Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Griff Lees Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

geanenesilas This isnt the sort of horror I like. It was very realistic, graphic, and suspenseful. The actor did a good job of capturing what I think someone like that would be like. It was disturbing but I kept watching to see how it would end. I wouldnt watch it again.

george.schmidt ANGST (1983) ** Bizarre take on the psychopath on the loose horror flick from German filmmaker Gerald Kargl (this his one and only film ever produced leaves one wonder What Could Have Been?) that has a documentarian feel 'based on a true story' involving a recently released lunatic from prison (creepy as hell Erwin Leder who suggests the bastard child of Mick Jagger & Brian Jones!) whose insatiable, desperate need to kill again leads him onto an isolated house and terrorizing the denizens - a family that echoes his …leading to some disturbing moments of unease with a few bloody moments that feel agonizingly one beat too long. The film only doesn't work in the relentless narrative and a character that is truly almost blackly comically inept in the unskilled or planned crimes he perpetuates. Remarkable cinematography by screenwriter Zbignew Rybcynski who also edited with interesting composition, skewed angles and POVs that take some genuine risk.

chaos-rampant Word on the street is this is a super intense, gruelling, claustrophobic serial killer film. They're not lying. But it's important to get to note why, especially in this case: why this type of violence enthralls so much? And I mean apart from any particular on-screen nastiness. More virulent films have been made, much nastier. Why this fascinates is a completely different beast than say, something like Hostel. It's the easiest thing to make us cringe and shy away, but to fervently want to keep watching?The popular opinion is this works so well exactly because of how contained and straight-forward. There are no distractions from the concentrated moment we first encounter: a inmate giving himself a shave on his day of parole. There are no allusions to anything else but private madness and nothing to escape to for comfort or respite, except perhaps sheer exhaustion. This man is going to go on a crime spree again as soon as he's out of prison, we can tell this much. We can tell it's going to unravel the way we secretly hope it does.Well, this is fine and makes some sense. But doesn't adequately explain to my mind. No, why this works so viscerally - and ties in with other interests of mine in film - I believe has all to do with the cinematic eye.Now most films operate on the assumption that you want to experience a world as real as possible. Every advance in cinematic technology - sound, color, the recent fad of 3D - is a step in that direction. We want to escape more vividly and more urgently than ever. And what most films do to abet that escape is to let loose a few threads of story and place, hopefully open enough if we are in caring hands, that we can be trusted to attach ourselves from own experience. The tighter the weave of the threads from that point on, the closer we are lassoed to the cinematic world. Editing and camera are assigned invisible ways; they have to work without us getting to notice.The Soviets changed all that very early in the game. Here a very world was assembled by the eye. There was no story, it was all a matter of calligraphic (dynamic overlapping) watching. Welles, and less famously Sternberg before him, unpacked these notions by letting it fall on the eye of the camera to join fragments together.(this particular eye was first conceived by the Buddhist but that's another story altogether).Now this is rumored to be the DP's project working under an alias, a Polish man who knows the camera. The opening shot exhibits masterful knowledge of Welles; a crane shot that establishes location by joining together many different planes of perspective. It would have been a film to watch with just this mode, that others like Argento and DePalma exercised in adventurous flourishes of spatial exploration.It's actually a little more elaborate than that. We have two eyes instead of the one. The first is the killer's eye, tightly screwed and always at eye-level as he prowls around. Interior monologue plays out in voice-over, itself taken from the diaries of an actual killer, and meant to recast everything as internal space: victims are an invalid, an old woman and her daughter, each one mapping to a person that deeply wounded in the past as we find out. So we have exceedingly tormented soul spilled out and contorting physical space, very much like Zulawski practiced. Another Pole, another piece of the puzzle.The second eye you will notice is always mounted on a crane and pulled upwards in steep ascends. A bird's eye far removed from human madness, which is the Buddhist eye of woodblock prints. To the film's credit, and this is a lot of its power for me, it remains abstract enough that we may use this perspective as we are inclined: is it a godless and uncaring or a merciful eye, pulling us from the carnage or skipping to the next?

ElijahCSkuggs Angst is without a doubt one of the best serial killer flicks in the history of cinema. And some would say The Best. And I can tell you, it's damn close.Angst follows a serial killer who is released from prison after a 10 year incarceration. What takes place is shocking and original film-making. What this man does is just start up where he left off. It's basically just following around the killer and just getting to know him. Oh and his victims, but in a more or less personal way. Eesh.Angst excels in all facets. The acting by the main character, the serial killer, is flat out great, in an insane sort of way. He looks the part, and definitely acts the part. The scene when he's in the car is unforgettable. Throw in great cinematography, direction and writing, and the fact that this is a truly disturbing, realistic look into a serial killer's obsessive habits, it easily makes this one of the best serial killer movies of all time.