Dahmer

Jacobson's film shows little violence. That's a point I'd like to stress because there is a certain audience I think will appreciate this film but who may not give it a chance because they expect graphic nastiness. Against the film's interests, the marketing tries to sell the film to the cheap horror-movie audience and I think this is a pity.

Instead of depicting violence, Jacobson's film discomforts you using dramatic means - principally writing and acting. All of which are used with enough skill to distinguish the film from cheap horror movies. It would be wrong and unfair to dismiss Dahmer because of its packaging. It is a well-written and performed character drama.

It's subject matter is too horrible for the general drama audience to welcome, but at the same time its serious approach makes it too straight for the entertainment market. By that I mean the Hannibal Lecter/Seven audience, who prefer their serial killer tales abstracted (and therefore made safe) by the presence of movie stars.

Dahmer is more akin to Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer in being low budget, filled with unfamiliar faces, and focussed so much on the killer that there is no awareness of the authorities or justice in the story. There is no hero cop or FBI agent in pursuit.

Dahmer is very unlike McNaughton's infamous film because, as already mentioned, it's low on violence, but also because it's a technically better-executed piece of work. The photography and editing, the use of music, the already-mentioned acting and writing, make this a surprisingly good-quality film considering the expectations stacked against it. One technical achievement I find worth noting is how well it recreates period. Sequences set in the 80's have a visual authenticity that puts big budget studio attempts to shame.

Obviously, you know what kind of film you like. If what I've said above sounds interesting to you, then I recommend giving it a look. I repeat that you will not see much in the way of gore or violence. There are plenty of films with more graphic content dressed more commercially. Dahmer won't make you feel good. It isn't a fun movie. But if you are looking for something with more substance you may find it.

I was surprised at this movie. I was expecting a real exploitation flick, packed with heads in freezers, boiled skulls and necromance painted across the celluloid with a generous brush. It's nothing like that. It's a very quiet and introverted picture, focusing on the inner workings of Jeffrey Dahmer. It's very well shot, and the guy playing Jeffrey does a great job of it. The result is a lot more intense than the obvious splatterfest version would have been.

But, I must admit, I still found the movie lacking. It has tons of great characterization, but there is no narrative drive in the script. It's basically Jeffrey Dahmer taking guys back to his place and flashbacking a lot while waiting for the sedatives to kick in. It doesn't really begin, and it certainly doesn't end. As a character study, it's a fine example of how much you can flesh out your characters (obscure pun intended). As a movie, it doesn't cut it. All characters and no plot makes Jeff a dull boy....

Let's face it: people who will watch this to see violence or some of the acts of the most notorious serial killer, Jeffrey Dahmer, will be disappointed.

The reason?

That's because the film doesn't at all emphasize in Dahmers sadism or cruelty - it's a human look into the mind of an inhuman psycho. Well, I suppose the film is trying to be objective. Not to merely shock, but then again there's too few of Dahmer's unspeakable acts, that one might wonder what the writer/director was trying to do?

Anyway, watch this if you like serial killer films, but don't expect too much. Give it a try, it's quite decent and serious film.

Extremely well acted, particularly by the lead. Appropriately creepy and atmospheric -- as well as poignant and introspective. Makes a character out of a "monster". Examines Dahmer's struggle with his homosexuality and that struggle's basis for his sickness. Doesn't focus on the violence, and doesn't explore the cannibalism at all. Flashback structure works well. Liked the comparisions of his banal teenage years to the horrific current years. Would have liked a little bit more of an acknowledgement of how totally out of control this guy became. Cinematography is excellent at times -- but is bedeviled by some sloppy focus work. Again, the lead actor is topnotch. This is a work to be proud of.

I did hear a lot of bad buzz about this movie; mainly people were complaining that it was boring. The movie starts out with Jeffrey living alone in his apartment ready to kill his next victim, an Asian boy and meeting another one at the same time, Rodney. We get many flashbacks of when he was young and when he committed his first murder.

So was it boring? Hell No! Well for me it was never boring because from the beginning we are captivated by this lonely and troubled man. The reason behind this was due to Jeremy Renner's real and absorbing portrayal that should stand out as one of the best performances of 2002. Another reason it was never boring was because of its catchy dialogue. Jeffrey had some really though provoking things to say. The best conversations were between Jeffrey and Rodney who was played by Artel Kayaru. He was magnetic and he gave the second best performance.

People who thought that this movie was boring were probably expecting more scenes of Jeff killing all his victims. We don't see all of the crimes and that's because this film was more of a character study than a gore infested horror film. There were some creepy and disturbing scenes but nothing intensely frightening. Only one particular scene that caught me by surprise---oh,that really freaked me out. Great scene, I loved it because it didn't have any music and it was very well directed. It's really weird to feel sorry and be moved by a killer and it's the first time I ever felt that way.