....we had never seen the killer.
I really liked this movie, but does anybody think it would have been better if we had never seen the killer. Or at least if he wasn't revealed until the end. I think it would have been much more sinister if we had no idea what he looked like--or if he even existed, adding to the feeling of paranoia and suspicion.
I LOVE a good paradox!!!
I don't think it was a "mystery" story. I'm not really familiar with older films but I gather it was a 'take' of another type of film. I'm sure Woody knew what he was doing. Besides, it would've been stupid to reveal the killer at the end, only for it to be someone we hadn't even seen yet. I kind of liked that we knew it was this monster/maniac. You never knew where he was, etc
shareagreed with TS.
i also thought it would've been interesting if Woody WAS the killer. So we don't see the killer and Woody (Kleyman) leaves with the circus and maybe a couple of hints that he did it.
Still a good film though, underrated. :)
But showing the killer at the beginning, a visual pretty obviously referencing Nosferatu, really set up and hit people over the head that this was a spoof of German Expressionism, even those who don't know what German Expressionism is.
shareyes, and the weird camera angles and strange looking architecture that seemed to have no logic.... etc. etc.
I think it was a really well done film!