Psychotronic Cinemavision: Locked

Eddie Barrish (Bill Skarsgård) is a struggling delivery van driver desperate to fix his broken vehicle so he can pick up his daughter, Sarah. When he can’t find any other way, he steals a wallet, buys lottery tickets, and finally begins trying to break into unlocked cars. He eventually comes across an unlocked Dolus luxury SUV. Dolus is Latin for deceit, trickery or fraud and in law, “dolus” often appears in phrases like “dolus malus,” which means “bad faith” or “malicious intent.” It signifies intentional deceit or fraudulent behavior intended to cause harm or gain an unfair advantage. The moment Eddie tries to leave, the vehicle locks itself, trapping him inside.  The name of the car was a clue, it was a trap…a trick! As he frantically searches for a way out, Eddie cuts his arm badly. The car’s owner, William (Anthony Hopkins), calls him via the built in phone, and Eddie learns that the SUV was a trap, and the vehicle is fully remote controlled, bullet and soundproof, and rigged with tasers and temperature controls. William subjects Eddie to a psychological and physical torment designed to teach him a lesson. William remotely drives the SUV through city streets causing mayhem and destruction as a twisted form of vengeance. This all leads to an eventual showdown between the two characters.

Locked was directed by David Yarovesky and released in U.S. theaters on March 21 2025, distributed by The Avenue. It is an English-language remake of a 2019 Argentine action film called 4×4. Critically, the film received mixed reviews, Rotten Tomatoes shows a Tomatometer around 64–65% based on roughly 70 critical reviews, with average ratings near 5.9/10. Metacritic scored it 45/100, indicating “mixed or average” responses. Roger Ebert reviewer Brian Tallerico praised Skarsgård’s versatility but noted the film “has no idea what to do with him or its concept… a film trapped by its own concept.” Meanwhile, TL;DR Reviews summed it up as: “a good scenario, but it never felt like they had a good handle on what they wanted to talk about.” Comments from fan forums seem more positive but still match the critics’ opinions with some saying, “Solid thriller. The performance of Bill Skarsgård and Anthony Hopkins elevated a basic plot into an entertaining movie.”, and “The director delivered… you feel what the main character was feeling: desperation, physical and emotional torture…”. Critics argue the film fails to delve deeply into these themes. Roger Ebert notes how the film pulls away from moral reflection, defaulting instead to repeated torture scenes. The tension between haves and have-nots surfaces but is never fully explored, they characterize it as “wealthy people be crazy” rather than a substantive critique. TL;DR adds that the film never quite decides whether it is condemning or endorsing William’s point of view; it’s visually engaging but thematically underwhelming.

I liked this movie but understand where the critics opinions are coming from. It reminds me a bit of a much better film called Phonebooth with Colin Farrell and Keifer Sutherland. I believe that the filmmakers left the ambiguity in the portrayal of William purposefully to let the audience decide who they wanted to side with. It does amaze me, how two people can watch the same movie at the same time and come away with two very different perspectives. The person I was watching the film with saw the movie more from William’s point of view and believes he was somewhat justified in his actions. Where I saw the nuances to Eddie’s character and saw the movie more from his point of view. Locked explores class conflict, vigilante justice, and moral accountability. On one level, it’s a psychological thriller about a powerless man trapped by both technology and a wealthier, embittered individual. Eddie represents the working-class struggle; he’s driven to crime by necessity, while William embodies privileged retribution, a dying doctor enforcing his twisted code of justice. The film raises questions about whether trauma legitimizes vengeance and whether the powerful can justify dehumanizing the vulnerable.

Digging deeper, William believes that because he acquired his wealth through hard work, “self-made” so to speak, building a life out of nothing that all poor people can do the same. His past trauma and current physical health inform his actions, and he feels gleefully justified. He sees social safety net programs as enabling and reinforcing bad behavior and blames liberal governors and legislature for his plight. The problem with this point of view, in my opinion, is that no one is truly “self-made”. William started life in a small Welsh town many, many years before Eddie was born. His education and support structure would be very different. His environment most likely primed him for college and instilled in him a sense of self-worth and respectability. The opportunities offered to him would be very different from Eddie’s, who was born and raised in a rough inner-city neighborhood, where schools are barely funded and education system is lacking. Most likely he had a very different support structure, if any at all, and what would have been instilled in him is a sense that he will never amount to much, and where thievery was probably a simple necessity of life. Do people like Eddie crawl out of the inner city and make more for themselves? Absolutely, but the deck is stacked against them. With that said, neither characters upbringing or past can be fully blamed for what they are doing or what they become. There are still choices every individual makes, but we cannot discount them. Eddie recognizes this and even before the movie begins, he is trying to be a better person. He does realize that he has made excuses for too long on why he hasn’t and is actively changed by his experience. I cannot say the same for William, he remains gleeful at the pain he is causing. In short, like many people, William has a black and white belief that one’s destiny is fully in their own control, where in reality, environmental, familial, and societal influences must be taken into consideration.