Anamorph

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.

Stan Aubray (Willem Dafoe) is an NYPD detective who likes to collect Renaissance-era chairs and has a mild case of both OCD and alcoholism. Five years ago, he was the lead investigator in the "Uncle Eddie" serial killings, in which victims were posed in settings, as if to create a work of art. Stan is still haunted by the last killing, which he feels he should have prevented. However, Stan eventually solved the murders. Or did he?

Now, there are new serial killings that are similar, yet different. The artsy posing is there, but is much more gruesome and elaborate, involving Renaissance techniques such as camera obscura and anamorphosis. Many in the police and press are calling these new killings "copycats." Stan isn't so sure.

While watching the plot develop, one inevitably makes comparisons with the Hannibal Lecter movies. While this film aspires to that level, it falls short, mainly because although the basic premise is not without interest, the writing fails to deliver on the promise. Stan's character is unfortunately made a lone wolf, with minimal dialog and interaction with other characters, even keeping his partner in the dark. Willem Dafoe, he of the high forehead, hollow cheeks, and strong chin, does a great job with what he's given, but can't quite carry this film on his own. The supporting cast was, somewhat understandably, very uninterested in their roles, with the exception of Peter Stormare as the character of the low-level art dealer. Finally, the lighting effects of the flashback scenes and final scene can only be described as bizarre, and not in a good way.

The writers made the mistake of trying to make up for the film's deficiencies by upping the gore scale, and in doing so, probably cut the film's box-office receipts considerably. Parents: the film's R rating is *very* well-deserved. Even adults should ask themselves if they're strong of stomach before going to see this movie.

In conclusion, I would recommend this film only if you're a big fan of Willem Dafoe and/or this genre.

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.

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.

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.