A Wounded Fawn

Poor old Bruce makes the mistake of imbibing an extremely strong hallucinogen before his third slaying of a woman that leads to him being visited by three ghosts, two of which have been fermenting their frustrations at losing their lives in air tight barrels buried in the ground. Unfortunately for Bruce, whatever he's taken isn't wearing off quickly which puts him at somewhat of a disadvantage, similar to the predicament placed upon the dead women. As you can imagine, there's some pain to be inflicted, not only on Bruce, but also the viewer as you endure a torturous display of meaninglessness that certainly won't act as a deterrent to any up and coming serial killers (if I'm honest).

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.

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+

I'm going to make a bold statement here: most reviewers here are wrong. This is neither a 'modern' horror movie, nor is it just arthouse weirdness.

It is a dark horror comedy comprised of separate 'acts'. The first two 'acts' are set-up. The remainder of the movie is the pay-off, featuring psychedelic gobblydegook that is purposefully weird and pretentious.

The classical art/art snob/art dealer scene is what is being mocked/sent up here, and very well. Josh Ruben brilliantly portrays a maniac who has wholly immersed himself in art snob culture, and it is that lifestyle, and his attempts to evade blame for his evil actions, that lead to the hallucinations he experiences throughout the film.

One hallucination involving the owl figure towards the end crossed the line from amusing to outright ridiculous for me, but overall I was really into it.

Also, the entire film is tied together very neatly with an excellent end scene that continues into the end credits.

If you view this movie with the above perspective--this is what a pretentious art snob foodie who happens to be a serial killer sees--then I think you'll like it more than either just trying to enjoy a horror film or trying to find some deeper meaning.