are up. Sure, there’s the occasional horror movie centered around the winter holidays (“Krampus” and “Gremlins” come to mind), but your best bet for getting into the Thanksgiving spirit is to turn on the Hallmark Channel. As a horror fan, though, I’m determined to discover a fun, bloody movie to fill the void — which is why I dredged up four Thanksgiving-themed horror films that may or may not have the makings of new holiday classics.

“Home Sweet Home” (1981)

“Home Sweet Home” follows a dysfunctional family terrorized by a musclebound, PCP-addicted mental patient on the run. The first 40 minutes are consumed by a cast of colorful characters bickering about car trouble, errands and the black sheep of the family, a mime/magician/KISS fan named “Mistake.” The movie starts to pick up when the killer begins picking off members of the family one by one. Or at least, I think he does, because the third act takes place almost entirely in the dark, and it seems there wasn’t money in the budget for lighting. Speaking of low-budget, the majority of the dialogue is poorly dubbed over, and the deaths are made lackluster by amateurish special effects. The only saving grace of the movie is the over-the-top performances by Peter De Paula as “Mistake” and Don Edmonds as the scenery-chewing patriarch of the family. “Home Sweet Home” might be worthy of a “Mystery Science Theater 3000” episode, but probably not 85 minutes of your time.

“Kristy” (2014)

Alone on campus over Thanksgiving break, college student Justine must defend herself from a cult of masked killers in this tense, atmospheric thriller — maybe the only competent Thanksgiving-themed horror film ever made. “Kristy” doesn’t set out to reinvent the wheel, but director Olly Blackburn (“Donkey Punch”) sets himself apart with a quiet, atmospheric exposition that heightens the eeriness of being alone on such a spacious campus. Unfortunately, once the action gets going, it takes the form of an endless series of cat-and-mouse style chases. The script isn’t always the tightest, and the cyber-based cult at the heart of the film feels more laughable than sinister given the outdated technology (and some very cringe-worthy attempts at text-speak). However, Haley Bennett (“The Girl on the Train”) is a strong enough lead to hold our attention until the final 30 minutes, which are satisfyingly bloody and genuinely chilling. There are other movies that do what “Kristy” does, and they do it better, but “Kristy” is the only one that bothered to do it during Thanksgiving.

“Blood Freak” (1972)

This bizarre sci-fi slasher manages to combine the plots of “The Fly” and “Reefer Madness” to hilarious effect. Down-on-his-luck Vietnam veteran Herschell is taken in by Angel, a religious young woman, and her dope fiend sister, Ann. Herschell immediately becomes addicted to drugs and takes a job at a turkey farm, where he is coerced into eating genetically modified poultry that turns him into a horrifying turkey-man. The film cuts between Herschel wandering around drinking the blood of drug-addicted suburbanites in a paper mache turkey mask and an incoherent sermon delivered by director Brad Grinter about God, fate and the devil’s lettuce. From the wooden acting to the frenetic camerawork to the incomprehensible script, there’s almost nothing good about this movie, but it’s certainly entertaining. If you’re craving an addictively funny, hallucinogenic film, “Blood Freak” might just be the fix you’re looking for. Otherwise, just say no.

“ThanksKilling” (2008)

“ThanksKilling” begins with the death of an inexplicably topless pilgrim at the hands of a demonic turkey with a tomahawk, and it only goes downhill from there. We follow a group of five stereotypical college kids whose Thanksgiving plans are interrupted by the arrival of a homicidal turkey. The acting is horrendous, and the CGI is laughably bad, although the turkey puppet actually looks pretty good given the $3500 budget. Unlike the more earnest films in this article, this movie is unrepentantly corny and its flaws are clearly intentional. While manufacturing a so-bad-it’s-good movie doesn’t always work, ““ThanksKilling” has become an instant cult classic with lines like “I’ll drink your blood like cranberry sauce” and “Her legs are harder to close that the JonBenet Ramsey case.” The writers don’t always fall on the right side of the line between vulgar and funny, but the script works more often than not. Ultimately, “ThanksKilling” is the closest that the incredibly niche genre of Thanksgiving-themed slashers comes to a movie worth being thankful for.

“Eli,” the new Netflix original movie out just in time for Halloween, has all the makings of a mediocre horror flick: a sick kid, a haunted house and a middle-class white couple plagued by supernatural happenings. Fortunately, the film is just innovative enough to be worth a watch, putting a fresh spin on a tired premise.

The film follows Eli, a boy suffering from a rare autoimmune condition that forces him to live sealed off from the outside world, a la Jake Gyllenhaal in “Bubble Boy.” His parents’ newest hope for a cure involves staying in an old house converted into a medical facility run by the mysterious Dr. Horn, played by horror mainstay Lili Taylor (“The Conjuring”). It’s not long, however, before Eli begins to suspect that not everything is as it seems. He’s haunted by shadowy figures, and sinister messages begin appearing in foggy mirrors. Worse, each medical procedure he undergoes seems to make him more and more sick. With the help of Hayley, an enigmatic teenager played by Sadie Sink (“Stranger Things”), he works to discover the truth about both Dr. Horn and his medical condition.

While some elements recall “The Conjuring” or “The Haunting of Hill House,” “Eli” sets itself apart from other haunted house films by focusing on Eli, rather than his parents. In a clever subversion of the genre, the audience — and eventually Eli — come to suspect that Eli’s parents are not as trustworthy as they might seem. This makes for a much more interesting film, providing Eli with agency where other films might place him in a more passive role. Charlie Shotwell (“Captain Fantastic”) does an admirable job carrying the film, imbuing Eli’s character with a perfect mixture of childlike sweetness and pre-teen insolence. Meanwhile, Kelly Reilly (“Yellowstone”) and Max Martini (“13 Hours”) give solid performances as the seemingly stereotypical concerned mother and blase father.

Although “Eli” offers a few new twists on the haunted house movie, it isn’t a particularly effective piece of horror. Director Ciaran Foy employs an array of garden-variety scares — your typical shadowy figures, distorted voices, flickering lights, dark reflections in mirrors and fake-out dream sequences. “Eli” attempts to create doubt as to whether Eli’s encounters with the supernatural are real or merely hallucinations caused by his medications. However, even this tired and true method of building suspense fails. Dr. Horn is such a blatantly untrustworthy figure that we never have reason to suspect her medical explanation of Eli’s experiences is real.

Far more disturbing than the supernatural elements are the grisly operations that Eli undergoes. These scenes are accentuated by garish fluorescent lighting, gruesome visuals and the disarmingly cavalier way Dr. Horn talks Eli through each procedure. In fact, I would go so far as to say that “Eli” might have been a more successful horror film if it cut out the supernatural elements entirely.

“Eli” poses some interesting questions about raising a child with a rare illness. As Eli’s condition worsens, we are confronted with a disturbing dilemma: at what point is it unethical to subject a child to dangerous medical treatments, even if there is a chance they might be cured? We are left to wonder just how far Eli’s parents are willing to go to have a “normal,” healthy child. By comparison, ghostly apparitions and demonic voices feel like nothing more than cheap scares.

If you’re looking for a fast-paced, fun horror flick to watch this October, you could do worse than “Eli.” It doesn’t reinvent the wheel, but it’s a fresh spin on a stale premise that’s a little smarter than your average haunted house movie.

This January, Netflix sparked controversy with its docuseries “Conversations with a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes,” which critics accused of romanticizing the notorious killer of at least 28 women. Apparently undeterred by the criticism, Netflix released a new Bundy biopic by “Conversations with a Killer” director Joe Berlinger on May 3, entitled “Extremely Wicked, Shocking Evil and Vile.”

The movie claims to explore a story familiar to true crime fans through a fresh new lens in its adaptation of Liz Kendall’s memoir, “My Phantom Prince: My Life with Ted Bundy.” Kendall, who dated Bundy during his killing spree in the ’70s and continued to correspond with him throughout his trial, is a testament to Bundy’s extraordinary charm. Yet many viewers — myself included — felt that “Extremely Wicked” was too preoccupied with Bundy’s charisma and not concerned enough with the consequences of his depraved actions on Kendall, not to mention his many victims and their families.

Maybe the most controversial aspect of the film has been the casting of Zac Efron — best known for playing teen heartthrob Troy Bolton in “High School Musical” — as Bundy. While many have argued that this casting decision only contributes to the romanticization of Efron’s character, I have to side with the director on this one. Efron’s good looks and charming demeanor give us a sense of what drew many young women to Bundy in the ’70s. Actually, Efron is excellent in the film and does a decent Bundy impression to boot, making me excited to see what he does with more serious roles in the future.

Though Efron is given more to work with, Lily Collins (“To the Bone”) gives a remarkably restrained yet emotionally resonant performance as Kendall, though her character is forced into a secondary role by a script that seems just as enamored with Bundy as Kendall herself. Other stand-out performances include the prolific John Malkovich (“In the Line of Fire”) as sardonic judge Edward Cowart and an unrecognizable Kaya Scodelario (“Skins”) as Carole Ann Boone, who falls in love with and later marries Bundy during his trial.

Even beyond the excellent cast, there is plenty to praise in “Extremely Wicked”. The movie boasts an excellent soundtrack, not to mention some delightful ’70s fashion, including a replica of the infamous baby blue suit and bowtie Bundy wore during his trial. I also enjoyed the integration of vintage footage, as well as scenes that reenacted iconic moments from the trial. The film works well as a period piece while remaining timeless.

With so much going for it, I was disappointed to see that “Extremely Wicked” fails when it comes to plot. The first half of the movie introduces us to Liz Kendall, a single mom working as a secretary who catches the eye of Ted Bundy at a college bar, and follows their whirlwind romance. It is disconcerting to watch Bundy sporting an apron and making breakfast or playing with Kendall’s young daughter, but maybe not in the way the movie intended. I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop — for Kendall to begin to notice that something is not quite right about her boyfriend. Instead, she alternates between adoration for Bundy and frustration with his circumstances for the majority of the film, even as he is convicted of murder, leaving us with a film lacking in tension and a protagonist with little real agency.

The first half of the movie drags, but the second half takes an entirely different approach, sidelining Kendall to focus on the theatrical, ripped-from-the-headlines court proceedings of the Bundy case. Efron and Malkovich steal the show in their respective roles, while Collins’ character arc is reduced to a much less interesting subplot. There came a point when I had to wonder: why bother positioning Liz Kendall as the main character when the most dynamic scenes do not feature her at all?

“My Phantom Prince” tells the true and fascinating story of a woman who was gaslit by her serial killer boyfriend for years, slowly becoming aware of his inner nature. While I respect Berlinger’s decision to avoid sensationalizing violence, the film fails to remind us that Efron’s charming portrayal of Bundy is nothing more than a facade. Because we never see Bundy committing an act of violence, we continue to share in Kendall’s delusion. Berlinger’s failure to outrightly condemn Bundy is an irresponsible act that perpetuates the tendency of true crime to romanticize serial killers. While I have no reason to believe this was his intention, it is clear that he does not go far enough to avoid falling into this all-too-common pitfall.

There is a dark, thrilling story to be told that both empowers Liz Kendall and rightly portrays Ted Bundy as a monster. This is not the story “Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile” chooses to tell — instead, it settles for a mediocre plot barely salvaged by a strong cast.