From the very few indie films that I have seen, I should really expect the unexpected. Yet here I am, again...wondering what the heck did I just watch!? The story revolves around a teenager who is obsessed with death and murder. His hometown of Clayton is currently experiencing several deaths in which our protagonist attempts to find the culprit. So...automatically, even just by acknowledging the title, I thought this would be a character study on a psychotic teen who slowly becomes a serial killer. In which, to be fair, that concept is explored both on a subtextual and contextual level. His obsession overwhelms him which could be interpreted for any obsession. Defining the line between passion and obsession, the film utilises murder to convey this. Then...then then then...'I Am Not A Serial Killer' becomes 'I Am Under The Skin'. Quite literally. I was so adamant I knew what was going to happen, even before playing the film and yet the indie genre slaps me round the face and shouts "no, you're wrong. Prepare yourself for this...". Honestly, I'm not sure how to feel about this film. It's intelligent and original no doubt, but the forced abnormal plot just seemed too unusual. So unusual that I think it detracts from the ideas that the film evokes. The psychological aspects are thrown to the side line whilst the narrative focuses purely on this weird story. Is he imagining it? Is it actually happening? Whatever it is, it's hard to relate to the characters. I don't know what to say, I just didn't fully connect with this and couldn't jump onboard. Christopher Lloyd was great as usual, glad he got a decent amount of screen time. The direction was solid all round, really liked the smudges and dirt on the camera lens in certain shots. The ending wasn't powerful or clever. I mean...it concludes fine, but I wanted it to be more psychologically stimulating. It just wasn't. In the end, this was a so-so affair. I liked the technical aspects but disliked the surreal plot to illustrate psychotic behaviour.

Wow, i didn't see that coming. Nice twist at the ending, i really didn't expect it. At first I thought this was the same kind of mediocre murder movie with a lot of police involved, but i was wrong. It was kind of bored in the beginning, started with daily life of a teenager whom diagnosed with a mental-illness. The story tried to lead us to think the major role was a sociopath, and that he was troubled. And he also thought so. Even though i didn't think he was. I mean, he just had a big interest about a story of homicide. It was perhaps rare among his teenage friends, but it was still normal. He just liked to play detective.The pace is quite slow, the story was not so tense even when there was a homicide happened, but it kept me watching the movie. Maybe i was captivated with the acting, and i believed that something was going to happen. It was not brutal and scary, and we finally know he was not crazy and it sum up everything : he wasn't the killer. I'm not disappointed though, even it seems like an underrated indie movie. I think this movie needs a chance.

In spite of its good casting choices, I Am Not A Serial Killer, fails to impress.This is a "dead on arrival", B grade horror thriller, that appropriately starts and ends in a morgue. Its a film that's short on both horror and thrills. Its pacing is far, far too languid to really hold even the most patient of viewers attention. This is exacerbated by a rather gloomy, austere atmosphere that permeates the whole film, further sucking it dry of any kind of vitality and energy. The casting choices are good and for a low budget flick the acting is for the most part, pretty decent. Its simply a shame the script for this film was not more energetic, infused with pace, dread and a sense of foreboding.All key ingredients in any decent scare fest.Four out of ten from me.

Reminiscent of the work of Cronenberg, particularly his pre- 2000's era, I Am Not a Serial Killer was a much better watch than I had expected. As some have pointed out, it is a slow burner, but I think that's necessary to give us insight and character development. At it's core, IANASK is a character study of our protagonist, John Cleaver. Is John Cleaver destined to be a serial killer? Is he a sociopath? Is he good, is he evil? These are the questions we find ourselves asking time and time again throughout the film as his words and actions contradict themselves and each other over and over. John Cleaver is a teenager and with all of the issues that face any normal teenager he also has to deal with some extremely difficult and strange problems. He is misunderstood, he doesn't know how to express himself, he is unsure of his feelings and his identity. If this movie had been gutted of the sci-fi aspect I am perfectly confident that this would have been a wonderful quality drama focusing on John's school and home life and how he deals with his father's absence and his homicidal ideations. That being said, I think the film works just fine as it is- really much better than it sounds on paper. IANASK has an organic feel in it's material that is hard to find and much sought after by many cinephiles, and that is the artistic vision of its creator. Not having seen any of O'Brien's other films I can't tell you if this elusive vision is that of the director or moreso of the source material, the novel by Dan Wells that it was based on; or, of course, a perfect marriage of the two. What I can tell you is that this film is not only fresh and interesting in way of the story but also the cinematography, shot beautifully on 16mm film, which gives the film a much more stately and artistic feel than this sort of material would have easily afforded shot digitally with the increasingly common voyeuristic hand-held style. All in all IANASK is a perfect example of modern film that still has heart, soul, and style; and as such it is a breath of fresh air in today's Hollywood climate.