Anamorph - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Anamorph Reviews

Page 1 of 20
Super Reviewer
½ July 24, 2010
I like a good murder mystery as much as the next person, but this one is hard to watch.

I like it when movies let you draw your own conclusions, but in this movie, the leads are just so obscure, and the killer's motives only seems to be to make a confusing movie for the movie-going public out there. Saying that, I probably would watch it again, just to see if it makes sense the second time.
Super Reviewer
March 21, 2009
The anamorphic art was nice, but the film itself was a bit too blurry and vague for my taste. Perhaps I should've been more alert to get more out of it.
Super Reviewer
½ May 10, 2008
It's truly a weak, slow and miserable little thriller, the cocept is interesting but the material is weak and dosent deserve the great talents of Willem Dafoe, Scott Speedman and Peter Storemare
Super Reviewer
January 27, 2008
A thrilling movie about a troubled detective who struggles with his past, and the one case that still haunts him. The current case resembles the works of a serial killer that he has caught before, but this brings up further question of whether he in fact caught the actual person, or not. Great cast- Willem Dafoe, Scott Speedman, James Rebhorn, Peter Stormare, and Clea DuVall. Worth seeing!
½ March 11, 2010
This movie could have been really good with a better script and director. Now this movie just turned out pretty strange and ended quite funny BUT the idea isnot bad at all.
February 28, 2009
The ending was absurd.

Peter Stormare was odd like he always is.

But there was no substance to any of it. It was just really bouncy and odd.

And I lOVE serial killer movies.

Fascinating idea, but horrible execution.
½ November 2, 2008
As soon as I started watching this I thought Se7en! Weird. The Story was pretty good, actually caught my full attention. The Cast was god too, love Dafoe and Speedman...! Sometimes it was a bit slow but overall I though it was well worth my time.
September 18, 2008
This was pretty boring and I was counting the minutes until it ended. No great acting performances, nothing shocking and the storyline was very weak. I was confused as to who was who due to the fact that they didn't introduce the characters or give you any idea as to who was in the scene. So, for most of the movie you're lost as to who some people are. They could have done a better job with this but it seems they just threw a movie together and got a good actor (Willem Dafoe) to be the star in it and sell the film. I was very disappointed with Willem's performance in this movie though. This film isn't worth your time.
Super Reviewer
May 29, 2008
A serial killer movie with the brilliant Willem Dafoe. This movie reminds much of Zodiac and Seven because the killer have a unique way of killing his victims. I would probably wanted more thriller from this flick and more tempo but still its a decent flick.
½ May 25, 2012
i enjoy a good old fashioned detective vs serial killer story but this really does push the line of boredom and stupidity. dafoe has no real plot or character to work with and especially speedman who could have read he's lines minutes before delivering them.
this is definitely not the worst detective film but its far from the best
March 13, 2012
the beginning was ok but after an hour this movie became quite shitty.
February 8, 2012
A dark, slow, humorless movie that worked for me nonetheless. Might have scored it higher, but the ending was clumsy and did not answer the main question that hovers throughout the film.
January 30, 2012
Watched 5 minutes. Stupid sicko murderer movie
½ July 19, 2011
Beautifully shot, but very slow, poorly written and seems to have several redundant characters. Even Dafoe can't seem to lift his character to great heights. Plus, we're given no clues as to the killer up until the last 10 minutes. Surely that's part of the attraction to crime thriller films? You get to figure it out alongside the protagonists.
June 7, 2011
I'm reminded a bit of Se7en with a dash of Red Dragon thrown in, although Anamorph isn't on par with either of those.
November 21, 2010
Wow, such a creative killer. Good story line. Ending kinda disappointing with Det. Stan Aubray as the victim.
September 12, 2010
If we look up the word ?Anamorphosis?, from which the title of this film was derived, we get the following definition:

Anamorphosis is a distorted projection or perspective requiring the viewer to use special devices or occupy a specific vantage point to reconstitute the image. ?Ana ? morphosis? comes from the Greek words meaning ?formed again.? (Source: Wikipedia)

So it?s basically a piece of artwork that is painted in such a way that if viewed from a particular point it will make a complete picture. Unfortunately, the filmmakers didn?t get the complete picture when putting this rather poor effort together.

A troubled cop, Stan Aubray, is investigating a series of murders that are thought to be copy-cats of a killer called ?Uncle Eddie? whose case he investigated and was thought to have been killed five years previous. He is helped by his partner, Carl Uffner and art expert, Blair Collet. The art expert is needed because the killer places all of his victims in poses that depict works of art. I really can?t say much more about this one, that is the basic premise of the movie.

As I said earlier I found this a rather poor effort. I usually like the work of Willem Dafoe, but he must have seen something in the script we didn?t see on the screen, because it is very poor. The pacing is way too slow and the dialogue, with great long pauses, is pretty dire. I did like the performance of Peter Stormare as Blair Collet; he was the one bright point in this movie. I will give honourable mentions to Willem Dafoe as Stan Aubray and Scott Speedman as Carl Uffner just for making the effort and turning up to make it.

I usually enjoy a good serial killer movie, but this one is certainly not going to feature in any of my end of year awards? unless I do a top ten worst of the year! Over all, very poor and definitely NOT recommended.

My score: 3.7/10
March 9, 2010
A disappointment on many levels, Anamorph showed promise, but ends up as a dull, derivative whodunit where we find out "whodunit" early on and simply forget about him!

If you've never heard of this movie before, don't fret: this is one of those movies that got "limited theatrical release". I never got that. Why would you only want to show your movie in a few cities? How do these people expect to make their budgets back? A lot of my favorite movies end up this way (A Scanner Darkly, Boondock Saints, etc.), but it doesn't make any sense why. With Anamorph, I think I understand. It gives the illusion that a film is more artsy and high-brow if you release it in certain cities, thus making it appear more enjoyable.

Willem Dafoe is as charismatic (some might say "creepy") as ever as Detective Stan Aubray, a straight-arrow cop with a sinister past that seems to be catching up with him. Five years back, a serial killer ran rampant all over New York, leaving grisly remains. This case became known as the Uncle Eddie case. I don't really know why: nobody ever explains who Uncle Eddie is. But I digress. Now, new victims are being dispatched to look like anamorphic works of art.

Anamorphic, in simple terms, is a work of art made to look one way, that can be interpreted as something else from a different angle/perspective. The best example I can come up with is this activity book I got for Easter with a page of what looked like straight lines, but upon laying the paper flat and looking up at it, it actually read HAPPY EASTER. Now imagine that, but with arms and heads and s***. Is this the work of a copycat killer, or is Uncle Eddie back to his old tricks?

It's an interesting idea, but some scenes drag on FOREVER and EVER, sometimes leading absolutely nowhere. You can almost feel the writer peeking at a copy of the Se7en script as he typed this, as many scenes have the dark, grimy feel that Fincher directed 15 years ago. The supporting cast is actually pretty good. Scott Speedman isn't as bland as usual, and even manages to pull off a cop pretty believably. Peter Stormare is in the movie (YAY!) but he isn't given a lot to do except try to sell Aubray chairs (BOOOOO!).

When the movie isn't being gross, the cinematography is really good. The colors match the situation, and it helps the city feel more hollow and lifeless than they really are. But one thing I cannot stand is an abrupt ending, especially when a movie is SO SLOW. It's all so anti-climactic, just like Transformers 2 (thought I'd give a shout-out in celebration of it's huge Razzie haul).

Bottom line: some movies should stay limited release. If you're going to take the time to make a crappy movie, let the whole world see it, so that you can get some real criticism, and IMPROVE upon it, like a real artist. At least, that's my perspective.

And Boondock Saints rocked . . . haters.
February 22, 2010
starts of well and with dafoe in the lead its definately worth a look. sadly the story is very thin and the characters have no real connection which leaves the film dead in the water.
the problem is the film has a clever idea but no real story to keep us interested. there are some nice touches in the killings but when a film is not at all interested in the characters its hard to really care about anything that is going on in front of you. the sub plot involving a girl dead in the water is so confusing its bordering stupidity.
not the worst of its kind but considering the talent this should of really rocked
½ February 19, 2009
A bad Seven rip-off. As much as I like Wilem Dafoe he doesn't seem to care about his role, basically being on autopilot for the duration of this stale and derivative movie.
Page 1 of 20