Normal

I'll first say some of the cinematography was very good. A lot of it seemed rushed. But I know there were a couple shots that I really liked.

Other than that, I found everything to be very tough to watch.

The constant, same-volume soundtrack throughout the whole music was an aural onslaught. It didn't allow for times of quiet to collect your thoughts or focus on what was happening in the movie. It sounded like it was going for a "Drive" feel, but it was a little overbearing. It felt like it was a cover up for not having foley editing or sounds that were actually happening in the scenes in some occasions. It felt awkward watching a scene where you were expecting sound effects to be heard at least slightly, but only just the music. Felt a little amateur and unpolished.

The dialogue audio was very difficult to listen to as well. It didn't sound natural and actually made it physically difficult to pay attention to at times.

Now, the writing.. I really couldn't understand what was going on. I think too much was trying to be done. As much as I know they wanted to probably keep some of the story a mystery in the beginning, I felt like it was missing a lot of establishing information. I felt like I was thrown into something and had to spend a lot of energy trying to put the pieces together, more so than you should normally have to do during a movie.

And then there was a lot of what probably was extraneous information being thrown in. References to things that never came up again, probable metaphors that either were so hidden that an average viewer wouldn't be able to pick up on or was never fleshed out.

The movie is all down too. There were no juxtaposing scenes. Which, fine, may be the style he was going for, but it makes it very difficult to watch. It felt like there wasn't a good flow to things, breather scenes, etc. Not that you needed a big emotional breather, but information- processing breather.

In a general sense though, a I didn't really understand what the story was. I couldn't tell what was actually driving the main character. What problem was trying to be solved. There were a few possible threads that I thought were presented, but it also seemed like there were pieces to the puzzle, that were crucial to be known, that weren't exposed. So the characters were able to work through things on their own, but the audience had no idea what had happened.

A lot of of the duologue was awkward and some of the exposition was unnatural. The delivery of most lines didn't help either. Lines were forced, over-dramatic, and generally unnatural.

The one thing that I found impressive was set design. To a degree. I could tell it was all built from scratch, which I always find impressive for an independent production. It felt claustrophobic, but I understand that was the point, and could at least gather that from watching. There were a couple lines that didn't jive with the set that I felt could've been adjusted. A couple in particular was "this is the nicest apartment in the building" and "this is exactly what we were looking for". Given where the apartments were, it could be fine, but I felt like the lines could've been adjusted a bit to not seem so ridiculous to a viewer and thinking "really, THAT apartment?" Maybe a little nit-picky, but that was one thing that stood out to me.

What I felt that all these things distracted from the story itself. If there was one.

I went in with an open mind, I like independent productions and have seen some very good ones. But this, I found myself getting antsy waiting for it to end very quickly into it.

It's REALLY unethical and dishonest to promise people filmmaking on the level of Scorsese or Kubrick in order to trick people into watching a film. This movie is not the marvel reviewers are claiming it is. It is pretentious, badly acted (including the main "actor" who keeps looking/behaving as though he's constantly constipated), and edited weirdly. It's also ridiculous in how some characters act. If you have to lie this much about a film, either you're delusional or you don't have faith in it, neither of which does innocent moviegoers any favors.

Richard Griffin has directed a truly visceral film, part hypnotic treatment on death and betrayal, part Lynchian nightmare about the darkest of consciences. Behind a brilliant script by Leonard Schwartz and organic pacing from Griffin, this film is anything but its title would suggest, truly standing out as one of the most original and abnormally transportative indie films I've seen in years. The greatest piece of this filmic puzzle however is actor Michael Reed, who singlehandedly steals the show from a cast of talented actors. Reed is a star and what Normal proves above all else is that this star is rising!

This film is an amazing look at a modern day serial killer. It goes in some incredible and interesting directions! Will Keep you on your feet!! Do yourself a favor and check this one out. One of the best independent films I have seen in a long time. Richard Griffin takes it to another level and Michael Reed Delivers a spellbinding performance. The supporting cast also puts in an incredible effort to create a legitimately strange and mysterious world. The cinematography is reminiscent of film noir with its bleak dark tones mixed with rich color. So definitely seek this film out! hopefully this year at a film festival or soon to be on DVD

While browsing the streaming platforms last night, everything was either too commercial or too familiar, so I finally just gave up, sat down with a glass of soda, and watched "Normal". This movie was so disenchanting that by the time the end credits rolled around, I realized I'd finished the entire two liter bottle, not because I was thirsty, but only because I needed to get up and walk to the kitchen for some caffeine at the risk of otherwise dozing off.

This movie is an unremarkable look at a murderer. Part soporific hackwork on killing and deception, part Wiseauian daydream about the gloomy feels. It goes in some bland and uninspired ways, and I found myself sinking deeper into my couch from the sheer boredom. Instead of being called "Normal", the movie should just be called "Irrationally Dull", surely standing out as one of the most derivative and unexceptionally static cheap films I've watched in quite a while. It's a cramped and misty piece of dreck that attacked and killed too many of my brain cells.

Richard Griffin doesn't really take the movie anywhere; it's all one note. Just like Wood was seemingly unaware of the problems in his work, this movie delivered slack scene after slack scene. His directing was flat and unpolished, and the contrived pacing creates a really artificial movie.

Michael Reed does some dull work, yet still overshadows the other unskilled actors who never make it seem like we're in anything more than some odd, incomprehensible setting. A quick IMDb look at Reed's other films after this, like the "Chupacabra Territory" and "Subferatu", show how his acting aligns with these types of 3-star, sub-par films.

Leonard Schwartz's script was tame and inept, and the cinematography is like film noir without the artistic depth, mixing vulgar color with dreary darkness to create an ambiance that tires as much as it upsets.

Check this out only if you really hate yourself. Movies like "Normal" are truly a dime-a-dozen pieces of pretentious hogwash that think they're saying something unique and important, and trying to convince you that you're just not getting it because you're not trying hard enough. If there's some significant point to this movie that the viewer really has to "work hard to find", the movie has failed at delivering its message.