I can't say I really liked this movie, but I think I at least understand why it is so highly regarded. As far as the literal plot goes, it's standard fare for the subgenre. That subgenre, whatever it's called, is the same one that includes Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer and the August Underground films. It's the subgenre in which a mentally ill serial killer is the protagonist, and we get to follow him while he commits a small number of extremely brutal murders.
The thing that makes this movie notable is the artful composition of nearly every scene and sequence. It has the sensibility of a Bruegel painting. (See The Massacre of the Innocents as an example; this and other Bruegal paintings are notable for depicting torture and murder in the same landscape as dogs playing, children laughing, etc.) While our protagonist murders a family, the family dog runs about excitedly, chasing after a toy ball that gets kicked on accident and eagerly jumping around to try and be part of the action. It's really poetic and exceptional filmmaking, and I suppose it can be said to push the genre to a further extreme of realism.
Also notable are a handful of unusual camera angles on which I am less sure how to comment, and a running narration of the protagonist's distracted thoughts while he's committing the murders. This narration is notable, because it's almost completely disconnected from the immediate actions; it's like he's having a hard time focusing on committing murders because he keeps getting distracted by other thoughts. If you've ever been hassled by a schizophrenic person on the street, it's kind of like that, and I guess I find this film's killer more believable as a result.
Anyway, the title of this review really covers what I want to say. As a horror fan, I'll credit this film with one good and extremely brutal death scene. The plot, character, and ideas, however, were entirely generic. The pace was too slow for me, and body count was about as low as it could possibly for the guy to still be considered a serial killer.
On the other hand, I can recognize that the filmmaking really was masterful. If you're the kind of person who gets excited about artful camera work and sequence composition, this is the film for you.
The thing that makes this movie notable is the artful composition of nearly every scene and sequence. It has the sensibility of a Bruegel painting. (See The Massacre of the Innocents as an example; this and other Bruegal paintings are notable for depicting torture and murder in the same landscape as dogs playing, children laughing, etc.) While our protagonist murders a family, the family dog runs about excitedly, chasing after a toy ball that gets kicked on accident and eagerly jumping around to try and be part of the action. It's really poetic and exceptional filmmaking, and I suppose it can be said to push the genre to a further extreme of realism.
Also notable are a handful of unusual camera angles on which I am less sure how to comment, and a running narration of the protagonist's distracted thoughts while he's committing the murders. This narration is notable, because it's almost completely disconnected from the immediate actions; it's like he's having a hard time focusing on committing murders because he keeps getting distracted by other thoughts. If you've ever been hassled by a schizophrenic person on the street, it's kind of like that, and I guess I find this film's killer more believable as a result.
Anyway, the title of this review really covers what I want to say. As a horror fan, I'll credit this film with one good and extremely brutal death scene. The plot, character, and ideas, however, were entirely generic. The pace was too slow for me, and body count was about as low as it could possibly for the guy to still be considered a serial killer.
On the other hand, I can recognize that the filmmaking really was masterful. If you're the kind of person who gets excited about artful camera work and sequence composition, this is the film for you.