Dahmer (2002)

I was hesitant to watch this film at first for obvious reasons, but am glad I did. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I doubt very much that the real Jeffrey Dahmer was as likeable as Jeremy Renner made his character to be, but then I wasn't watching just for the blood and guts. Renner's portrayal made me want to watch. On that level the film succeeds.

Of course, the film was at times hard to watch. Artel Kayaru sparkles as Rodney, and I hope we get to see him in future roles.

I liked the way the movie ended without getting too technical about how Dahmer was eventually caught. It wasn't necessary as this story will be told again and again. Instead this film gave us an insight into a very disturbed mind. I'm giving it a strong "9."

Fmovies: Jeremy Renner was spectacular in the role of Jeffrey Dahmer. He plays a cold, calculating, and DARK rendition of the serial killer. The part that had him killing his first victim in the kitchen was heartbreaking to see. The anguish and pain that he portrayed was shocking to say the least. The eventual acceptance of the deed was chilling. He REALLY nailed the emotion it would have taken to have done such a thing. The end was a bit of a drop off the map kind of ending. I can see Jeremy Renner playing the lead in a remake of "A Clockwork Orange" if they ever made such a thing. As for Jeremy... I have found a new favorite actor in him. I would STRONGLY recommend this as a movie to watch with someone watching with you and with NO KIDS around!

Let's face it: people who will watch this to see violence or some of the acts of the most notorious serial killer, Jeffrey Dahmer, will be disappointed.

The reason?

That's because the film doesn't at all emphasize in Dahmers sadism or cruelty - it's a human look into the mind of an inhuman psycho. Well, I suppose the film is trying to be objective. Not to merely shock, but then again there's too few of Dahmer's unspeakable acts, that one might wonder what the writer/director was trying to do?

Anyway, watch this if you like serial killer films, but don't expect too much. Give it a try, it's quite decent and serious film.

Dahmer fmovies. Jacobson's film shows little violence. That's a point I'd like to stress because there is a certain audience I think will appreciate this film but who may not give it a chance because they expect graphic nastiness. Against the film's interests, the marketing tries to sell the film to the cheap horror-movie audience and I think this is a pity.

Instead of depicting violence, Jacobson's film discomforts you using dramatic means - principally writing and acting. All of which are used with enough skill to distinguish the film from cheap horror movies. It would be wrong and unfair to dismiss Dahmer because of its packaging. It is a well-written and performed character drama.

It's subject matter is too horrible for the general drama audience to welcome, but at the same time its serious approach makes it too straight for the entertainment market. By that I mean the Hannibal Lecter/Seven audience, who prefer their serial killer tales abstracted (and therefore made safe) by the presence of movie stars.

Dahmer is more akin to Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer in being low budget, filled with unfamiliar faces, and focussed so much on the killer that there is no awareness of the authorities or justice in the story. There is no hero cop or FBI agent in pursuit.

Dahmer is very unlike McNaughton's infamous film because, as already mentioned, it's low on violence, but also because it's a technically better-executed piece of work. The photography and editing, the use of music, the already-mentioned acting and writing, make this a surprisingly good-quality film considering the expectations stacked against it. One technical achievement I find worth noting is how well it recreates period. Sequences set in the 80's have a visual authenticity that puts big budget studio attempts to shame.

Obviously, you know what kind of film you like. If what I've said above sounds interesting to you, then I recommend giving it a look. I repeat that you will not see much in the way of gore or violence. There are plenty of films with more graphic content dressed more commercially. Dahmer won't make you feel good. It isn't a fun movie. But if you are looking for something with more substance you may find it.

"Dahmer" is, by and far, one of the best films I have ever seen.

Like it or not, the famous and infamous are inevitably mythologized. They become ciphers for the human dilemmas and attributes which compel them to commit the acts that grant them their notoriety. Serial killers such as Jeffrey Dahmer are no exception. For better or for ill, they take their place in the pantheon of popular culture.

How, then, to handle this? It is easy to turn a figure like Dahmer into a devil, a monster who embodies the most violent and irrational of human impulses. This, sadly, is far from productive or enlightening. It says nothing of the human condition besides the depths to which it can sink. Do we really need another film to learn this? The capacity for human evil is made more than apparent by the atrocities one encounters when reading a history book.

The makers of this film attempted something different. Dahmer becomes a sort of avatar of human loneliness, of alienation and the terrible force of sexual frustration and the wrath it inspires. We are shown a lonely man who craves the affection of others but is incapable of attaining it in the normal fashion. The Dahmer of this film employs drugs and violence to subdue those he desires and transform them into living dolls. The viewer gets the sense that, as he cuddles with the comatose body of his victim, he wants nothing more than a body beside his own as he struggles through his nightmarish sleep. Renner, the actor who portrays Dahmer in this film, says more by the contented look on his face as he holds his victims than any philosopher has ever written about the nature of the relation of Self to Other.

The acting is superb in this film. The soundtrack, especially its use of Siren's haunting "Blue Theme," does wonders to capture the type of loneliness which the makers of this film have used Dahmer to symbolize.

Most impressive, perhaps, is the use of image as narrative. There are far too many examples to cite, of course. However, one stands out clearly in my mind. Flashing back to Jeffrey's younger days, he is shown attending a party he holds at his own home. Wandering about alone, he happens upon a couple engaged in amorous play. After watching for a few moments, he leaves the home and commends himself to the night.

Unable to touch the Other, we inevitably delve deeper into the Self. "Dahmer" shows us what happens when such a descent brings us into darkness.

God help us when we finally glimpse the soul and come to the realization that it is not spirit, but an abyss.

"Dahmer" tries to tell one of the most horrific stories of recent years. But the whole story of Jeffrey Dahmer does not get told in this movie. There are some shocking moments, but most of the movie gets bogged down in flashbacks (and even flashbacks-within-flashbacks). At some points, you cannot tell if you're watching another flashback or the present moment in the story. Jeremy Renner plays the title character, with an adequately creepy air. Some of his ghastly crimes are shown, while the gore is kept to a minimum. And Dahmer's homosexuality is mentioned, but much of it is kept just off-camera, as evidenced by the montage of Jeffrey's date rape drug-fueled sodomy marathons. This movie does not try to present Jeffrey Dahmer as Dr. Hannibal Lecter. (How could anyone glamorize this murderer?) But I would have preferred some kind of analysis as to why he became a killer. The strange and tragic story of Jeffrey Dahmer left a lot of people sad and wanting answers. But this movie left me wanting satisfaction.