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.

Poor old Bruce makes the mistake of imbibing an extremely strong hallucinogen before his third slaying of a woman that leads to him being visited by three ghosts, two of which have been fermenting their frustrations at losing their lives in air tight barrels buried in the ground. Unfortunately for Bruce, whatever he's taken isn't wearing off quickly which puts him at somewhat of a disadvantage, similar to the predicament placed upon the dead women. As you can imagine, there's some pain to be inflicted, not only on Bruce, but also the viewer as you endure a torturous display of meaninglessness that certainly won't act as a deterrent to any up and coming serial killers (if I'm honest).

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.

How it was filmed is very cool had that old school vibe to it. The start of the film was strong and to the point... but it just seems that the love just went limp and you just said as you were.. started 100 for the first 30mins rest was just flat... I think my horror days have come to a end.?

The cast was good main lady really done well.and would like to see her in more stuff. Now back to this film. The flatness of the film just tryed to much off that clut old vibe what didn't really work them days let alone now.... would of like it to have have a old vibe with new flow would of bin nice to of seen as the start of the film was bang on.

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.