You have to be logged in to comment! If you don't have an account register now for free! Your account allows you to post comments and reviews, upload videos and images, access or our forums, write personal blogs, and maintain your profile.
I am not easily shaken, just to be clear. But when I returned this film, I handed it over the counter, arm far outstretched from my body, plastic case held between thumb and forefinger like you would a used tissue. I wanted it out of my sight. I didn't ever want to think about it again. That is until I noticed the incongruous reviews of the film.
To say this film disturbed me would be too bland a statement. I did not know what to expect from it, had no knowledge of its subject matter, nor of the almost mythological German case. Ordinarily, I would critique a horror film based on tension, cinematography, musical score, gore-where appropriate, and so forth. The effect this film had on me was based solely on the subject matter it explored.
Aside from the obvious taboos associated with the topic of cannibalism, the abject desperation and loneliness of the protagonists was almost unbearable to me. The idea that their actions were somehow motivated by a lack of connection to themselves, to others, and to their inherent self-worth devastated me. Without pathetically trying to understand the epidemiology behind abhorrant and deviant behaviours I couldn't help but wonder if only someone had been able to connect with the parts of Hartwin and Grimbeck that suffered from guilt-associated self loathing, would the outcome have been different?
In contrast to other reviewers, I was thankful for Keri Russell's (often insipid and pointless) intrusions into the story. I fear that if the plot has maintained an unbroken narrative of eating and being eaten told with such psychological implications, it would have created an unbearable tension between film and viewer.
It is moot for me so say whether or not I like the film or would recommend it, but one unerring fact must be told of Grimm Love: it is successful as a horror film and though I have never before seen anything like it, I never wish to view it again.
Posted By: paulcav151 at 10:02pm, November 4, 2008
I liked this movie. It made me uncomfortable, and it stuck with me. It's not in my top 10, but I do recommend you see it.
Posted By: thedescent08 at 1:35pm, September 23, 2008
This gets its 5 points for being made without any serious acting or editing flaws. And it has thoughtful cinematography. That is all it does well.
The only people who will see this are probably those already familiar with the true story or those who will be slammed by its extremity. This story is SO ripe for some really ground-breaking rule-breaking film-making but this film just turns into a sort of made-for-TV version of the story. There are four treatments of the story, and I wanted to see at least one of those (Lommel's 'Cannibal') before reviewing this, but I couldn't wait.
The story, if you don't know, is about cannibal serial killer Armin Meiwes who advertised for a victim online, and found a willing participant named Brandes whose fantasy was to watch his penis be bitten off and devoured. Meiwes videotaped the "slaughter" of his "victim", which is why authorities and the press know that Meiwes was unable to bite the penis off, so Brandes had to settle for a knife. They both wanted to eat the penis, but Meiwes overcooked it after Brandes commented that it was too chewy raw. The movie does a fair re-staging (I wonder if the director/creators were able to see the real tape) but all of the gore is left out. We don't see any filet of dicklet or any anxious biting.... which that's half the reason I watched this - guaranteed fucked up combo of two fucked up things - castration and cannibalism.
I also wanted to feel the bond between these two characters and how this act was making them whole, but all I got was Keri Russell's preachy and transparent voice-over, which her character was attempting to show "a sane and empathetic look at madness" but all it does is interfere in the pacing and mislead the audience. The acting between the two leads hits stride at certain moments, but for the most part Kretschmann is walking blocks around his counterpart.
I also dislike the flashbacks of the men's childhoods, which is actually the reason why Meiwes was able to have this film banned in Germany (he didn't like people talking about his mommy issues). And I didn't like the movie using his mommy issues to prop up a Norman Bates figure for us, as serial killing is FAR more complex than an overbearing mommy. And, I need to say it again. I wanted more gore. One thing I don't know about this case (and I'm the sort of sick fuck that REALLY wants to see the real tape) is when Meiwes sliced off the penis, did he leave Brandes' balls on him or cut the whole sort of penile bulb out all at once? There's no reason why a movie with this content couldn't have answered my question there. In "Pink Flamingos", Waters wasn't afraid to show that Divine had let the manservant keep his balls, so why is a foreign director afraid of frontal nudity (of which there is NONE) in today's market where the audience applauds when Hostel 2's protagonist clearly and nonchalantly slices off a penis and tosses it to hungry dogs as the movie's climax? I guess the director wanted to make something more meaningful, but he didn't and I don't know if they were able to use real transcripts/emails from the case, but alot of the crucial lines could have been better written.
This movie wasnt what i expected,
But it was still good.
There wasnt that much gore, or nothing scary,
but to be honest the actual story line is pretty sick.
The start drags on a bit aswell..
But watch it still .
THE HORROR HYPE METER Excited to see this movie? Rate it here!
