A Wounded Fawn

Travis Stevens' A Wounded Fawn is undoubtedly several notches above his Girl on the Third Floor. The 16mm visual style and gruesome-looking special effects are notable in a film with a straightforward Act One and a twisted Act Two. Art is a key factor in the film, and its finer layers are heavily soaked in it. The plot is simple: an art-obsessed serial-killer (slash thief) is seeking his next target, an art authenticator. But what begins as a slasher with a sprinkling of Greek mythology moves into a much darker, Hell Raiser-esque space, delving deep into surrealism, compounded by a supernatural recompense.

The surprise element here is whether it's the killer's mind playing games with him (after he gets hit in the head) or if he's really in a purgatory-like place where he's being psychologically tortured as punishment for the deadly sins he's committed. What also works are the two lead performances. Both Sarah Lind (as Meredith) and Josh Ruben (as Bruce) are pretty effective. While the film loses a little momentum in Act Two, the much-talked-about end credits sequence is a winner (akin to Pearl), both from the perspectives of storytelling and performances.

First and foremost, I would like to put a disclaimer that if you are not a fan of something without a distinct throughline, some artsy fartsy-ness and a true indipendent production... this is plainly not for you. Please, give it a shot, but your close minded 1 star review means nothing in that sense.

Now, with that being said... this was a mixed bag for me and as an indi actor who knows much about the scene, I'll judge it accordingly. There were a lot of pros and cons to this one, yet there are still aspects to be appreciated and enjoyed despite it's missteps.

The first thing you will notice is the grainy filter with dust specs all over it, giving it a 90s film reel feel. At first I was not a fan and found it distracting, but settled into it and liked the older filtered look with the over saturation while assisted by a lot of nice shots. Lots of artsy close ups that felt expected that I could have lived without but it's fine.

The story started out solidly engaging, which the first act was more successful with that than the second. You will notice a lot of spoon fed foreshadowing along with a decent amount of contrived dialogue. Neither were super horrible and almost felt like it was in a purposeful 90s style... at least we can hope. I will say, in the first act they did not do a great job at establishing the level of her and the "mystery mans" relationship. It was like one line would feel like they were strangers, next it would feel like they have known each other for two months, the next three dates.

The second half was when it went into full mania, slowed down a bit and kind of fell off the rails. I'm sure there were plenty of metaphors and allegories that went over my head, which is okay, but if you don't mix that in with a little bit of laymans then your message gets lost and doesn't reach as many people as it could... and if you're not making a movie for the masses, that's fine too but it also runs the risk of edging on pretension.

As far as the acting goes, this was also a mixed bag. On one hand i thought the lead girl did a great job. Her delivery was natural and down to earth yet still had a little flair making it her own and unique. I would love to see her in something else. Whereas our psycho dudeman maybe paled in comparison a bit. He totally looked the part, but a lot of his delivery felt a tad "silly" which could have lent itself to that socially awkward, quirky psychopath... However, it just didn't quite get there for me and came off more stilted and contrived for the majority of it unfortunately. I did however love that extended final shot. So weird and disconcerting. I know that was uncomfortable and not easy, so good job.

Some technical stuff - as I said before I ended up really liking the way it looked. The audio levels were off at times making dialogue a little difficult to hear. Also the sound design/effects were a little much at times and edged on distracting. The score was interesting and I liked it. Loved the costume design, particularly in the first act. Owl man and the reveal both looked a little juvenile and silly while horned twig man was the most creepy and successful. I was pleased with the special effects/ gore for the level of production this was, I thought they did a good job. The only thing was the color of blood was off.

Over all I think that this was a successful indi flick and should be judged as such. This is not meant to be your typical, brainless Hollywood blockbuster...so keep that in mind. I do think that there were a lot of ideas here and maybe their "mission statement" got a little convoluted but with a plethora of ideas there are going to be hits and misses. I don't usually write reviews this long, so when I do I always say it obviously made me feel something. So I'd rather that, than not. Would recommend.

I'm going to make a bold statement here: most reviewers here are wrong. This is neither a 'modern' horror movie, nor is it just arthouse weirdness.

It is a dark horror comedy comprised of separate 'acts'. The first two 'acts' are set-up. The remainder of the movie is the pay-off, featuring psychedelic gobblydegook that is purposefully weird and pretentious.

The classical art/art snob/art dealer scene is what is being mocked/sent up here, and very well. Josh Ruben brilliantly portrays a maniac who has wholly immersed himself in art snob culture, and it is that lifestyle, and his attempts to evade blame for his evil actions, that lead to the hallucinations he experiences throughout the film.

One hallucination involving the owl figure towards the end crossed the line from amusing to outright ridiculous for me, but overall I was really into it.

Also, the entire film is tied together very neatly with an excellent end scene that continues into the end credits.

If you view this movie with the above perspective--this is what a pretentious art snob foodie who happens to be a serial killer sees--then I think you'll like it more than either just trying to enjoy a horror film or trying to find some deeper meaning.

If you are looking for an art-drama- Ancient Greek horror, this is your movie! Maybe you will like it, maybe not, but still, it's original as it gets.

Even if i was not a Greek, i would still like it. There is a 70's aesthetic, great cinematography, it's a stylish and "sophisticated" movie but its not pretentious or artsy in a bad way. I have watched many "style over substance" movies, this is not one of them. But if you prefer your horror movie to be more straightforward, scarier or grittier, maybe you won't like this one. First part is intense though, more "traditional horror". But the second part is something else. It gets crazy, weird, bizarre, original and creative, paranoid, like a hallucination.

Josh Ruben's acting seems kinda awkward but it's exactly as the director asked from him. At least, i think so. In a way, this weird acting fits perfectly in this weird movie. Lind is great, too.

I am not saying that it's a perfect movie. There is a thin line between originality and ridiculousness, and balancing in this line, is difficult. There are many people that won't like it because they will find it nonsensical, ridiculous, artsy. I can see why this is polarising. As i said, it's not an easy balance. In my opinion though, this movie succeed. And there is the most strange/unexpected ending i have watched recently, but i like it too. In any case, it is satisfying.

When I stumbled upon the 2022 horror movie "A Wounded Fawn" here in 2024, I had never actually heard about it. But I will say that I was initially intrigued by the movie's synopsis. Plus, the fact that it was a horror movie that I hadn't already seen, also helped to make me sit down and watch it.

Writers Nathan Faudree and Travis Stevens, with the latter also directing the movie, put together a fair enough script and storyline. It was pretty straightforward, if actually not somewhat generic and predictable. But the added elements of supernatural horror definitely helped to spruce up the movie. It was an adequate movie, but nothing outstanding really.

I was not familiar with the cast ensemble in the movie, but I will say that leading actress Sarah Lind (playing Meredith Tanning) and leading actor Josh Ruben (playing Bruce Ernst) put on good performances and carried the movie quite nicely.

Visually then "A Wounded Fawn" was okay. It was not a movie that made use of an abundance of special effects or CGI, not that it really required such. Whatever effects were in the movie were fairly okay, and helped to promote whatever they were intended to do, so that means it was effective.

Director Travis Stevens makes use of some dark imagery throughout the course of the movie, especially in the last quarter of the movie, which adds something unique to the movie. And the costumes with the masks and the wardrobes definitely added a layer of oddity to the movie.

Watchable for what it was, however "A Wounded Fawn" is hardly a movie that I will ever return to watch a second time. If it worth sitting down and watching it, if you are an avid horror fan.

My rating of "A Wounded Fawn" lands on a five out of ten stars.