A Wounded Fawn

Let's just start of by saying this film isn't for everyone. So please spare me the whiny reviews from all of the people out there that aren't willing to immerse themselves in something pretty far out.

I really loved the practical fx and the cinematography of this film. Seeing something shot on film in 2022 was great. It's a straight forward but very unconventional little tale about a serial killer who's victims manifest themselves as some kind of Greek/Roman demons inside the killer's insane and damaged mind. Needless to say, things become very surreal by the end. There is also a great sense of humor behind it all. A scene with a dog sporting woman's head comes to mind as the funniest part... it's pretty entertaining.

I'd like to see this filmmaker make something a little more grounded. I loved the technical aspects of the film. Was it a little too artsy? Maybe By the end. But that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it. Definitely worth a watch if you appreciate the type of things. I think this filmmaker could potentially evolve into a pretty great one if he kept things a little more grounded. Or he could just keep making things like this and that's fine too because it's pretty good. 8.7out of 10. B+

When I stumbled upon the 2022 horror movie "A Wounded Fawn" here in 2024, I had never actually heard about it. But I will say that I was initially intrigued by the movie's synopsis. Plus, the fact that it was a horror movie that I hadn't already seen, also helped to make me sit down and watch it.

Writers Nathan Faudree and Travis Stevens, with the latter also directing the movie, put together a fair enough script and storyline. It was pretty straightforward, if actually not somewhat generic and predictable. But the added elements of supernatural horror definitely helped to spruce up the movie. It was an adequate movie, but nothing outstanding really.

I was not familiar with the cast ensemble in the movie, but I will say that leading actress Sarah Lind (playing Meredith Tanning) and leading actor Josh Ruben (playing Bruce Ernst) put on good performances and carried the movie quite nicely.

Visually then "A Wounded Fawn" was okay. It was not a movie that made use of an abundance of special effects or CGI, not that it really required such. Whatever effects were in the movie were fairly okay, and helped to promote whatever they were intended to do, so that means it was effective.

Director Travis Stevens makes use of some dark imagery throughout the course of the movie, especially in the last quarter of the movie, which adds something unique to the movie. And the costumes with the masks and the wardrobes definitely added a layer of oddity to the movie.

Watchable for what it was, however "A Wounded Fawn" is hardly a movie that I will ever return to watch a second time. If it worth sitting down and watching it, if you are an avid horror fan.

My rating of "A Wounded Fawn" lands on a five out of ten stars.

Travis Stevens' A Wounded Fawn is undoubtedly several notches above his Girl on the Third Floor. The 16mm visual style and gruesome-looking special effects are notable in a film with a straightforward Act One and a twisted Act Two. Art is a key factor in the film, and its finer layers are heavily soaked in it. The plot is simple: an art-obsessed serial-killer (slash thief) is seeking his next target, an art authenticator. But what begins as a slasher with a sprinkling of Greek mythology moves into a much darker, Hell Raiser-esque space, delving deep into surrealism, compounded by a supernatural recompense.

The surprise element here is whether it's the killer's mind playing games with him (after he gets hit in the head) or if he's really in a purgatory-like place where he's being psychologically tortured as punishment for the deadly sins he's committed. What also works are the two lead performances. Both Sarah Lind (as Meredith) and Josh Ruben (as Bruce) are pretty effective. While the film loses a little momentum in Act Two, the much-talked-about end credits sequence is a winner (akin to Pearl), both from the perspectives of storytelling and performances.

To being a really good movie. I loved the Giallo look and feel of the movie. The first act really grabs the viewer with tension and some genuinely creepy moments. Act two is where things come apart a bit. Goes into overdrive with horror art, then the wheels completely fall off with the pretty ridiculous ending. I know what they were going for, but it just didn't work. The effects range from intentional 1970's bad to pretty gruesome and bloody, for those that like that sort of thing. Good performances and again, the way it was shot, to give a 70's feel, is pretty awesome. I'm sure it's a movie that I'll revisit again in the future, and I may even add it to my home BD collection if it gets a release. Not for everyone, but I do recommend to at least give it a watch and decide for yourselves. Last thing, as another reviewer here stated about this movie and that it's what Barbarian should have been - I wholeheartedly agree.

I had no idea of what was going on after the halfway point in this film.

The first act was great. Nice premise, great acting, good environment, and setting up to be quite the thriller.

The second act however goes completely off the rails. I'm not sure what they were thinking. It turns into a 1970s psychological drama and you can't determine what is real and what is not.

This is one of those films I wish they had tested with audiences before completing the entire thing because I'm confident most who watched it were equally confused by the end.

What was the purpose of the owl? How did these people come to life?