User reviews

Angel Connell's "Beneath the Veneer of a Murder" tells a complex and non-linear story in a compact eight minutes. The title implies -- and reveals -- a story-behind-the-story. At least, that is what I understand Connell's intent to be.

To grasp "Veneer," the audience must pay rather scrupulously close attention to the intricate connections between the film's five characters, connections depending largely on the elements of sexual betrayal (the relationships involved implied to be particularly lurid and dysfunctional) and murder. This requirement, then, makes "Beneath the Veneer of a Murder" a sort of thinking man's crime story. Those more cerebral audience members, able to appreciate the film's unraveling story-telling style, will enjoy the story and welcome the challenge. But this reviewer is not among them. Upon my second viewing of the film at its recent world premier, I found its thread as difficult to follow as with the first viewing. (However, an audience member told me that she had a clearer understanding of the story upon the second viewing.) I wonder that "Beneath the Veneer of a Murder" would more successfully tell its story if it were a full-length feature.

One element of the film that I found problematic occurred in the first moments. Writer and director Connell chooses to display on the screen several lines of verse from a curious and ambiguous poem composed by an anonymous author, while the audience listens to crucial off-screen expository dialogue between two main characters. Connell's intent was doubtless to connect the poem's theme of clouded perceptions to his on screen story, but some viewers, myself included, found the technique more distracting than illuminating. In fact, the technique bookends the production. After the audience has seen several minutes of main on screen action, we hear over the closing credits further dialogue, of a more revelatory and explanatory nature -- but for me, just as confusing as the first. I believe that the film's biggest drawback may be this effort to communicate too much information, too elaborately, in too short a time -- and that mostly in audio only.

Though "Beneath the Veneer of a Murder" boasts originality and the talents of a dedicated production crew, overall it left me a bit cold. Is this to say that the film is poorly executed? No, it's to reiterate my conviction the the power of the film depends on the audience member's powers of perception and concentration. Connell, an intelligent and creative artist, would appear, as far as I can tell, to believe that the ingenuity of a complex plot communicates a satisfying experience to the viewer. In my case, his efforts left me unable to see beyond the veneer.

Im currently a Cinema Production major and Ithaca College. I have taken many film classes including Hollywood and American Cinema and Film Aesthetics and Analysis. When i saw this film not only was the cinematography rubbish but the sound quality was more then horrible. A previous reviewer said that this compares to that of early Hitchcock. I think that statement is a punch at Hitchcock's career as a director. Hitchcock was an important director of his time and this is no where near his talent level. Overall "Beneath the Veneer of a Murder" was almost a disgrace to the experimental film class. Thought the idea was "unique" i have seen similar techniques used in other experimental films which proved to be successful unlike in this film.

Beneath the Veneer of a Murder is the latest film from director Angel Connell and is more experimental in nature than his last two films "Stocking Stuffers" and "Shes So Cold". It opens with a phone conversation over the beginning credits and poem from an unknown author which implies that all may not be as it seems.

Then the scene itself comes on. Set in the basement of a house and starring Eric Scheiner and Christy Scott Cashman the scene involves the murder mentioned in the title and is quite riveting. This scene is very well done in every way and features very convincing performances by both actors. The lighting and camera-work is also very well done and includes a couple of complex dolly shots that work seamlessly in the scene, adding to it without calling attention to the camera. Connell really knows how to make camera moves work within his story. The editing is also seamless. Everything goes together so well you don't even notice the editing, all as it should be.

We get another phone conversation over the closing credits and find out that everything is quite different than what we believed up to this point. It is quite a surprise. My only complaint about this film is that the story told in the phone conversations is probably more complex than it need to be. Also it is difficult to read the poem at the beginning and concentrate on what is being said at the same time. Watching the film a few times will definitely pay dividends. All in all Angel Connell has directed another winner. I'm looking forward to seeing what he can do on a feature.

I saw this movie when it had it's world premiere. I thought it was very intriguing. The actors did a great job playing their parts. The look of the film was very moody and dark. It reminded me of an old Alfred Hitchcock movie. It looked like a cool kind of low budget Hollywood movie. The special effects coming in and out while the credits were rolling looked great too. I saw the film twice which was good because I caught a few details that I missed the first time around. It left me wanting to see more details of the story. This movie ain't for everybody but if you're patient with looking at it a few times then you'll get a kick out of it. I certainly did.