thelastblogontheleft
A reviewer at the New York Post described this movie as "a serial-killer flick told like an art lecture" and wow, nothing has ever been more accurate.Stan Aubray (Willem Dafoe) is an increasingly alcoholic NYPD detective who is haunted by the serial killer case of "Uncle Eddie" from five years prior, one that involved some very intricately artistic crime scenes, and one that was closed after the death of the prime suspect during an attempted arrest. Now he's on the trail of an apparent copycat, unearthing not only clues but memories he'd rather forget.This movie disappointed me ultimately because the general idea is pretty fantastic and interesting — a killer staging his crime scenes so that they must be viewed from one specific angle to see his hidden message — but the rest of it was done in such a clichéd, boring way that it was tough to even sit through. Dafoe's character is a fairly typical, weathered detective
he has slight OCD tendencies and he's withdrawn and intentionally isolated from the world. There's friction between him and Detective Carl Uffner (Scott Speedman) that often centers around Uffner trying to get him to open up and talk to him about the previous case. But neither character is particularly interesting in their own right.The murder scenes were probably the coolest part of the movie. Each one was more intricate than the last — I mean, they must have taken the killers hours and hours to construct — and quite gory, honestly. But when the highlight of a movie is a bloody crime scene over the acting, the storyline, the music
well, that's not awesome. I just didn't FEEL much while watching it. It never gripped me, never pulled me in. It just skims the edges of being this fascinating murder-mystery but it never quite gets there, either story-wise or aesthetically (the super hard lighting did nothing for me). And then there's the super cheesy ending with his various faces
ooof. Nope.
dilaraarslan1998
This film is thriller and horror film. Actually, I watched this film for Willem Defoe. I think, Willem Dafoe is the best actor. First, I didn't understand the subject of this film. Thete were a lot of name and different events in there. But after, I understood events. Willem Dafoewho is a police in the film is Stan Aubray. There was a serial killer and he pursuit of Stan. The serial killer killed people looks like a picture. This is very disgusting for me. The killer killed a person and he cut him looks like masterpiece:( Stan found the killer but at the end of the film he was died. Stan shouldn't be dead, for me. I am very disappointed about it.
wggmn3
Defoe is the best element in this derivative film, which would undoubtedly be the case even if the narrative was good.. yes, the story seems engaging enough but it's essentially a one trick pony and that pony is out to make the spectator sick.. Anamorph is a "push-the- envelope" thriller trying to follow in the footsteps of "Seven"; it's just making the footprints uglier and ever-more detailed.. and it's not as good...(even television is now giving the watcher increasing amounts of gore.. I don't know how much more real it can get: 3D, bigger screens, longer shots, clearer lighting, more and more details, etc...)after Defoe it's principal positive quality is that the viewer is given an art lesson.. yet even if one can find a value to this story it ultimately provides a greater lesson to those who are sick and demented...for "pushing-the-envelope" thanks go to the art directors Doug Hursti and Woods Macintosh as well as, of course, their minions of modelers...
jonathanruano
Anamorph is about an ex-detective, named Stan (Willem Dafoe), who is brought back from retirement to hunt down a serial killer with a strange artistic fetish. The twist in this movie is that the serial killer is strangely similar to the one which Stan allegedly killed (a man with the catchy name "Uncle Eddie") a few years ago. This serial killer, like the allegedly dead one, likes to display his victims as Renaissance art and he even resorts to anamorphosis – which explains the title of the movie. While watching Anamorph, I liked seeing Stan and the art dealer (Peter Stormare in the film's only fresh performance) talk about art and serial killers. I even liked the scene at the end, with the mournful violins and the victim choking on his own blood. The problem was that the rest of the movie was dismal. The film never really got us involved in the lives of its characters, with the result that we never cared whether they lived or died. Watching Stan go through a serious depression and drink himself to death was boring. The other police officers were clichés, while the female victim at the end was not presented in a sympathetic way. These failings would not be a problem if the film had plenty of high-energy action sequences and witty dialogue, like Eraser (1998) did. Unfortunately, Anamorph is a grim, dark, and depressing film which tries to use atmosphere to make some profound statement about Stan and the other characters. The atmospheric scenes fail to do this, because Stan, the serial killer, and others are not interesting enough to be the subject of any character study. Anamorph is not like "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" which taught us something about the psychology of the serial killer.Anamorph has a fresh set-up with a serial killer who brazenly depicts his victims as Renaissance art, interesting dialogue from Stomare, and an entertaining ending. But I cannot recommend the picture, because the hero and villain are so boring and the atmospheric scenes simply do not achieve their aim.
AD
