User reviews

Richard Griffin's latest film NORMAL had a lot of mystery surrounding it. I had figured out early on before the release that it would likely center around a serial-killer, but it almost seemed like few details were purposefully given. Such is appropriate though as NORMAL is indeed a very shadowy and mysterious film with a good amount of twists and turns. Despite Griffin making clarification that the film is not horror (the genre he is best known for working in), this distinction is a bit blurred here. NORMAL is a dark film and while it plays more with psychology and drama rather than standard thrills and chills, the movie certainly has enough horrific, unsettling and grim content in it. However, even if it doesn't play like a straight horror film, NORMAL is probably Griffin's scariest and affecting movie to date.

This is a movie (unlike most of the director's other films) that is dark and dead serious. Probably closest to Griffin's EXHUMED in tone and feel and the fact that much of the cast and crew is repeated here. For instance, the movie is all kinds of bleak and has a similar claustrophobic feel to it. Ken Willinger (who collaborates again with Griffin as director of photography here for the second time) crafts a similar look (albeit in color) and makes use of some really contrasty, low-key film noir type lighting that makes the film's aesthetic about as dark as its subject matter. Willinger really shines in his work here and fully demonstrates his massive talent for cinematography. On display are some truly amazing shots that rival the best work of a Roger Deakins-- my favorite of which features actor Michael Thurber walking through the streets of downtown Boston at night illuminated by a plume of sewer steam. This shot brought to mind a similar shot in THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD and as with there, it gave me goosebumps.

Even if NORMAL is a rather unsettling film for much of its running time, it's also oddly beautiful in a lot of ways. Due to its music score at times and aforementioned Willinger cinematography, NORMAL almost has a Terrence Malick like quality to it in the visuals and storytelling. Just a poignant and powerful film and the performances help sell it. Michael Reed is excellent in the lead and comes off as quite creepy and terrifying in his portrayal of a twisted serial killer. Elyssa Baldassarri also shines in the role of Kate and her performance says so much just due to her demeanor and facial expressions alone. The rest of the cast is generally well utilized and Michael Thurber always steals whatever scene he's in no matter how short his screen time.

All in all, nothing is really 'normal' about the film NORMAL. It's a film you'll no doubt be impacted by and probably hard-pressed to forget.

Settling in with a glass of wine last evening, I queued up NORMAL,and found myself so captivated by the resulting motion picture that I realized, as the end credits were rolling, that I hadn't once touched my glass.

Richard Griffin's directing was sharp and stylish, and Leonard Xavier Roberts Schwartz's script was ferocious. Add into that a remarkably intense cast of extreme talent, and what followed was a claustrophobic and atmospheric slice of art that was absolutely delicious for the mind. Similar to the way Chabrol would construct quiet mysteries out of anxiety rather than blood, this movie uses close quarters to ramp up the tension, and a color palette that titillates as much as it unnerves. Movies like NORMAL are truly special, as they remind viewers that the realm of low budget has not seen its final hey day, and that great art is out there waiting to be discovered and celebrated. This is a film that deserves to be seen. Do yourself a favor, and track down this remarkable gem.

I'll first say some of the cinematography was very good. A lot of it seemed rushed. But I know there were a couple shots that I really liked.

Other than that, I found everything to be very tough to watch.

The constant, same-volume soundtrack throughout the whole music was an aural onslaught. It didn't allow for times of quiet to collect your thoughts or focus on what was happening in the movie. It sounded like it was going for a "Drive" feel, but it was a little overbearing. It felt like it was a cover up for not having foley editing or sounds that were actually happening in the scenes in some occasions. It felt awkward watching a scene where you were expecting sound effects to be heard at least slightly, but only just the music. Felt a little amateur and unpolished.

The dialogue audio was very difficult to listen to as well. It didn't sound natural and actually made it physically difficult to pay attention to at times.

Now, the writing.. I really couldn't understand what was going on. I think too much was trying to be done. As much as I know they wanted to probably keep some of the story a mystery in the beginning, I felt like it was missing a lot of establishing information. I felt like I was thrown into something and had to spend a lot of energy trying to put the pieces together, more so than you should normally have to do during a movie.

And then there was a lot of what probably was extraneous information being thrown in. References to things that never came up again, probable metaphors that either were so hidden that an average viewer wouldn't be able to pick up on or was never fleshed out.

The movie is all down too. There were no juxtaposing scenes. Which, fine, may be the style he was going for, but it makes it very difficult to watch. It felt like there wasn't a good flow to things, breather scenes, etc. Not that you needed a big emotional breather, but information- processing breather.

In a general sense though, a I didn't really understand what the story was. I couldn't tell what was actually driving the main character. What problem was trying to be solved. There were a few possible threads that I thought were presented, but it also seemed like there were pieces to the puzzle, that were crucial to be known, that weren't exposed. So the characters were able to work through things on their own, but the audience had no idea what had happened.

A lot of of the duologue was awkward and some of the exposition was unnatural. The delivery of most lines didn't help either. Lines were forced, over-dramatic, and generally unnatural.

The one thing that I found impressive was set design. To a degree. I could tell it was all built from scratch, which I always find impressive for an independent production. It felt claustrophobic, but I understand that was the point, and could at least gather that from watching. There were a couple lines that didn't jive with the set that I felt could've been adjusted. A couple in particular was "this is the nicest apartment in the building" and "this is exactly what we were looking for". Given where the apartments were, it could be fine, but I felt like the lines could've been adjusted a bit to not seem so ridiculous to a viewer and thinking "really, THAT apartment?" Maybe a little nit-picky, but that was one thing that stood out to me.

What I felt that all these things distracted from the story itself. If there was one.

I went in with an open mind, I like independent productions and have seen some very good ones. But this, I found myself getting antsy waiting for it to end very quickly into it.

Richard Griffin has directed a truly visceral film, part hypnotic treatment on death and betrayal, part Lynchian nightmare about the darkest of consciences. Behind a brilliant script by Leonard Schwartz and organic pacing from Griffin, this film is anything but its title would suggest, truly standing out as one of the most original and abnormally transportative indie films I've seen in years. The greatest piece of this filmic puzzle however is actor Michael Reed, who singlehandedly steals the show from a cast of talented actors. Reed is a star and what Normal proves above all else is that this star is rising!

It's REALLY unethical and dishonest to promise people filmmaking on the level of Scorsese or Kubrick in order to trick people into watching a film. This movie is not the marvel reviewers are claiming it is. It is pretentious, badly acted (including the main "actor" who keeps looking/behaving as though he's constantly constipated), and edited weirdly. It's also ridiculous in how some characters act. If you have to lie this much about a film, either you're delusional or you don't have faith in it, neither of which does innocent moviegoers any favors.

This film is an amazing look at a modern day serial killer. It goes in some incredible and interesting directions! Will Keep you on your feet!! Do yourself a favor and check this one out. One of the best independent films I have seen in a long time. Richard Griffin takes it to another level and Michael Reed Delivers a spellbinding performance. The supporting cast also puts in an incredible effort to create a legitimately strange and mysterious world. The cinematography is reminiscent of film noir with its bleak dark tones mixed with rich color. So definitely seek this film out! hopefully this year at a film festival or soon to be on DVD