Anamorph

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.

Well, i did see the trailer for this film quite a while ago and i thought, wow this looks good. Only recently did i watch the film and I wish i didn't.

The story of the film is basically that a detective (dafoe) re-opens a series of murder cases by a well known killer he was investigating. The story is mainly focused on Dafoe with minor characters such as his prostitute friend (Duvall) and his detective partner (speedman).

I thought this film had loads of potential but it fell short because it lacked a few things. 1) the character development- although they established a few elements to Dafoes character, I thought they should have gone further to develop his character. Speedman and Duvalls characters have the typical stereotypes associated with any rookie detective and prostitute friend. I didn't feel that these characters had anything interesting to add to the film and were there really to just infill any film clichés the director wanted to add.

I must say that the idea is very original and the victim scenes were interesting to watch but I was not at all satisfied with the ending as it was more of an anticlimax more than anything and the killer said 3 lines in the whole film.

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.