Obsesión criminal

A detective (Willem Dafoe) is on the hunt for a killer who transforms his victims into works of art. The cases grow more and more brutal, and some suspect the detective himself may somehow be involved (though, from the audience's point of view, this involvement is not apparent). Who is the killer, can he be caught?

I had low expectations for this film. Dafoe is an amazing actor, and has appeared in some great films (and some not-so-great but still popular ones). Typically, he wouldn't be in a film unless it was going to be huge. This being a straight-to-DVD title, I had to wonder... could it be good if they felt that Dafoe wasn't enough to carry it to the big screen? And the answer is simply: it's good, but not that good.

Dafoe is a great actor, and Peter Stormare ("Prison Break") is a good character actor (playing, as usual, a thuggish type here). But they are put in a plot that doesn't really have much depth. The writer was concerned about getting us from corpse to corpse, but that was about the extent of it. The directing, likewise, is good, but will do little to further a career -- a year from now, I'll be the only person to recall this film. The special effects were good and deserve credit. While not the most realistic corpses ever, there was plenty of time and thought involved... so cheers to you.

The one thing that stood out for me as quite good was the musical score. I have to say the composer hit the right nerves. I may already be mentally unbalanced -- this is true -- but the music hit me hard and gripped me, leaving me feeling dread and despair, which music will not often do. If the composer's goal was to create a mood of hopelessness and bleak darkness, I call this a success.

A philosophical question could be raised about whether the acts committed here were murder, art or both. Some might suggest that the death of one person may be a worthy sacrifice if the art produced is of significant value. If death can be used to justify some things, why not art? The film doesn't really explore this theme, and I'm inclined to believe that murder is hardly, if ever, justifiable. But a potential discussion exists here.

If you want to see a film about murder being turned into art, see the 1959 Roger Corman film "A Bucket of Blood". Or don't. But "Anamorph" will end up being an impulse rental that ultimately lets you down, I fear. 2008 is a slow year for horror and thrillers, so you may end up resorting to lesser fare to feed the addiction. Just be warned in advance that this is simply that and nothing more.

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.

When it comes to cinema there's nothing I like more than stumbling across an independently made film with an intellectual story, an interesting cast and a fresh director. Anamorph is a psychological thriller that ticks all these boxes and combines them with a great premise, the only problem here is that the premise has been poorly executed. Directed by the up and coming Henry S Miller and starring William Defoe (an often underrated, but favoured actor of mine), Anamorph tells of a weathered Detective called Stan Aubrey, Defoe, who is assigned a homicide case that bears incredible similarities to a case he undertook five years previous. The film is based on, and gets its name from, the concept of Anamorphosis. For those that are unaware this is a technique of painting, employed during the Renaissance period, in which the artist manipulates the laws of perspective to create separate images on a single canvas.

The psychological thriller is one of the most difficult genres to pull off as in order to live up to itself the film will require an immense amount of concentration in both writing and direction to keep the viewer intact whilst simultaneously not boring them. Anamorph does itself no favours by utlising cliché storytelling techniques so often associated with this type of film. Examples are the ageing detective, a sombre piano score, stark lighting, mysterious strangers and the elaborate death scenes. Instead the film merely regurgitates past offerings, the obvious being Seven, Kiss The Girls, and the more recent Zodiac and combines them with yet another take on what makes a serial killer tick. Unfortunately the only thing that kept me compelled during this film was Defoe. His rendition of a troubled and obsessive detective ridden by guilt and heartache was very good, and would have been better if had not had been for the poor script. There are many problems that lie in the writing of this film, one of which is that the audience is deprived of any real character development and another is that it has poor dialogue (certain scenes had me cringing - they could have been penned by a child), the banter between some characters was clearly there to further the narrative which usually isn't a problem providing it is unnoticeable.

The direction and cinematography of the film were good, and the manner in which the flashback scenes of the previous case were arranged were both artful and creative as they alluded to dripping, the very process of either dripping blood or paint onto a canvas. The minimalism of Aubrey's apartment and the discussions on art that took place in the bar were very well directed and filmed. These scenes are probably the best of the film as they complement his character's bleakness with a muted aptness of style. The director's ability at portraying the concept of Anamorphosis was also good, although the fact he had to use a metallic coffee mug to further the plot and employ pretentious final visuals did taint a somewhat overall good effort. Furthermore, the elaborateness of the death scenes harks to the film Saw, but Anamorph is nothing in comparison - yes it is more intellectual and challenging but in this instance that doesn't make it a better film.

Finally, I feel that Anamorph should have been a much better film. Its basic idea, of a serial killer utilising a largely forgotten painting technique as his means of disposing his victims, is both fresh and original. However upon viewing it, the overall feeling is that the film was rushed and that it was hastened to release. There is no doubt that the film has been poorly written and, regrettably, when a film is poorly written it is much better to have a good and experienced director at the helm as only then will it at least stand a chance of being salvaged. Anamorph has failed to better itself from the indolent script it began with. Usually I feel that too many writers can ruin a film but here I feel that more were needed to treat the initial idea with the respect it deserved.

First of all, lets assume that this is a thriller-crime movie and thus is to be interpreted in the context of Silence of the Lamb and other serial killer movies. Thats all right, I like the genre.

What this genre needs is I think: 1) a psychological thread; a detective with psych issues, love, faith e.g. and these issues tend towards some sort of solution or elaboration 2) an intellectual thread; a complex, mind-stimulating, yet not too far- fetching murder case. 3) good realization; atmosphere that presents us the above two as (at least spiritually) real.

This film accomplishes these tasks: 1) An obsessive+compulsive detective with affection problems, buried past etc. And there is "character development", I like the atypical disintegrating end which is barely relieved by the end title music. 2)An artist-killer is not a never-heard-of idea, but anamorphosis is good idea. I liked the way the murder cases interconnect. I liked the way this all leads to the past. I liked, that some characters say 'forget about the past' some say 'go back! its the same'. 3)atmosphere is good, music good, murder scenes especially good.

Why did I gave it a 6? It is not original. Especially as for atmosphere creating, directing and filming. It is absolutely filled with clichés. There are original things are the character of the detective and the final...but maybe thats all... I still would say it is worth watching it, but it is just an other serial killer movie.

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?