Anamorph - Die Kunst zu töten

This movie is great up until the ending. The cinematography is great, the acting is top-notch and the plot and storyline keep you guessing and on edge till the end.

The end is a terrible let down for an otherwise superb production. Its like they ran out of ideas and money at the same time. Or maybe there is a producer to blame.

I would definitely recommend watching this movie even with the poor ending. I was reminded several times of the movie S7ven. Willem Dafoe's character is extremely meticulous as was Morgan Freedman's character. Other common elements: Both movies have young detectives partnering with soon to retire detectives. Both movies have a seemingly omnipotent serial killer always three steps ahead of the detectives, baiting them along and watching from the background. Both movies rely upon arcane literature and art to understand the villain's human "paintings."

I could continue to list common elements in both movies however I don't want to give anyone the impression that this is a knock-off of S7ven--its not. Rather its like reading a detective story written by the same author with different characters. If you liked S7ven I think you will like this movie. Just don't expect any great surprises.

The biggest difference between S7ven and this film is the ending. S7ven had an incredible, mind-boggling ending while Ananmorph ended like a candle blown out leaving the viewer in the dark and unsatisfied.

Anamorph is an interesting movie, at times very artistic and intellectual, while also being clichéd and slow. The plot is fairly typical of serial killer movies, reminiscent of any number of police procedurals, such as Silence of the Lambs. Most of its atmosphere seems to be lifted from classic 1990s neo-noir, like Seven. Also, like The Cell, there's copious amounts of grotesque imagery that occasionally achieve a kind of grisly, morbid beauty. The main concept -- that of serial killers being akin to artists, plying their trade on a human canvas -- is derivative of other movies, which, unfortunately, I can not currently recall. If you ground up all these elements, mixed them together, into one big serial killer movie pastiche, you'd have Anamorph.

Anamorph had some real potential, considering how seriously the director and actors approached it, but there were just too many problems. For one, it was mind-numbingly boring. By the end of the movie, I was nearly asleep. Watching this movie before you go to bed is definitely not recommended. The pacing is just way too slow. If you watch it, watch it while you're wide awake and alert.

Second, there are just way too many unanswered questions that were constantly nagging me. Why is the serial killer called "Uncle Eddie"? It's such an idiosyncratic name that it begs explanation. None is forthcoming. Why was that woman giving a blood transfusion? What was the nature of her relationship with the detective? After every scene, I was left with more and more unanswered questions, which the director seemed to think were too inconsequential to answer. I beg to differ.

Third, and this sort of ties in with the second point, things were constantly thrown into the movie because they seemed artistic, interesting, or enigmatic. While Anamorph has an explicitly stated premise ("truth is dependent on one's POV"), much of the movie seems like shallow, pretentious nonsense, instead of supporting the premise. I'm beginning to think that the killer is named "Uncle Eddie" simply because it's enigmatic and mysterious. That's a terrible reason.

It's always possible that much of the movie simply went over my head (I was half asleep while watching it), but I think it's more likely that this is just a mediocre movie. I think that the director shows promise, and I'd be interested in seeing his later films, but this one just didn't grab me. It's too slow, boring, and pretentious. Normally, I criticize directors for being too overt and not subtle enough, but this movie is so subtle that nothing ever happens and nothing is ever explained! Obviously, we need a bit of balance.

This story deserves a better director. Someone who understands the subject very well. The idea was really cool but follows the same platform of movies like Silence of the Lambs. Acting is nearly good. I think with a little more effort and time it could have been more interesting.

There are too many co-incidences which spoil the mystery. The story is certainly dragged at places. And at places it makes you sleepy. The music is nothing great. Willen Dafoe tries his best to impress. So I think it is not the one to watch in a theater but its a good watch at home. Nothing Brainy about it. It won't keep you guessing.

Willem Dafoe is an NYPD office teaching at the Academy. He's a troubled fellow. While he stands in line at the supermarket check-out counter, he lines his purchases up in precise configurations so that they form a square or some other regular shape. The camera looks straight down at the arrangement to make sure we get it.

It resonates with the rest of the story, although I wouldn't argue that the story makes a great deal of sense. Dafoe is called in to investigate a murder scene or, at any rate, a suspicious finding. The cops have occupied an apartment in which, if you shut off the lights, a tiny hole in the wall projects a bright image of a dead body in a queer pose. It's a camera obscura, used by some Renaissance painters to copy such objects as the doors of the Baptistry in Florence. (If I remember; I don't want to have to root around on Google looking up the details.) Similar murders follow, all observing the methods of a serial killer who took a slug in the middle of his forehead some years ago. "Anamorphosis" is brought in as an analytical tool by Peter Stormare as some kind of art fanatic who is Dafoe's acquaintance. Anamorphosis is forced perspective. Some artists painted an ordinary-looking picture, and inserted an odd-looking object somewhere in the display. If you look at the painting from the side, from a different angle, the object resolves into something recognizable. I think I saw one in a museum in Fort William, Scotland, of a distorted Bonny Prince Charlie -- again if I remember correctly. I don't want to have to root around in my long-term memory either.

But it's a dark and bleak story. Dafoe is not just an obsessive but a loner. His partner tells him, "We've been on the same desk for five years and I don't know anything about you. I don't know if you're married or where you live, and we carry the same shield." Dafoe doesn't speak much. He rarely asks questions. He shows little emotion. He wanders through the film's dark rooms, flashlight at his shoulder, observing chopped-up bodies.

The musical score is okay, but the photography is desaturated and in high contrast. It gets even more stylish during the flashbacks that show us why Dafoe is tortured by a guilt he refuses to confront.

Almost all of these movies about serial killers leaving convoluted puzzles behind for the police to figure out are pretty silly. They've managed to drag in the Seven Deadly Sins, Alice in Wonderland, pentagrams, and copycats killings of other famous serial murderers. It can be done successfully, even if it remains silly, as in "Seven". But, man, this one drags. And all those chopped-up bodies. A diapason of anatomy. There are no violent murders, no, but who wants to witness an autopsy without getting paid to do it?

I would give this movie about a 6.5 out of 10. It is entertaining, the central plot is somewhat original, and I was a fan of the cinematography. It's rather visually appealing.

That being said, it was definitely not all that I'd hoped for. One of the other reviewers said the filmmakers thought they were making a smarter movie than they actually were, and I have to say I agree with that. The plot concept and the idea of anamorphosis is rather original and has a lot of potential. Yet I feel as if the filmmakers thought that this concept was SO ingenious that they didn't need to develop other parts of the film. The back story, for example, is explicated through memories and conversations so that the past is never wholly or even adequately revealed to the audience. What's worse, the character development is completely lacking. Willem Dafoe, who acting-wise does a nice enough job, reveals certain attributes about his character in very subtle ways. The rest of the characters, however, are pretty one-dimensional and used strictly as plot devices. And, as is common in film, the police work done in the film is a bit illogical.

All and all, the film is all right. I'm a big fan of psychological thrillers and I was certainly on the edge of my seat for a great deal of this one. It's pretty instantly gratifying, but if you take a few minutes to think about what you just saw, you might see some of the flaws I just mentioned.

PS - for those of you who are squeamish: there is little/no actual violence, but plenty of gross dead bodies.