Dahmer le cannibale

The first time I viewed this film. I thought it was pure trash. But for some strange reason many moons later - I watched it again. And really liked it a lot. And that's why I recommend watching it the first time with an open mind. And not expecting a gorefest. Myself - being a big fan of the horror genre. Expected to see Jeffrey depicted as a homosexual lune - carvin/sexin' up guys left and right. I mean I had read about him some and knew there was more to him then this psycho. But I figured a movie about him would want to focus on the killings for shock value. Boy was I in for it. This movie doesn't focus on Jeffrey the killer. But Jeffrey the person. And really succeeds in doing so in my opinion. But rambling on - I want to leave reader's with this. If you're planning to watch this movie. Please do so with an open mind - and not expecting the stereotypical Jeffrey Dahmer. You'll be disappointed if you don't.

By the way: I want to give some praise to writer/director David Jacobson. Very talented guy imo. I'll definitely be looking into more of his projects. Jeremy Renner as well. Really nice job portraying Dahmer on screen. Good casting choice.

Based on real-life serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, who was active primarily in Wisconsin in the 1980s, this film focuses on a few key episodes in Dahmer's life.

If you're at all familiar with the facts about Jeffrey Dahmer--and probably a hefty percentage of people interested in the film are familiar with Dahmer to some extent--it's difficult to watch this film without strong expectations. The problem is that under those expectations, Dahmer isn't likely to be the film you want it to be. It might work better if you're unfamiliar with the background material, but on the other hand, it might be too disjointed to work in that case. You need a familiarity with Dahmer's life to piece the film together as you watch it.

That's not to say that the film is a complete failure. In fact, I gave it a 7 out of 10. Jeremy Renner, who plays Dahmer, is fantastic. Bruce Davison, as Dahmer's father, and Artel Kayaru, as Rodney, also turn in great performances. Writer/director David Jacobson chose to make the film a psychological portrait, rather than a chronological retelling of Dahmer's misdeeds, and rather than focusing on the lurid details of the crimes. After the first 20 minutes or so, the film becomes non-sequential, and links together a number of events that provide clues (as much of a clue as we can have, at least) into Dahmer's behavior. We see Dahmer interacting with his family (primarily his grandmother and father) in a peculiar, distanced way. We see him discovering and trying to come to terms with his homosexuality in a twisted way. We see his desire for intimacy. We see actions taken by the police that would be unbelievable if we didn't know that they actually happened that way, more or less. We see him constantly drinking alcohol through most of these events. This makes up the bulk of the film. In fact, we only see Dahmer kill two humans during the course of the film, and both are relatively not graphic, and relatively quick events.

All of this was intriguing to me, but I wanted the lurid details to be explored more. Dahmer was a man who conducted experiments on his victims, trying to turn some of them into lobotomized, robot-like companions. He kept vats of acid in his apartment to dispose of body parts. He had a severed head in his refrigerator. He cannibalized victims and engaged in necrophilia. To make a film about Dahmer where these things are not explored not only downplays the severity of his crimes, but it also leaves out fairly essential aspects of Dahmer's character, if this is to be a character study. I found myself regularly checking the running time, wondering how and when Jacobson was going to get to this other material before the film had to end. And for someone unfamiliar with Dahmer, they probably would spend a lot of time trying to figure out why the film keeps jumping from one event to another, frequently going back and forth with the same events.

The bottom line is that while this film is more than worthwhile as a kind of extended footnote, a much better film about Dahmer needs to be made. Let's just hope that we can get someone as gifted in the role as Renner to be in that film.

I found Dahmer to be an interesting exploration into the mind of a serial killer. Light on exposition(flashbacks aside), it allows the viewer to fill in the gaps as to Dahmer's motivation. I think Jeremy Renner did a terrific job portraying Dahmer as a soft-spoken misfit and outsider who's just looking for love. David Jacobson explores the duality of Dahmer effectively and subtlely, as when Dahmer watches people having sex with a mixture of detachment and disdain,and then seeks out his own sexual liaisons with disastrous results. He is so full of self-loathing and shame that he must first drug, then kill his victims to avoid facing the rejection he is sure will happen. When he finally meets Artel Kayaru as Rodney, he has met his alter-ego...someone carefree and uninhibited and it's apparent Dahmer is experiencing conflicting emotions and perhaps some kind of revelation. But it's too late to save him. Low on gore and violence, which was refreshing. Cinematography was first-rate. Locations were depressingly banal and middle America, settings which seem to breed the most monstrous impulses. A lowkey and worthwhile look into the results of unchecked fear rage and shame, and an invitation to explore the little Dahmer in all of us.

"Dahmer" tries to tell one of the most horrific stories of recent years. But the whole story of Jeffrey Dahmer does not get told in this movie. There are some shocking moments, but most of the movie gets bogged down in flashbacks (and even flashbacks-within-flashbacks). At some points, you cannot tell if you're watching another flashback or the present moment in the story. Jeremy Renner plays the title character, with an adequately creepy air. Some of his ghastly crimes are shown, while the gore is kept to a minimum. And Dahmer's homosexuality is mentioned, but much of it is kept just off-camera, as evidenced by the montage of Jeffrey's date rape drug-fueled sodomy marathons. This movie does not try to present Jeffrey Dahmer as Dr. Hannibal Lecter. (How could anyone glamorize this murderer?) But I would have preferred some kind of analysis as to why he became a killer. The strange and tragic story of Jeffrey Dahmer left a lot of people sad and wanting answers. But this movie left me wanting satisfaction.

Jacobson's film shows little violence. That's a point I'd like to stress because there is a certain audience I think will appreciate this film but who may not give it a chance because they expect graphic nastiness. Against the film's interests, the marketing tries to sell the film to the cheap horror-movie audience and I think this is a pity.

Instead of depicting violence, Jacobson's film discomforts you using dramatic means - principally writing and acting. All of which are used with enough skill to distinguish the film from cheap horror movies. It would be wrong and unfair to dismiss Dahmer because of its packaging. It is a well-written and performed character drama.

It's subject matter is too horrible for the general drama audience to welcome, but at the same time its serious approach makes it too straight for the entertainment market. By that I mean the Hannibal Lecter/Seven audience, who prefer their serial killer tales abstracted (and therefore made safe) by the presence of movie stars.

Dahmer is more akin to Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer in being low budget, filled with unfamiliar faces, and focussed so much on the killer that there is no awareness of the authorities or justice in the story. There is no hero cop or FBI agent in pursuit.

Dahmer is very unlike McNaughton's infamous film because, as already mentioned, it's low on violence, but also because it's a technically better-executed piece of work. The photography and editing, the use of music, the already-mentioned acting and writing, make this a surprisingly good-quality film considering the expectations stacked against it. One technical achievement I find worth noting is how well it recreates period. Sequences set in the 80's have a visual authenticity that puts big budget studio attempts to shame.

Obviously, you know what kind of film you like. If what I've said above sounds interesting to you, then I recommend giving it a look. I repeat that you will not see much in the way of gore or violence. There are plenty of films with more graphic content dressed more commercially. Dahmer won't make you feel good. It isn't a fun movie. But if you are looking for something with more substance you may find it.