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.
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.
this is definitely not the worst detective film but its far from the best
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
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.
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