MovieChat Forums > Dahmer Discussion > This movie is lazy rubbish and makes no ...

This movie is lazy rubbish and makes no impact


This movie was fragmented crap, with huge portions of the serial killers life left out. I found it extremely difficult to follow and weak.

Let me first explain - I wasn't very familiar with this killer anyway. I remember the reports on TV in my country, only a brief tabloid period. Besides the odd documentary, it was largely forgotten and ignored over here. I get the feeling that I'll personally forget this movie quicker than those 90's news reports.

Where were all his victims? Where were the repeated animal dissections? I saw one crow and (I think) him beating the *beep* out of the infamous dogs skull on a stake. Vague. If I hadn't have read up on dahmer, I wouldn't have understood he killed animals or collected roadkill from these scenes at all. How was he socially withdrawn, outcast or inept? Where was that depicted? I think he threw a party at one point!? Unless that was supposed to be some loners pretentious 'theater of the mind, imagination scene'. It was a really badly put together movie. Where were his interactions at school or in the army? There's 5 years of his life missing right there! I think these were necessary scenes to include in order to portray him properly - instead of some watered down time lapse *beep* thing. Especially for people unfamiliar like myself. And I didn't get alcoholism from this at all, not until the very end. The film kept flip-flopping between past and present with little distinction, until it got to a point where I didn't know what the hell as going on. Then it abruptly ended lol !

I can only think people praising this pile of *beep* were already familiar with trivia on Dahmer before watching. And why exactly was the woodland scene at the end just so 'beautiful'? What did that represent? Because to me, they simply cut the movie off.

If you're reading this having not watched it, please skip it and watch Ted Bundy instead (assuming you haven't already). It's a far, far superior biopic of the same year which provokes more thought and is much more disturbing.

ED- I forgot to add that Jeremy Renner looks nothing like Dahmer. He's far too short and stocky in comparison. He also has boyish looks, which look the same throughout the entire film - give or take the odd fake mustache.

reply

[deleted]

Yeah. This was a softcore gay porn.


That was something else I wondered too - Is this predominantly produced for gay guys to appreciate? In the sense; is there something deep in it to identify with, something heterosexuals somehow can't pick up on? Some emotional impact its supposed to have? Because It was just *beep* boring all the way through. I didn't think it particularly needed gore or bleeding asses. That's not what I'm saying. But at least that would have made it more interesting and worthwhile. Why is it even categorized under horror too?

reply

No, there is no emotional impact. I don't see why a movie about killing people would be considered gay pornography. The movie was boring and nothing in it was shown that could resemble anything that would make a homosexual person turned on. Jeremey Renner is cute and that is the only reason I watched this rubbish.

reply

This was certainly a low budget indie. The biggest star was bruce davison.

His army years basically weren't relevent, so they cut it.

This movie implies he "only" killed about three people. I agree that that's confusing. However they otherwise would've had to make a montage of murder, which would've also been comedic, which wasn't what they were going for.

Pretty gay movie. But I'm glad they didn't focus too much on the gore and sex. I don't recall seeing one dick, which makes it restrained for gay cinema.

reply

His army years basically weren't relevent, so they cut it.


I thought those 2 years of his life might have been relevant, because he was trained as a field medic and learnt about human anatomy. But it could have also depicted his alcoholism, which is why he was discharged. Some journalists and criminal psychologists argue alcohol dulled his conscience, aided his crimes. I did not get alcoholism from a few beer scenes or drinks in one gay bar, at all.

Reading up on it, I understand it's not supposed to be some traditional biopic. It's supposed to be an analysis of the man himself and motives … but it was like a jigsaw puzzle, in the wrong order, with big pieces missing. *beep* I thought the Ed Gein movie was bad but this....

reply

the film est his alcoholism beginning in high school and that he was out of control on drugs/drink when he was raping ppl in the gay clubs. his service in germany were relatively uneventful given what they actually showed: his first murder, his assaults/desire to have unconscious lovers who will never leave him, and his final series of murders/seductions.
i'm good w/ it not having his army experience or much of his childhood aside from the relevant teen years showing his actions and warped processing. the ending is perfection imo.

reply

the ending is perfection imo



Can you please explain why? That doesnt help at all. I'm not critising this to be an a-hole on some messageboard. I'm trying to pick brains, learn why a majority on this board think its such a great film.

reply

the ending visually showed in many well-shot visual layers that Dahmer chose to reject society and wander off into the wilderness. the very idea that he CHOSE to become what he became and wasn't merely crazy, touched by the devil, or non-human is very significant imo and nicely injects a thoughtful POV/statement from the filmmakers in what was a largely objective and amoral movie about one of the most notorious serial killers (a subject who could really easily have been mere caricature in a boring film whose sole reason for being is to act as torture-porn).
in terms of filmmaking/writing--the execution of the ending was pretty close to flawless, in fact imo it's perfect. and i personally really liked the film b/c it's like an existential/human-centered serial killer movie w/o cynicism (torture-porn w/ cartoonish depictions of ultra-violence that actually has ZERO point of view or intellectual/artistic value).

also imo this film isn't widely-loved... ppl who like this film come onto imdb to gush about it. that's all.

reply

Thanks for your answer

reply

I think this has one of the most failure of an ending I've ever witnessed. I'm not into visual hypothetical layers much that make no sense at all to even Woody Allen. Plus this movie was NOT horror which was the only reason I picked up this crappy bore-fest of a movie.

reply

This isn't a "gay movie" at all. J. Dahmer just happened to be homosexual. how could they just cut out that fact?

"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'

reply

I liked this movie and ted's.

reply