Anamorph - I ritratti del serial killer

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.

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.

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.

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?