Anamorph (2007) User Reviews

Less than I'd hoped for...

[laramaria919 · 6/10 · 19 April 2008]

I would give this movie about a 6.5 out of 10. It is entertaining, the central plot is somewhat original, and I was a fan of the cinematography. It's rather visually appealing.

That being said, it was definitely not all that I'd hoped for. One of the other reviewers said the filmmakers thought they were making a smarter movie than they actually were, and I have to say I agree with that. The plot concept and the idea of anamorphosis is rather original and has a lot of potential. Yet I feel as if the filmmakers thought that this concept was SO ingenious that they didn't need to develop other parts of the film. The back story, for example, is explicated through memories and conversations so that the past is never wholly or even adequately revealed to the audience. What's worse, the character development is completely lacking. Willem Dafoe, who acting-wise does a nice enough job, reveals certain attributes about his character in very subtle ways. The rest of the characters, however, are pretty one-dimensional and used strictly as plot devices. And, as is common in film, the police work done in the film is a bit illogical.

All and all, the film is all right. I'm a big fan of psychological thrillers and I was certainly on the edge of my seat for a great deal of this one. It's pretty instantly gratifying, but if you take a few minutes to think about what you just saw, you might see some of the flaws I just mentioned.

PS - for those of you who are squeamish: there is little/no actual violence, but plenty of gross dead bodies.

This film could have been so much better!

[luke-346 · 5/10 · 16 May 2008]

When it comes to cinema there's nothing I like more than stumbling across an independently made film with an intellectual story, an interesting cast and a fresh director. Anamorph is a psychological thriller that ticks all these boxes and combines them with a great premise, the only problem here is that the premise has been poorly executed. Directed by the up and coming Henry S Miller and starring William Defoe (an often underrated, but favoured actor of mine), Anamorph tells of a weathered Detective called Stan Aubrey, Defoe, who is assigned a homicide case that bears incredible similarities to a case he undertook five years previous. The film is based on, and gets its name from, the concept of Anamorphosis. For those that are unaware this is a technique of painting, employed during the Renaissance period, in which the artist manipulates the laws of perspective to create separate images on a single canvas.

The psychological thriller is one of the most difficult genres to pull off as in order to live up to itself the film will require an immense amount of concentration in both writing and direction to keep the viewer intact whilst simultaneously not boring them. Anamorph does itself no favours by utlising cliché storytelling techniques so often associated with this type of film. Examples are the ageing detective, a sombre piano score, stark lighting, mysterious strangers and the elaborate death scenes. Instead the film merely regurgitates past offerings, the obvious being Seven, Kiss The Girls, and the more recent Zodiac and combines them with yet another take on what makes a serial killer tick. Unfortunately the only thing that kept me compelled during this film was Defoe. His rendition of a troubled and obsessive detective ridden by guilt and heartache was very good, and would have been better if had not had been for the poor script. There are many problems that lie in the writing of this film, one of which is that the audience is deprived of any real character development and another is that it has poor dialogue (certain scenes had me cringing - they could have been penned by a child), the banter between some characters was clearly there to further the narrative which usually isn't a problem providing it is unnoticeable.

The direction and cinematography of the film were good, and the manner in which the flashback scenes of the previous case were arranged were both artful and creative as they alluded to dripping, the very process of either dripping blood or paint onto a canvas. The minimalism of Aubrey's apartment and the discussions on art that took place in the bar were very well directed and filmed. These scenes are probably the best of the film as they complement his character's bleakness with a muted aptness of style. The director's ability at portraying the concept of Anamorphosis was also good, although the fact he had to use a metallic coffee mug to further the plot and employ pretentious final visuals did taint a somewhat overall good effort. Furthermore, the elaborateness of the death scenes harks to the film Saw, but Anamorph is nothing in comparison - yes it is more intellectual and challenging but in this instance that doesn't make it a better film.

Finally, I feel that Anamorph should have been a much better film. Its basic idea, of a serial killer utilising a largely forgotten painting technique as his means of disposing his victims, is both fresh and original. However upon viewing it, the overall feeling is that the film was rushed and that it was hastened to release. There is no doubt that the film has been poorly written and, regrettably, when a film is poorly written it is much better to have a good and experienced director at the helm as only then will it at least stand a chance of being salvaged. Anamorph has failed to better itself from the indolent script it began with. Usually I feel that too many writers can ruin a film but here I feel that more were needed to treat the initial idea with the respect it deserved.

Good set up wobbles and falls flat in the final reel

[dbborroughs · 6/10 · 27 April 2008]

Willem Dafoe is a troubled detective who is now teaching at the police academy. Years earlier he helped solve a series of murders that were laid out like works of art...especially when seen from a specific location. When a frisky couple knock into a door in their building they unknowingly step into a crime scene that once again has echoes to the earlier case. Dafoe is called in to take a look and it soon becomes clear that the killer is intent on bringing him into his ghoulish works or art.

I want to say this is Saw for the art set, but its not quite that. To be certain the murders are gruesome and very clever, but this film aspires to be more than a catalog of death and destruction. For the most part this is a good little thriller about a troubled man searching for a unique killer that he doesn't want to deal with since its opening too many doors he wants to keep closed (Dafoe's character is an odd duck. Points to the filmmakers for giving us a very odd man for a central character). For most of its running time I really enjoyed the film. The problem for me was that the ending didn't really come together. The film ends but it isn't really resolved, which considering how it ends makes sense but left this viewer (and my dad) going, thats it? It was a disappointment.

The real question is is the film worth seeing? Actually yes. The murders are unique and the film keeps Dafoe's character is worth seeing. I don't know if I had paid 11 bucks to see this on the big screen I would have been so forgiving, but on IFC in Theaters on cable it was worth the time.

6 out of 10 (because of the flat ending)

An artsy Hannibal Lecter

[DaRitz · 5/10 · 26 April 2008]

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.

Psychological Thriller Nowhere Close to "Lambs"

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 29 November 2008]

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.

Just Too Bad - a.k.a. Really Not Very Good

[pallenbrown · 2/10 · 29 June 2008]

This film is basically two hours of Dafoe's character drinking himself - nearly literally - to death. The only surprise in this film is that you didn't have enough clues or character knowledge to be surprised. It was just a grim, sad waste of time.

Willem Dafoe is excellent actor. Peter Stormare is an excellent actor. But this film just sucked. Slow doesn't make the movie bad, it was just bad. The sketchy plot mixed with artistic ramblings of anamorphic detail aren't cohesively drawn together in a meaningful way for a plot except to highlight some gore which is illustrated from several perspectives, finally at the end. I really appreciate the artistic vision, but as entertainment, it put me to sleep. (Seriously, I fell asleep and had to re-watch the film - which was even more disappointing.)

I generally don't like to make negative comments or reviews on the works of others, even when they suck, but this film warranted one. It's just too bad that these great actors were shamed with this end result.

Beautiful Cinematography, Suspenseful Plot, Unsatisfactory Ending

[ryan-1237 · 7/10 · 4 May 2008]

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.

It looks good, it's played well, but the script fails.

[sitenoise · 5/10 · 24 June 2008]

Some films are intentionally ambiguous leaving the final interpretation up to the viewer while others simply fail to tell a cohesive story causing the viewer to invent all kinds of theories about what the film was trying to say. Anamorph falls into the latter category.

This is one of those films where the death/crime scene is a work of morbid art, in the tradition of Se7en and Silence of the Lambs. The film looks good with its fiery cinematography. It's paced well and Willem Dafoe turns in a smoldering performance as the aging cop we're never clear on just how torn apart are his insides. And that's where this film fails. It's never clear about much of anything and tries to justify itself via the concept of the anamorph whose rendering "Depends on where you stand." Flashbacks and reflective turmoil are used to try and fill in the blanks as to why Dafoe's character is so intimately connected to the crimes. The film's denouement gives us a silly special effect suggesting multiple personalities may be involved. But 'maybe this' and 'maybe that' aren't good enough and I'm confident that at film's end you will scratch your head and say "Whaaaa"? It's also disappointing that, surprisingly, we weren't treated to any really good anamorph illusions. Given the title of the film, I'm just saying ....

original ideas and cliché direction

[xvoraz · 6/10 · 6 November 2008]

First of all, lets assume that this is a thriller-crime movie and thus is to be interpreted in the context of Silence of the Lamb and other serial killer movies. Thats all right, I like the genre.

What this genre needs is I think: 1) a psychological thread; a detective with psych issues, love, faith e.g. and these issues tend towards some sort of solution or elaboration 2) an intellectual thread; a complex, mind-stimulating, yet not too far- fetching murder case. 3) good realization; atmosphere that presents us the above two as (at least spiritually) real.

This film accomplishes these tasks: 1) An obsessive+compulsive detective with affection problems, buried past etc. And there is "character development", I like the atypical disintegrating end which is barely relieved by the end title music. 2)An artist-killer is not a never-heard-of idea, but anamorphosis is good idea. I liked the way the murder cases interconnect. I liked the way this all leads to the past. I liked, that some characters say 'forget about the past' some say 'go back! its the same'. 3)atmosphere is good, music good, murder scenes especially good.

Why did I gave it a 6? It is not original. Especially as for atmosphere creating, directing and filming. It is absolutely filled with clichés. There are original things are the character of the detective and the final...but maybe thats all... I still would say it is worth watching it, but it is just an other serial killer movie.

Cool concept, poor execution

[thelastblogontheleft · 3/10 · 20 February 2017]

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.

I just saw the world premiere!!!

[akayser · 9/10 · 21 September 2007]

I just had the amazing pleasure of seeing the world premiere of Anamorph (and met Willem Dafoe, Henry Miller, and Marissa McMahon) at the Oriental Theater in Milwaukee WI. All I can say about this film, is that it is a brilliantly and "artfully" filmed movie.

First, please discard any first impressions that this movie has anything to do with high schoolers morphing into animals. It does not. The title is based on the art concept of Anamorphosis, a technique that creates two different visuals on one piece.

Initially, I did not expect this movie to be that great. Mainly because I had never really seen a movie with Willem Dafoe as a lead actor, and because most thriller movies that have come out lately are all the same. I was terribly wrong... I think he is the only one that could have played the obsessive compulsive and guilt ridden cop he is. I found myself completely drawn in by his character throughout the whole movie. The film itself is shot in beautiful blue highlights, and includes extremely interesting transitions in the opening credits! The movie is compelling, terrifying, and extremely smart. There were scenes that made any of the Saw movies look like child's play, and I was literally was on the edge of my seat for most of the movie.

I highly suggest this movie to anyone that loves any type of thriller, horror, or detective movie, because frankly, I think this is one of the best and smartest I've seen in awhile!

Nice Plot, Bad Execution

[nikhilsharan · 7/10 · 20 May 2008]

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.

Dark Film.

[rmax304823 · 5/10 · 17 September 2012]

Willem Dafoe is an NYPD office teaching at the Academy. He's a troubled fellow. While he stands in line at the supermarket check-out counter, he lines his purchases up in precise configurations so that they form a square or some other regular shape. The camera looks straight down at the arrangement to make sure we get it.

It resonates with the rest of the story, although I wouldn't argue that the story makes a great deal of sense. Dafoe is called in to investigate a murder scene or, at any rate, a suspicious finding. The cops have occupied an apartment in which, if you shut off the lights, a tiny hole in the wall projects a bright image of a dead body in a queer pose. It's a camera obscura, used by some Renaissance painters to copy such objects as the doors of the Baptistry in Florence. (If I remember; I don't want to have to root around on Google looking up the details.) Similar murders follow, all observing the methods of a serial killer who took a slug in the middle of his forehead some years ago. "Anamorphosis" is brought in as an analytical tool by Peter Stormare as some kind of art fanatic who is Dafoe's acquaintance. Anamorphosis is forced perspective. Some artists painted an ordinary-looking picture, and inserted an odd-looking object somewhere in the display. If you look at the painting from the side, from a different angle, the object resolves into something recognizable. I think I saw one in a museum in Fort William, Scotland, of a distorted Bonny Prince Charlie -- again if I remember correctly. I don't want to have to root around in my long-term memory either.

But it's a dark and bleak story. Dafoe is not just an obsessive but a loner. His partner tells him, "We've been on the same desk for five years and I don't know anything about you. I don't know if you're married or where you live, and we carry the same shield." Dafoe doesn't speak much. He rarely asks questions. He shows little emotion. He wanders through the film's dark rooms, flashlight at his shoulder, observing chopped-up bodies.

The musical score is okay, but the photography is desaturated and in high contrast. It gets even more stylish during the flashbacks that show us why Dafoe is tortured by a guilt he refuses to confront.

Almost all of these movies about serial killers leaving convoluted puzzles behind for the police to figure out are pretty silly. They've managed to drag in the Seven Deadly Sins, Alice in Wonderland, pentagrams, and copycats killings of other famous serial murderers. It can be done successfully, even if it remains silly, as in "Seven". But, man, this one drags. And all those chopped-up bodies. A diapason of anatomy. There are no violent murders, no, but who wants to witness an autopsy without getting paid to do it?

Anagram for anamorphosis is medioacre...

[monkeyboy12121-414-225890 · 5/10 · 23 June 2013]

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.

Avg summary from avg viewer

[anh-tuanvo · 7/10 · 29 June 2008]

Very entertaining "psychological puzzle thriller" without any violent action scenes but with graphic crime scenes. The pace of the movie is slow at first but begins to pick up midway through. The scenes in general are dark and gloomy, which more or less sets the tone for Defoe's character. The title is based on the word "anamorphosis" which is a form of painting and plays into the artistic killings.

Willem Defoe is a low key alcoholic, teaching NYPD detective who, after almost five years, is still haunted by the personal ghosts of his last "big" case. Around this same time, high profile killings start to occur. The m.o. (method of operation) of the recent killings lead the police to suspect a serial killer is on the loose. Furthermore, the intricacies and "artistry" of the crime scenes are such that the department decides to bring in Defoe as consulting/lead detective with his partner (Speedman) into the investigation. What ensues is a bit of a cat and mouse game, with the audience slowly learning more about Defoe's past case and the strange similarities to the current one.

Defoe, not the actual plot, is the primary reason I decided to check out this movie. I was not sure what to expect and I admit that I was a bit confused about Defoe's character throughout the better part of the movie and impatient to find out more about his past and exactly how it tied into the present. The crime scenes are morbidly beautiful and I was awed by the sheer imagination of them as well. This movie really concentrates on the "artistic motivation" of serial killers and as such I found it quite intriguing. The puzzle aspects of the movie are reminiscent of "The Bone Collector" but I found "Anamorph" to be a bit headier - similar to "Se7en" but not as straightforward.

7/10. Worth checking out but probably not watching more than once other than to try to discover the anamorphic properties of the crime scenes. The stills of the crime scenes from this movie would make a great art book.

waste of time

[petit76 · 1/10 · 7 September 2008]

you must be seeing my comments over many films under Evren Buyruk ..I am off to make another comment over a movie that is not even worth a minute of talking though..This film is basically two hours of Dafoe's character drinking himself - nearly literally - to death. The only surprise in this film is that you didn't have enough clues or character knowledge to be surprised. It was just a grim, sad waste of time.

Willem Dafoe is excellent actor. Peter Stormare is an excellent actor. But this film just sucked. Slow doesn't make the movie bad, it was just bad. The sketchy plot mixed with artistic ramblings of anamorphic detail aren't cohesively drawn together in a meaningful way for a plot except to highlight some gore which is illustrated from several perspectives, finally at the end. I really appreciate the artistic vision, but as entertainment, it put me to sleep. (Seriously, I fell asleep and had to re-watch the film - which was even more disappointing.) I generally don't like to make negative comments or reviews on the works of others, even when they suck, but this film warranted one. It's just too bad that these great actors were shamed with this end result.

Watchable

[kurciasbezdalas · 6/10 · 16 September 2008]

This movie is about serial killer who makes an artwork of his victims. It sounds great but it isn't exactly a movie which could be compared with Se7en or Silence of the lambs. It's well filmed, the acting was great and the plot seemed to be interesting but something was missing. It was sometimes boring. I'm a big psycho killer thriller fan but what is the most interesting in these kind of films to me is killers psychological portrait and the reasons why he is doing it(if he kills only for art there must be something wrong with him and I would like to know what). Anyway there were few original deaths(unfortunately process itself wasn't shown) and there were many famous actors but most of them appeared only for few minutes or less. So if you like psycho killer thrillers you should watch this one and maybe you'l like it.

Intriguing concept ...... not fully developed ................

[merklekranz · 2/10 · 3 January 2010]

This is an interesting idea gone bad. The hidden meanings in art left as clues by a serial killer sounds intriguing, but the execution in "Anamorph" is excruciatingly slow and without much interest. There is no other way to describe the film except boring. The death clues are the only interesting part of "Anamorph". Everything connecting them is tedious. Willem Dafoe gives a credible performance as the investigator, but he has little to do with a script that is stretched to the limit. Several supporting character actors are wasted , including Peter Stormare as the art expert, James Rebhorn as the police chief, Paul Lazar as the medical examiner, and most notably Deborah Harry, who is featured on the back of the DVD case, yet only has a couple lines spoken through a cracked door. Not recommended. - MERK

Strong movie about an important question.

[board-5 · 14 June 2009]

William and the good screenplay are the real good things in this movie,but this movie was something new and strong,against it's box office page does not shows it's quality.

I have not seen a movie ending like this in years,this was enough creative,and just leaves wondering the viewer.

The story is not too difficult,and in this film this will really help the viewer,average users can follow what happening,also the acting is takes the attention,as it's really important for me.

While this movie will not loved by all of the audience,this was a very personal story,as mostly successful films today,but with a clever message this time.

Anamorph is very fresh and honest piece of USA film-making today,and I honestly hope movies like this will be profitable movies in the future,and all around the world.

The usual basic situation when a cop wants to catch a serial killer,was not ever as creative as this time,cause the viewer gets answer in a very strange way,but it was not truly surreal,I mean the situation turns to something deeper,and more interesting.

I do not want to tell you more about the story ,cause it will destroy your joy to watching this film Give this film a chance,only cause this film is something fresh all the way,and cause this is really a personal story.

8/10-I do not give 10-points,but I'am still really recommend this movie for everybody who want to wonder,also for those do not understand for first time.

A poor man's Se7en

[siderite · 6/10 · 30 June 2012]

This movie was recommended by a friend as a psychological thriller and it is clearly what it attempted to be. However, while having a weird enough story, it was never clear enough, nor did it provide a way to really understand any of the characters. Some of the obvious points that the characters missed also damaged the feel of the film.

What it is about: a detective is haunted by the last case he worked on, a serial killer case that he probably solved, since killing the only suspect in self defence stopped the killings. And now a copy cat appears, just as annoyingly pretending to be an artist while killing people and having an unhealthy obsession with our detective. But it he really only a copy cat?

A very good cast should have provided more entertainment in this film. The detective is Willem Dafoe, his art friend is Peter Stormare, the wannabe rookie is Scott Speedman, James Rebhorn is somewhere around and both Clea DuVall and Amy Carlson have ridiculously small roles. Extra points to who recognises the detective's neighbour, reduced to 30 second roles in obscure movies.

As such, the script looked similar to Se7en, a much better movie from 12 years before. Dafoe's character was obscure and hard to empathise with and any other role was minimal, including the one of the killer. The relation to anamorphism is interesting, but not challenging in any way: you get better from the Wikipedia article than from the film. This movie failed.

Sadly not too good...

[ajs-10 · 4/10 · 12 September 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

wonderfully dark

[dsasdf-6 · 10/10 · 27 April 2008]

simply put, if you love "seven" then you will love this film. the imagery is horrifically stunning and the plot is intelligent and surprising.

i saw the film because of Dafoe in the cast, certainly. He is excellent in this roll and the rest of the case rocks as well.

i've always liked speedman and stomare, but am also a fan of heroes, so i recognized duvall was well.

i enjoyed this one quite a lot.

the ending was surprising, i was fooled. no spoilers here! i watch more than my fair-share, and this one went in a different direction then i was expecting.

be prepared for some very realistic gore though. this film is not for the faint at heart.

In the Eye Of the Beholder

[gengar843 · 6/10 · 6 June 2018]

Willem Dafoe in the role of a retiring detective haunted by his most famous case, a serial killer named Uncle Eddie. When a copycat killer seems to emerge, Dafoe's character, Stan Aubray, becomes the main target and obsession for this new murderer.

Basically, this is a crime mystery with some grue, and the added element of esoteric photography. Most of the detective work seems forced, especially Carl discovering mirror images in his metal coffee mug - really? The deserted Playland doesn't seem to warrant much curiosity from PD, and neither is it staked out or called a crime scene, so that one last spooky scene can be performed there. Aubray does not seem very intelligent, merely lucky, and the red herrings are truly all the other characters thrown in to keep you guessing, which is OK, if you don't mind being strung along.

Now, the ending. SPOILER: The killer is Aubray. It's obvious to me he's been hallucinating for the sake of the audience, and only at the end are we allowed to see him morphing into "Michael." Now - if there IS a Michael, and Aubray is NOT the killer, then this ending REALLY sucks. As it is, the ending as I see it is still too transparent because I was guessing it was Aubray the whole time. He feels guilt, which has manifested as self-hatred, and then hatred of all things related. He wasn't being stalked, he was stalking himself. AUBRAY put the painting on the street, then bought it. Aubray knew exactly how these esoteric devices worked because he was expert at it. He was just stuffing down the other self - he really didn't know he was doing this. "But wait," you say, "what about when they showed a picture of Michael?" I think Aubray was imagining these things, but the filmmakers just went a step too far in covering this up and left it to our imaginations. OK, not a bad trick, but not well-played, if you ask me.

The music was overdramatic, reminiscent of Marvel Comics movies, and so it goes for the Green Goblin. The plot was super-thin with no real subplots to dig into. The dialogue tried to be existential, arty and earthy all at the same time but I was mostly bored.

What did I LIKE? That one of the most important jobs in the world is fighting crime, and being a detective, because it exposes and catches evil, and actually does some good, even after the fact, and I think the film tries in the first half of the film to make this point.

Check out this quirky but loose film at your own risk. It's visually appealing and has a bit of philosophy to ponder, but the rest is window dressing.

Wooden, pretentious, excruciating, rote, feebly written, incompetently plotted.

[silentyears1 · 1/10 · 18 April 2008]

I should say right away that I checked the spoilers box only because I'm giving this comment the amount of thought proportional to what this mess of a movie deserves, and don't want to be held responsible for some plot point incidentally slipping out.

This comment will take the form of a tirade for the simple reason that I am still under the influence of this movie, having just watched it, and the unique effect this has renders one incapable of the sort of forethought and paragraph structure required for coherent, reasoned criticism. That is not a compliment. It isn't the narcotic effect of a truly hypnotic or thought provoking movie. The feelings it stirs up combine like some uncomfortable emotional Voltron, composed of a confusing mix of some form of rage, the vague desire to take a shower, the rudderless, sinking feeling of true betrayal one gets when they realize they have given 109 minutes of their lives into the hands of someone who would not only squander it, but do so in such a pompous, artless way. And I probably wouldn't have done anything super productive with that 109 minutes anyway! But even if I'd spent it on something trivial, like a power block of masturbation and online poker, I would have felt more fulfilled when all was said and done.

The problems with this movie are myriad, and in better times I'd articulate exactly what they were in a semi-adult fashion. But in keeping with what this movie deserves, I think I'll most likely stick to the realm of masturbation jokes and cartoon references.

The most irritating and terminal flaw is that while watching this movie one is keenly aware that the makers and participants think they are making a much smarter movie than they are. Demonstrating the depth of knowledge one could pick up in a one semester survey of Western art history at a community college or trade school, the art-jargon is piled on thick and from all directions, with much of it supplied by talk between our hero, the tortured detective Stan (Willem Dafoe, who I will forgive for this movie due to him being Willem Dafoe) and his accented antique dealer buddy Blair (Peter Stormare, taking a break from playing a sociopath for whom murder comes easy by playing a 2-dimensional plot device in a movie about a sociopath for whom murder comes easy). And talk they do. In fact, we are dropped into this story at a crime scene that may indicate the reemergence of a serial killer Stan thinks he killed years earlier, so all the back story is established partially through unclear flashback, but primarily through stilted conversations between Stan and his dealer, or Stan and his colleague, the unforgivably irritating Carl (Scott Speedman). And although I differentiate the character Carl (Scott Speedman) from the actor who plays him by using parentheses, I must admit that very early on in the film I despised this character so much that I actually found myself sincerely wishing harm on the actor portraying him (Scott Speedman). Not anything too fancy. Not death or paralysis, necessarily.. But maybe herpes? Or maybe a stage light could fall on him and crush his arm? This is a dangerous digression, but I'm not editing it out because I want to leave anyone reading this who's thinking about paying to see this train wreck of a movie with a clear impression of the horrible wishes and feelings it stirs in even the most peaceful man.

Well, I'm sort of running out of steam here.. over the course of writing this the sick feelings this movie brought up in a me have subsided, my head has cleared a bit. Realizing now that I'm still investing time in something related to this piece of sh!t is startlingly similar to waking up after a night of suicidally heavy drinking next to the heaving form of a still slumbering 200 pound college girl. Your first urge is a desperate desire to flee. This is natural.

Pretentious, slow-paced, and grotesque

[krachtm · 5/10 · 7 December 2012]

Anamorph is an interesting movie, at times very artistic and intellectual, while also being clichéd and slow. The plot is fairly typical of serial killer movies, reminiscent of any number of police procedurals, such as Silence of the Lambs. Most of its atmosphere seems to be lifted from classic 1990s neo-noir, like Seven. Also, like The Cell, there's copious amounts of grotesque imagery that occasionally achieve a kind of grisly, morbid beauty. The main concept -- that of serial killers being akin to artists, plying their trade on a human canvas -- is derivative of other movies, which, unfortunately, I can not currently recall. If you ground up all these elements, mixed them together, into one big serial killer movie pastiche, you'd have Anamorph.

Anamorph had some real potential, considering how seriously the director and actors approached it, but there were just too many problems. For one, it was mind-numbingly boring. By the end of the movie, I was nearly asleep. Watching this movie before you go to bed is definitely not recommended. The pacing is just way too slow. If you watch it, watch it while you're wide awake and alert.

Second, there are just way too many unanswered questions that were constantly nagging me. Why is the serial killer called "Uncle Eddie"? It's such an idiosyncratic name that it begs explanation. None is forthcoming. Why was that woman giving a blood transfusion? What was the nature of her relationship with the detective? After every scene, I was left with more and more unanswered questions, which the director seemed to think were too inconsequential to answer. I beg to differ.

Third, and this sort of ties in with the second point, things were constantly thrown into the movie because they seemed artistic, interesting, or enigmatic. While Anamorph has an explicitly stated premise ("truth is dependent on one's POV"), much of the movie seems like shallow, pretentious nonsense, instead of supporting the premise. I'm beginning to think that the killer is named "Uncle Eddie" simply because it's enigmatic and mysterious. That's a terrible reason.

It's always possible that much of the movie simply went over my head (I was half asleep while watching it), but I think it's more likely that this is just a mediocre movie. I think that the director shows promise, and I'd be interested in seeing his later films, but this one just didn't grab me. It's too slow, boring, and pretentious. Normally, I criticize directors for being too overt and not subtle enough, but this movie is so subtle that nothing ever happens and nothing is ever explained! Obviously, we need a bit of balance.