Dahmer

The first time I viewed this film. I thought it was pure trash. But for some strange reason many moons later - I watched it again. And really liked it a lot. And that's why I recommend watching it the first time with an open mind. And not expecting a gorefest. Myself - being a big fan of the horror genre. Expected to see Jeffrey depicted as a homosexual lune - carvin/sexin' up guys left and right. I mean I had read about him some and knew there was more to him then this psycho. But I figured a movie about him would want to focus on the killings for shock value. Boy was I in for it. This movie doesn't focus on Jeffrey the killer. But Jeffrey the person. And really succeeds in doing so in my opinion. But rambling on - I want to leave reader's with this. If you're planning to watch this movie. Please do so with an open mind - and not expecting the stereotypical Jeffrey Dahmer. You'll be disappointed if you don't.

By the way: I want to give some praise to writer/director David Jacobson. Very talented guy imo. I'll definitely be looking into more of his projects. Jeremy Renner as well. Really nice job portraying Dahmer on screen. Good casting choice.

Based on real-life serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, who was active primarily in Wisconsin in the 1980s, this film focuses on a few key episodes in Dahmer's life.

If you're at all familiar with the facts about Jeffrey Dahmer--and probably a hefty percentage of people interested in the film are familiar with Dahmer to some extent--it's difficult to watch this film without strong expectations. The problem is that under those expectations, Dahmer isn't likely to be the film you want it to be. It might work better if you're unfamiliar with the background material, but on the other hand, it might be too disjointed to work in that case. You need a familiarity with Dahmer's life to piece the film together as you watch it.

That's not to say that the film is a complete failure. In fact, I gave it a 7 out of 10. Jeremy Renner, who plays Dahmer, is fantastic. Bruce Davison, as Dahmer's father, and Artel Kayaru, as Rodney, also turn in great performances. Writer/director David Jacobson chose to make the film a psychological portrait, rather than a chronological retelling of Dahmer's misdeeds, and rather than focusing on the lurid details of the crimes. After the first 20 minutes or so, the film becomes non-sequential, and links together a number of events that provide clues (as much of a clue as we can have, at least) into Dahmer's behavior. We see Dahmer interacting with his family (primarily his grandmother and father) in a peculiar, distanced way. We see him discovering and trying to come to terms with his homosexuality in a twisted way. We see his desire for intimacy. We see actions taken by the police that would be unbelievable if we didn't know that they actually happened that way, more or less. We see him constantly drinking alcohol through most of these events. This makes up the bulk of the film. In fact, we only see Dahmer kill two humans during the course of the film, and both are relatively not graphic, and relatively quick events.

All of this was intriguing to me, but I wanted the lurid details to be explored more. Dahmer was a man who conducted experiments on his victims, trying to turn some of them into lobotomized, robot-like companions. He kept vats of acid in his apartment to dispose of body parts. He had a severed head in his refrigerator. He cannibalized victims and engaged in necrophilia. To make a film about Dahmer where these things are not explored not only downplays the severity of his crimes, but it also leaves out fairly essential aspects of Dahmer's character, if this is to be a character study. I found myself regularly checking the running time, wondering how and when Jacobson was going to get to this other material before the film had to end. And for someone unfamiliar with Dahmer, they probably would spend a lot of time trying to figure out why the film keeps jumping from one event to another, frequently going back and forth with the same events.

The bottom line is that while this film is more than worthwhile as a kind of extended footnote, a much better film about Dahmer needs to be made. Let's just hope that we can get someone as gifted in the role as Renner to be in that film.

I did hear a lot of bad buzz about this movie; mainly people were complaining that it was boring. The movie starts out with Jeffrey living alone in his apartment ready to kill his next victim, an Asian boy and meeting another one at the same time, Rodney. We get many flashbacks of when he was young and when he committed his first murder.

So was it boring? Hell No! Well for me it was never boring because from the beginning we are captivated by this lonely and troubled man. The reason behind this was due to Jeremy Renner's real and absorbing portrayal that should stand out as one of the best performances of 2002. Another reason it was never boring was because of its catchy dialogue. Jeffrey had some really though provoking things to say. The best conversations were between Jeffrey and Rodney who was played by Artel Kayaru. He was magnetic and he gave the second best performance.

People who thought that this movie was boring were probably expecting more scenes of Jeff killing all his victims. We don't see all of the crimes and that's because this film was more of a character study than a gore infested horror film. There were some creepy and disturbing scenes but nothing intensely frightening. Only one particular scene that caught me by surprise---oh,that really freaked me out. Great scene, I loved it because it didn't have any music and it was very well directed. It's really weird to feel sorry and be moved by a killer and it's the first time I ever felt that way.

Extremely well acted, particularly by the lead. Appropriately creepy and atmospheric -- as well as poignant and introspective. Makes a character out of a "monster". Examines Dahmer's struggle with his homosexuality and that struggle's basis for his sickness. Doesn't focus on the violence, and doesn't explore the cannibalism at all. Flashback structure works well. Liked the comparisions of his banal teenage years to the horrific current years. Would have liked a little bit more of an acknowledgement of how totally out of control this guy became. Cinematography is excellent at times -- but is bedeviled by some sloppy focus work. Again, the lead actor is topnotch. This is a work to be proud of.

Jacobson's film shows little violence. That's a point I'd like to stress because there is a certain audience I think will appreciate this film but who may not give it a chance because they expect graphic nastiness. Against the film's interests, the marketing tries to sell the film to the cheap horror-movie audience and I think this is a pity.

Instead of depicting violence, Jacobson's film discomforts you using dramatic means - principally writing and acting. All of which are used with enough skill to distinguish the film from cheap horror movies. It would be wrong and unfair to dismiss Dahmer because of its packaging. It is a well-written and performed character drama.

It's subject matter is too horrible for the general drama audience to welcome, but at the same time its serious approach makes it too straight for the entertainment market. By that I mean the Hannibal Lecter/Seven audience, who prefer their serial killer tales abstracted (and therefore made safe) by the presence of movie stars.

Dahmer is more akin to Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer in being low budget, filled with unfamiliar faces, and focussed so much on the killer that there is no awareness of the authorities or justice in the story. There is no hero cop or FBI agent in pursuit.

Dahmer is very unlike McNaughton's infamous film because, as already mentioned, it's low on violence, but also because it's a technically better-executed piece of work. The photography and editing, the use of music, the already-mentioned acting and writing, make this a surprisingly good-quality film considering the expectations stacked against it. One technical achievement I find worth noting is how well it recreates period. Sequences set in the 80's have a visual authenticity that puts big budget studio attempts to shame.

Obviously, you know what kind of film you like. If what I've said above sounds interesting to you, then I recommend giving it a look. I repeat that you will not see much in the way of gore or violence. There are plenty of films with more graphic content dressed more commercially. Dahmer won't make you feel good. It isn't a fun movie. But if you are looking for something with more substance you may find it.