Recently, I was browsing the internet for suggestions on the best horror films of 2016. I came across a list on Thrillist, and began scrolling with a lack of enthusiasm. Horror films just aren't what they used to be-too much reliance on jump scares and too much lack of plot. But that doesn't mean I've lost complete interest in the genre. I'm always on the lookout for the best deviation from modern-horror, and that most often results in me watching the most deviant, disturbing of films. You know, those hush-hush films Reddit users make lists for? I'm unsure if I'm a hypocrite because of this. Disturbing doesn't necessarily merit a relevant plot. I've run across a few films in my life that done so to perfection, A Clockwork Orange being my favorite of which to-date. So, while I'm intrigued by the lengths to which some films go, I can't call it a 'good film' unless it tells a great story. And this is exactly the hope I had when I stopped on No. 16: I Am Not a Serial Killer.
So, I watched the trailer and did some research on the film. There was a book. It came as a shock to me that I had the urge to read the book first, as I had also discovered this about A Clockwork Orange, and couldn't get through the book before the desire to see the film wore me down. Then again, that's a Stanley Kubrick film with a history of controversy. There was no waiting two years for me to read it, like Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. I never finished that series, sshhhh! But I appreciate the ability to tell a story with words. I've dabbled in it myself. I've seen too many books become watered-down movies. There's an exception for television series, however. The first season of Hemlock Grove is a perfect example of a book-to-screen adaptation going right, as far as staying true to the book goes. Television is a superb format, as a story doesn't have to be squeezed into the accustom 90-minute time limit. Ergo, like any smart consumer would, I read the preview on Google Books first, and I was immediately sold.
What can you expect from I Am Not a Serial Killer, book one in Dan Wells series about John Cleaver? I was expecting a straight-forward story about a young teen and his mental instability. I'm not fully convinced that isn't just what this is, but let's get into the story. Like Dexter Morgan, the all too ironically named John Wayne Cleaver suspects he's a sociopath, and has set rules for himself so he doesn't cross the line into Ted Bundy-dom. He keeps himself in check by working in the family mortuary, where his mother eventually decides he shouldn't be. Killings erupt in the small Midwestern town of Clayton, and John goes on the hunt despite his therapist's warnings. The twist comes early, but at the perfect time; allowing John too slowly begin breaking his rules. The meat of the book is about the 15-year-old's decent into what he calls Mr. Monster. He stalks the killer carefully, cleverly, yet relentlessly. He justifies his actions by championing himself on the act of taking down the Clayton Killer. The first-person view point allows the reader to sympathize with John's thought pattern, duping you into backing both his intelligent and rash decisions. It's a story dedicated to the inner workings of a true sociopath, making you question if the resolution is really a resolution at all. That's the beauty of it. While the plot of book one ends, John Cleaver's story remains open-ended. 
Billy O'Brien's film portrays John in a skewed light. Admittedly, I had Rory Culkin in my head from Chapter One, sentence one, word one. Shout out to Rory Culkin for being an amazing psycho. Go see Jack Goes Home if you don't believe a Culkin can have talent past childhood. But despite not being Rory, the actor chosen to portray Jack did a fantastic job, Max Records. He nailed the look and attitude of John Cleaver. In fact, the entire cast was outstanding, especially Christopher Lloyd, but when is he not fantastic? Though aesthetics are minor in comparison to the storytelling, I've always had an issue with them. I was thrilled the film was spot-on in this aspect. John's character was the largest downfall to the entire film. In short, the book was centered on John. The movie is centered around events. Watch the trailer below, then let me tell you why this drastically shifts the viewer's perspective of the story, therefore changing the story altogether.
The film left out and skimmed over some of John's key choices and actions that were vital to understanding his character. As I said, the story is all about his battle with sociopathy. Author Dan Wells opens his book by saying how obsessed he was with serial killers, so the book focuses on John's internal battle. The film seems to focus on his battle with the killer as opposed to that with himself, and this might be because of a lack of emphasis on John's perspective. Choosing not to have the film narrated by the character himself seems to be a huge drawback. It takes the focus off John and put's it on the happenings, which isn't how the book is focused at all.
A perfect example of first-person narration would be the television series Dexter, because the idea behind that series is very similar to the one of this book/film. Also, A Clockwork Orange, yes I'm still harping on it, is the epitome of perfection when speaking of narrated films. I Am Not a Serial Killer could have utilized this technique to retain the atmosphere of the book, a completely biased narrative. Because the film disconnects so much from John's perspective, all of John's best moments are severely underplayed. He becomes something of an annoying, narcissistic teen in these moments where his true monster is supposed to shine. The most intriguing parts of the book were when John let Mr. Monster out to play. The film just couldn't grasp how to portray this, and so these moments felt flat and pretentious. The following scene gave me chills in the book, as John was beginning to break his rules-to unleash his monster. In the film, however, it did quite the opposite. It made me cringe.
I Am Not a Serial Killer is an independent film, which are the types of films I find to be truly focusing on the art of storytelling. Indie films aren't trying to sell you anything but the story itself. If you're like me, this allows you to look beyond the aesthetics (as these films might not have large budgets) and forces you to appreciate the story itself. Because you can't be blown away by CGI or drawn in by Hollywood "talent," the filmmakers must tell a great story to be recognized. While this film fell short of the story being told in the book, it did a great job of telling a different kind of story. I was disappointed with the atmosphere the director chose to promote,but I appreciated the story being just as thrilling and unpredictable as that of the book.
