Does anyone else think this movie is brilliant?
From all the negative reviews I've read, there seem to be two main reasons why people hate this film:
1) They are horror/slasher fanatics who were disappointed with the lack of gore and violence, so they complain about the movie being "boring."
2) They have already read about or studied Jeffrey Dahmer extensively, so they complain about how this film is an "inaccurate portrayal" of Dahmer's life, personality, appearance, crimes, etc.
In my opinion, Dahmer is a brilliant film. It honestly is one of the most perfect films I have ever seen. The score, the cinematography, the script, the acting, and the ending scene all combine to make the film disturbing and haunting, while at the same time, beautiful and mesmerizing. I can't think of any other film that accomplishes this.
In order to really appreciate this film, you have to understand that it is a low-budget, understated character study; it wasn't meant to be an exploitative slasher. The other thing is, it is still just a movie, so of course, some scenes/elements are fictionalized. It helps if you view the film as being based on Dahmer's life and crimes, without expecting it to be an entirely factual account of them. I'm no expert on Dahmer's life, but from what I've read and the interviews I've seen, it seems to me like the movie actually does do a very good job of sticking to the facts. Plus, you can't deny how incredible Jeremy Renner's performance is in it.
Finally, it just really frustrates me how Dahmer only has a 5.6 on here, while Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer has a 7.1, and it's even ranked #52 in the Top 100 Horror Movies on Rotten Tomatoes. Why does Henry have all of this recognition while Dahmer is extremely underrated and unknown?
Welcome to Fright Night....for real.