User reviews

First and foremost, I would like to put a disclaimer that if you are not a fan of something without a distinct throughline, some artsy fartsy-ness and a true indipendent production... this is plainly not for you. Please, give it a shot, but your close minded 1 star review means nothing in that sense.

Now, with that being said... this was a mixed bag for me and as an indi actor who knows much about the scene, I'll judge it accordingly. There were a lot of pros and cons to this one, yet there are still aspects to be appreciated and enjoyed despite it's missteps.

The first thing you will notice is the grainy filter with dust specs all over it, giving it a 90s film reel feel. At first I was not a fan and found it distracting, but settled into it and liked the older filtered look with the over saturation while assisted by a lot of nice shots. Lots of artsy close ups that felt expected that I could have lived without but it's fine.

The story started out solidly engaging, which the first act was more successful with that than the second. You will notice a lot of spoon fed foreshadowing along with a decent amount of contrived dialogue. Neither were super horrible and almost felt like it was in a purposeful 90s style... at least we can hope. I will say, in the first act they did not do a great job at establishing the level of her and the "mystery mans" relationship. It was like one line would feel like they were strangers, next it would feel like they have known each other for two months, the next three dates.

The second half was when it went into full mania, slowed down a bit and kind of fell off the rails. I'm sure there were plenty of metaphors and allegories that went over my head, which is okay, but if you don't mix that in with a little bit of laymans then your message gets lost and doesn't reach as many people as it could... and if you're not making a movie for the masses, that's fine too but it also runs the risk of edging on pretension.

As far as the acting goes, this was also a mixed bag. On one hand i thought the lead girl did a great job. Her delivery was natural and down to earth yet still had a little flair making it her own and unique. I would love to see her in something else. Whereas our psycho dudeman maybe paled in comparison a bit. He totally looked the part, but a lot of his delivery felt a tad "silly" which could have lent itself to that socially awkward, quirky psychopath... However, it just didn't quite get there for me and came off more stilted and contrived for the majority of it unfortunately. I did however love that extended final shot. So weird and disconcerting. I know that was uncomfortable and not easy, so good job.

Some technical stuff - as I said before I ended up really liking the way it looked. The audio levels were off at times making dialogue a little difficult to hear. Also the sound design/effects were a little much at times and edged on distracting. The score was interesting and I liked it. Loved the costume design, particularly in the first act. Owl man and the reveal both looked a little juvenile and silly while horned twig man was the most creepy and successful. I was pleased with the special effects/ gore for the level of production this was, I thought they did a good job. The only thing was the color of blood was off.

Over all I think that this was a successful indi flick and should be judged as such. This is not meant to be your typical, brainless Hollywood blockbuster...so keep that in mind. I do think that there were a lot of ideas here and maybe their "mission statement" got a little convoluted but with a plethora of ideas there are going to be hits and misses. I don't usually write reviews this long, so when I do I always say it obviously made me feel something. So I'd rather that, than not. Would recommend.

Travis Stevens' A Wounded Fawn is undoubtedly several notches above his Girl on the Third Floor. The 16mm visual style and gruesome-looking special effects are notable in a film with a straightforward Act One and a twisted Act Two. Art is a key factor in the film, and its finer layers are heavily soaked in it. The plot is simple: an art-obsessed serial-killer (slash thief) is seeking his next target, an art authenticator. But what begins as a slasher with a sprinkling of Greek mythology moves into a much darker, Hell Raiser-esque space, delving deep into surrealism, compounded by a supernatural recompense.

The surprise element here is whether it's the killer's mind playing games with him (after he gets hit in the head) or if he's really in a purgatory-like place where he's being psychologically tortured as punishment for the deadly sins he's committed. What also works are the two lead performances. Both Sarah Lind (as Meredith) and Josh Ruben (as Bruce) are pretty effective. While the film loses a little momentum in Act Two, the much-talked-about end credits sequence is a winner (akin to Pearl), both from the perspectives of storytelling and performances.

I had no idea of what was going on after the halfway point in this film.

The first act was great. Nice premise, great acting, good environment, and setting up to be quite the thriller.

The second act however goes completely off the rails. I'm not sure what they were thinking. It turns into a 1970s psychological drama and you can't determine what is real and what is not.

This is one of those films I wish they had tested with audiences before completing the entire thing because I'm confident most who watched it were equally confused by the end.

What was the purpose of the owl? How did these people come to life?

Poor old Bruce makes the mistake of imbibing an extremely strong hallucinogen before his third slaying of a woman that leads to him being visited by three ghosts, two of which have been fermenting their frustrations at losing their lives in air tight barrels buried in the ground. Unfortunately for Bruce, whatever he's taken isn't wearing off quickly which puts him at somewhat of a disadvantage, similar to the predicament placed upon the dead women. As you can imagine, there's some pain to be inflicted, not only on Bruce, but also the viewer as you endure a torturous display of meaninglessness that certainly won't act as a deterrent to any up and coming serial killers (if I'm honest).

If you are looking for an art-drama- Ancient Greek horror, this is your movie! Maybe you will like it, maybe not, but still, it's original as it gets.

Even if i was not a Greek, i would still like it. There is a 70's aesthetic, great cinematography, it's a stylish and "sophisticated" movie but its not pretentious or artsy in a bad way. I have watched many "style over substance" movies, this is not one of them. But if you prefer your horror movie to be more straightforward, scarier or grittier, maybe you won't like this one. First part is intense though, more "traditional horror". But the second part is something else. It gets crazy, weird, bizarre, original and creative, paranoid, like a hallucination.

Josh Ruben's acting seems kinda awkward but it's exactly as the director asked from him. At least, i think so. In a way, this weird acting fits perfectly in this weird movie. Lind is great, too.

I am not saying that it's a perfect movie. There is a thin line between originality and ridiculousness, and balancing in this line, is difficult. There are many people that won't like it because they will find it nonsensical, ridiculous, artsy. I can see why this is polarising. As i said, it's not an easy balance. In my opinion though, this movie succeed. And there is the most strange/unexpected ending i have watched recently, but i like it too. In any case, it is satisfying.

It started really nice and interesting. "A serial killer brings an unsuspecting new victim on a weekend getaway..." The first half (or so) of the movie was pretty good and then it got ridiculous, stupid even. I didn't know what was "real" and what was in his head/mind only. At some point I stopped paying attention to all this mess. Even the CGI and special effects were subpar, nothing interesting, nothing scary, nothing unusual or original.

Too bad since the begining was very promising.

I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone. Life is too short to spend it on movies like this one. Waste of time.

I'm going to make a bold statement here: most reviewers here are wrong. This is neither a 'modern' horror movie, nor is it just arthouse weirdness.

It is a dark horror comedy comprised of separate 'acts'. The first two 'acts' are set-up. The remainder of the movie is the pay-off, featuring psychedelic gobblydegook that is purposefully weird and pretentious.

The classical art/art snob/art dealer scene is what is being mocked/sent up here, and very well. Josh Ruben brilliantly portrays a maniac who has wholly immersed himself in art snob culture, and it is that lifestyle, and his attempts to evade blame for his evil actions, that lead to the hallucinations he experiences throughout the film.

One hallucination involving the owl figure towards the end crossed the line from amusing to outright ridiculous for me, but overall I was really into it.

Also, the entire film is tied together very neatly with an excellent end scene that continues into the end credits.

If you view this movie with the above perspective--this is what a pretentious art snob foodie who happens to be a serial killer sees--then I think you'll like it more than either just trying to enjoy a horror film or trying to find some deeper meaning.

A Wounded Fawn (2022) is a unique film that I recently watched on Shudder. The storyline follows a young couple that recently started dating and go on a trip to a house in the country just outside the city they met. When they get there strange things are observed and start happening around the young lady. When she requests to go home her date snaps...

This movie is directed by Travis Stevens (Jakob's Wife) and stars Sarah Lind (The Humanoty Bureau), Josh Ruben (Scare Me), Malin Barr (Honeydew) and Katie Kuang (Westworld).

This is one of those movies if you watch it for just the horror elements it's very entertaining. The storyline is cliche, straightforward, doesn't always make sense and just seems to be there to get to the next great horror scene...but the next horror scene is great. The kills are tremendous, gory and unique. There's a head wound sequence that's insane and very good...everything after the head wound is a bit trippy, but the hand claw was crazy, how it's used was very good, and the ending on the ground was epic and an easy 10/10 scene. The background music is good and creates several eerie circumstances and the ladies in the picture are gorgeous. The acting by Ruben is outstanding, especially at the end. I'm not sure the owl like creature did as much for this film as intended.

Overall, this is a bad movie but average horror picture. I recommend this to all horror enthusiasts as something different. I would score this a 6/10 and recommend seeing it once.

I have seen worse and I have certainly seen better turn-the-tables-on-the-serial-killer movies. But seldom have I seen one with less relatable nor less sympathetic characters. From scene one, the viewer should be rooting for gruesome death to all involved. And it rolls forward from there. A few less rich, pretentious , and self-obsessed city-dwelling jerk holes might actually be a win for society as a whole. But this is a fairly well-made and produced film however and it features some truly strange and trippy visuals. But maybe I missed the point somewhere along the way, because to me the movie seemed to drag on about 30 minutes too long. It just kind of keeps trudging towards the obvious destination set forth probably 25 minutes in. Slowly and boringly. Hard to recommend except maybe to seekers of the bizarre like me and the most man-hating amongst us.

It starts off with a combination of good setup and a suggestion for something deeper (The Furies of Greek mythology). However, the last 2/3 devolves into music video land with cool visuals, but non-existent coherence. It also abandons any semblance of the story when this happens.

Did you like how Lords of Salem gave up on itself towards the "climax"?

Are Steven Seagal movies too complex for you to follow?

Let me state, once again, the visuals and style were cool, but could've been served by chopping up the ending with a good song. Everyone knows music videos doesn't need coherence either. Blech!

Starting with an auction for an art piece and ending with a folk mythology resolution, A Wounded Fawn covers a wide range themes, some more successful than others. At the heart of this film lives a serial killer. Compulsion and fight are strong elements that both the main characters bring in their own way. At the same time, the storyline felt disjointed as what was hidden isn't that hidden, but the resolution is a vague aspect of the mythology it hints. Acting is strong but oddities of the characters can be difficult to tolerate, and at times can irritate to the point of derailing focus on the plot. Interesting watch but not that fulfilling.

When I stumbled upon the 2022 horror movie "A Wounded Fawn" here in 2024, I had never actually heard about it. But I will say that I was initially intrigued by the movie's synopsis. Plus, the fact that it was a horror movie that I hadn't already seen, also helped to make me sit down and watch it.

Writers Nathan Faudree and Travis Stevens, with the latter also directing the movie, put together a fair enough script and storyline. It was pretty straightforward, if actually not somewhat generic and predictable. But the added elements of supernatural horror definitely helped to spruce up the movie. It was an adequate movie, but nothing outstanding really.

I was not familiar with the cast ensemble in the movie, but I will say that leading actress Sarah Lind (playing Meredith Tanning) and leading actor Josh Ruben (playing Bruce Ernst) put on good performances and carried the movie quite nicely.

Visually then "A Wounded Fawn" was okay. It was not a movie that made use of an abundance of special effects or CGI, not that it really required such. Whatever effects were in the movie were fairly okay, and helped to promote whatever they were intended to do, so that means it was effective.

Director Travis Stevens makes use of some dark imagery throughout the course of the movie, especially in the last quarter of the movie, which adds something unique to the movie. And the costumes with the masks and the wardrobes definitely added a layer of oddity to the movie.

Watchable for what it was, however "A Wounded Fawn" is hardly a movie that I will ever return to watch a second time. If it worth sitting down and watching it, if you are an avid horror fan.

My rating of "A Wounded Fawn" lands on a five out of ten stars.

Wounded fawn is a graphic spectacle of justice being served. The theme is very well maintained throughout the entirety of the movie. The story seems to put it's emphasis on that there's art even in the most twisted minds and the expressions of those chains of thought is dread. Visuals are brilliant, descriptive and rich with colour of meaning. Great cinematography transitioning abruptly to bring out the mysterious nature of the affairs. Great work by the cast increasing the tension in the story by each passing minute. Wounded fawn is a story about a hunter's mind on deathbed and that journey is a nauseating but a thrilling one for horror fans.

Sorry but this movie is trash. I commend the lead female actors in this film for doing a commendable job and I really wish they had a bigger part. Besides that this film is just not good.

First problem: I do not care about the characters except the second lead female. Besides that this movie has no plot. The director clearly wanted a 70's vibe with the slow zooms into door knobs and exterior windows. Yay. That's cool but it's been done. It's nice I guess. But it adds no value.

Besides that the ketchup fake blood, the poor production value and the overall film story and plot make this a pass. I like bad movies too, but this is just nonsensical bad and I just wanted it to end. 2/10 only for the female support cast. The end.

Let's just start of by saying this film isn't for everyone. So please spare me the whiny reviews from all of the people out there that aren't willing to immerse themselves in something pretty far out.

I really loved the practical fx and the cinematography of this film. Seeing something shot on film in 2022 was great. It's a straight forward but very unconventional little tale about a serial killer who's victims manifest themselves as some kind of Greek/Roman demons inside the killer's insane and damaged mind. Needless to say, things become very surreal by the end. There is also a great sense of humor behind it all. A scene with a dog sporting woman's head comes to mind as the funniest part... it's pretty entertaining.

I'd like to see this filmmaker make something a little more grounded. I loved the technical aspects of the film. Was it a little too artsy? Maybe By the end. But that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it. Definitely worth a watch if you appreciate the type of things. I think this filmmaker could potentially evolve into a pretty great one if he kept things a little more grounded. Or he could just keep making things like this and that's fine too because it's pretty good. 8.7out of 10. B+

Honestly, the cringe in this movie is off the charts. Bad acting, Ridiculous plot. Bad cinematography, weak writing. The whole premise makes no sense at all. I don't understand how these kinds of movies keep getting green lit. The "artsy" lifestyle they try to portray in this movie is so bad, like Lisa Simpson level cringe. Just the worst kind of people are your main characters. I don't understand why or how I kept watching, but I finished it. I couldn't find any redeeming qualities. I love horror movies, but this should be considered a parody. The score is uninspired, dry and generic. The jump scares are cheap and ineffective. I just don't understand how these movies are so common place these days. It's an absolute waste of time.

SERIOUSLY you critics make that SO called critics or supposed experts on films give this piece of crap a 70 plus neta score some gave it a perfect 100 like it's the exorcist or the conjuring or the thing or violent night or in the mouth of madness or deranged or dead snow part 1 and 2 or evil dead!! Get my POINT!! This isnt a 10 people it's not even an average flick it starts out an ok average serial killer film which morons means it would be a slasher or thriller but the switches to a ghost but THEN switches to a fantasy but it NEVER gets to where it scares you or horrifies you I guess there is some blood so I'll give it a 1 as a b title terrible horror film with a 3 stage terrible ending. NO WAY THIS IS HIGHER THAN A 3 NO WAY!!!!

How in the world is this rated a 5.5 out of 10 stars? Even the top review is a 3 out of 10. This was one of the weirdest, stupidest, non-horror horror movie I have ever seen. How in the world did this script get green lit? How did a studio look at the words on the screen and say, yeah this sounds great!

The first 20 seconds of the trailer makes it seem like it might be a decent movie. But don't be fooled. That's about the only good scene in the entire movie. When will people wake up and quit making garbage like this? I feel dumber just by watching it.

2 out of 10 - One of the worst movies I have ever seen on AMC/shudder.