What Took Me So Long: I wasn't very aware of this movie, but when I was, I expected it to be disappointing.
Why I Saw It: You see this and hope for the aforementioned Henry. Instead it was a little toned down. There's a lot of focus on Dahmer's psyche without ever working too hard to crack it. Jeremy Renner is cold, quiet, and most importantly, believable in this role. He isn't simply asked to carry this small movie. He is the movie and does well with that responsibility.
Why I Wish I Hadn't: It is hurt by existing in a world that now seems to be obsessed with serial killers and TV shows that examine them in great depth. Also, it was preceded by darker, similar movies. In other words, this is a fairly disposable entry compared to stories of its ilk.
Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend
Did we watch "Henry" together, or was that me & S____? I felt like this film and "Henry" fell into the same trap: they focused on the surface activity of the crimes and never tried to "crack" the psychology behind the crimes.
ReplyDelete"Henry" was more graphic, for sure, and did a better job of portraying the sheer depravity of a psychopath's mind. (For example, "American Psycho" was highly stylized (but I suppose that was the point)).
"Dahmer" did a god job of displaying the actual Dahmer's crimes, I think, and Renner does a good job of portraying Jeffrey Dahmer, the historical figure, but you're right, this movie never attacks the subsurface motivations (the sort of things that psychopaths hide) that actually motivate killings like this.