Nice effects though.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

More disturbing on a psychological level than in terms of actual on screen content, "Angst" is often referred to as being one of cinema's all time strongest (and greatest) shockers. Do I agree? Well, not necessarily. I mean, I've seen much worse films that disturbed me far more than this one in practically every way, but I still found this movie to be fantastic and brilliantly atmospheric. There is no doubt a shocking quality to the perverted and bizarre concepts that are explored head on in this classic, as well as a handful of graphic killings, which are made all the more terrifying thanks to the semi-deadpan voice over provided by the killer himself as he describes his own, demented childhood, the best explanation for his future desires. The film delves deep into the psychology of being a serial killer, bravely sailing the sea of a madman;s mind, fearlessly showcasing the worst of mankind. "Angst" both demonizes and sympathizes with its crazed central character, exposing him for the maniac he is but also providing the tragic reasoning's for his violence. He is not just a killer, he is also a human being, one that has been damaged and traumatized by a haunting past. "Angst" is a horror film in the truest sense of the word, for it captures TRUE horrors in a powerful way. It's scary at times, but not in the conventional "horror movie" sense, instead it shocks with a creeping atmosphere, camera-work that is both nauseating and stimulating, and a narration that is as fascinating as it is depressing and twisted. A definite accomplishment and twist on the "serial killer" horror movie subgenre.

This was easily the most difficult movie I've ever watched. I don't do this often since this is a horror movie blog and I think people should expect some level of fear and disgust while reading about or watching these movies, but this one is on a whole 'nother level, so if you are squeamish or disturbed by murder or horror at all, be amply warned.It's loosely based on Austrian serial killer Werner Kniesek, who tortured and killed a family of three while he was on parole, and it contains real-life quotes from both him and other killers such as Peter Kürten (also known as The Vampire of Düsseldorf or the Düsseldorf Monster, who committed a series of murders and sexual assaults in Germany in 1929). It's not a very well-known movie, but it's thought by many to be hugely groundbreaking and influential, particularly for Gaspar Noè (Irreversible, I Stand Alone), who has cited his fascination with the movie on more than one occasion (and has apparently seen the film many times, which I just do not have the stomach for).The film follows a recently released murderer (known only as The Psychopath in credits and played by Erwin Leder in one of the single most disturbingly convincing roles I've ever witnessed) on his first day back in society. There is almost no dialogue throughout the movie, just narration that is meant to be the killer's own thoughts and beliefs (again, real quotes from actual killers are used), and between learning about his background (so much abuse, neglect, previous crimes, and another killing) and his desires, it's obvious that there's nothing else on his mind but finding victims. One of the very first scenes shows the brilliance of cinematographer Zbigniew Rybczyński as Leder walks with a mounted, rotating camera so we can see him from all angles — just one of many amazing techniques used, but the entire film has this quality of feeling much bigger than you'd expect, more expansive, and definitely more disorienting.But really, I can't overstate how much my skin crawled throughout the entire movie. Again, I am no novice to horror. I have seen and read many disturbing things. THIS is just impressively in a league of its own. One of his stops along the way is at a small diner, and there's a scene where it's just an intense closeup of him eating a sausage with his bare hands while he leers at two young women down the counter from him and woof. It is rough.One of the most striking things to me is just how frantic he is. I think many movies portray killers as cunning, smooth, strong ultimately, in control. The killer in Angst is not ANY of these things. He is wild and unpredictable, sweaty and desperate. He's awkward. It's painful to watch. He is driven by something so deep within him that it's all that occupies his mind. He's uncoordinated, spontaneous, and clumsy.His entire experience at the house is disorganized and chaotic. Each killing is a bit different and difficult to watch in its own way, but the most stomach churning for me was the daughter. You just legitimately feel like you're watching a real murder, that's how stark and realistic the whole thing is. They used pig's blood rather than fake blood to add to the authenticity, and damn, it worked."I was determined that this all was only the beginning. I wanted to live out my fantasies. At that moment, I didn't care where that would lead. I didn't think about it at all. I wanted to get new victims as soon as possible. I was crazy about it."You hardly see anyone else in the entire movie (aside from the other customers at the diner) which really adds to the sense of isolation. You're really just alone with the killer and his thoughts, which is a scary place to be. The score, done by Klaus Schulze of Tangerine Dream and Ash Ra Tempel, adds wonderfully to the unease.There's also the family's small dog — a chubby little dachshund — that makes reoccurring appearances throughout the film in the most subtle but disturbing ways. It waddles in and grabs the old woman's dentures after a struggle. It trails behind him as he finds an outfit to wear when he leaves the house. It hops in the car as he heads into town to find his next victims. The ENTIRE MOVIE you're stressed about the fate of this dog. After all of the inhuman acts you witness and all of the completely warped thoughts you hear, you're just thinking "please don't let me watch him kill that dog, too". But he doesn't. That dog is his ride or die. But man, the suspense that is caused from such a simple, understated move brilliant.He clumsily cleans up the crime scene — well, he gathers the bodies into the trunk of the car, anyway — and heads back to the diner for round two, where he is swiftly caught (after another skin-crawling sausage consumption). The deadpan narration lets us know that he was found to be of sound mind and aware of his crimes, and sentenced to life in prison. It's a perfect, sudden ending to a movie that ultimately spends no time making judgments or assuming emotions or motives. It does not exist to speculate or to consider. It just IS, in all of its horror, and as difficult as it was to watch for all of its honesty and rawness, it really is impressive and worth a watch if you truly feel up for the challenge.

"Angst" is an Austrian 32-year-old movie written and directed by Gerald Kargl. It is easily his most known effort as he has not been really prolific. His body of work on IMDb is almost empty, but I read that he directed many television ads as well. The same cannot be said about the Polish co-writer Rybczynski, who won an Oscar in the animated short film category the very same year "Angst" was released. This film runs for no longer than 75 minutes, but is very intense and at times tough to watch. A man with a history of violence (even towards his own mother and sister) gets released out of prison after 10 years and immediately plans his next massacre. He ends up at a rich family's house, where he kills everybody. If you are more interested in the psychological aspect of this movie and prefer to skip the murders, you can simply omit minutes 30-45 as this is where the trio gets killed. He has fantasies about young women at a café and about a taxi driver as well, but does not succeed there already. Anyway, he seems to have a pretty misogynist attitude, probably because of bad experiences with his female relatives.The lead character is played by Erwin Leder, an actor you may also have come across in "Das Boot" or "Schindler's List". While we watch him, we constantly hear the thought of what is going on in his head, how he makes parallels between his victims (or even creatures like swans) and his family members or ex-girlfriends. The rest of the cast is fairly unknown. Many of them have never appeared in a film before or after this. If you like horror films with simple premises or just enjoy slashers where a sadist kills many people, this is probably exactly your cup of tea. However, I should probably not say slasher as there is really not much blood in here except when he kills the daughter of the family. There is also no really explicit agony, suffering or screaming. The daughter, for example, in her last moments, still thinks about her mother's illness. After he killed the trio, the film gets a bit worse, mostly because his inner monologues get less too and he is not telling us that much anymore why he became who he is. The ending, however, is pretty good again at the café and outside when the cops come and catch him. All in all, I recommend it. It is a pretty good character study of a disturbed sadist. But it is certainly not for the easily offended.

I can't say I really liked this movie, but I think I at least understand why it is so highly regarded. As far as the literal plot goes, it's standard fare for the subgenre. That subgenre, whatever it's called, is the same one that includes Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer and the August Underground films. It's the subgenre in which a mentally ill serial killer is the protagonist, and we get to follow him while he commits a small number of extremely brutal murders.The thing that makes this movie notable is the artful composition of nearly every scene and sequence. It has the sensibility of a Bruegel painting. (See The Massacre of the Innocents as an example; this and other Bruegal paintings are notable for depicting torture and murder in the same landscape as dogs playing, children laughing, etc.) While our protagonist murders a family, the family dog runs about excitedly, chasing after a toy ball that gets kicked on accident and eagerly jumping around to try and be part of the action. It's really poetic and exceptional filmmaking, and I suppose it can be said to push the genre to a further extreme of realism.Also notable are a handful of unusual camera angles on which I am less sure how to comment, and a running narration of the protagonist's distracted thoughts while he's committing the murders. This narration is notable, because it's almost completely disconnected from the immediate actions; it's like he's having a hard time focusing on committing murders because he keeps getting distracted by other thoughts. If you've ever been hassled by a schizophrenic person on the street, it's kind of like that, and I guess I find this film's killer more believable as a result.Anyway, the title of this review really covers what I want to say. As a horror fan, I'll credit this film with one good and extremely brutal death scene. The plot, character, and ideas, however, were entirely generic. The pace was too slow for me, and body count was about as low as it could possibly for the guy to still be considered a serial killer.On the other hand, I can recognize that the filmmaking really was masterful. If you're the kind of person who gets excited about artful camera work and sequence composition, this is the film for you.