This film struck me as similar to the directors career path, in that it is a hodgepodge that doesnt seem to fit together or make any sense.
Going in to it, I had no idea what the film was about. I didnt get any information with the disc and I didnt do any research on the film until after I had watched it. Usually, its more interesting that way. This was not the case with Wound. I wish Id had some kind of warning, prior to watching the film, at least then I would have known what I was in for.
I will not attempt to provide much of a plot synopsis, as I cannot actually say that there was much of a plot. It was more of a stream of consciousness that moved forward and backward and gradually began to fade in and out. Instead, I will cover a few of the notable sequences that occurred during the first few moments of the film.
Wound really starts out with a bang. The viewer sees a little patricide right from the get go. No more than seven minutes in to the film, we see a very crude penectomy with a pair of scissors. This is not a penis removal, like what we saw in Hostel II. This is an arterial spray inducing, slow, and torturous cutting that seems to go on forever. I can hang with the best of the gore hounds. But, even I had to divert my eyes, because it was too sickening to watch. Shortly after that, the real craziness starts.
The film takes a long time to give the viewer any insight as to whats going on. It gave me the same feeling of confusion that I get when I start a movie from the middle. None of the characters are properly introduced. The viewer doesnt have any idea who anyone is or what purpose they serve until about halfway through the film. Even then, the viewer is still left with a multitude of unanswered questions.
Wound has a very surreal and dream-like quality. Its not clear which portions of the film are really happening and which are hallucinations or dreams. We become fairly certain that Susan, the lead, is completely nuts, but want to hold out hope that Susan is actually sane. Most of the movie had me scratching my head and asking myself What the fu**?
In terms of any type of cohesion, the film fails. Wound plays out like one long acid trip (speaking hypothetically, of course). The film is heavy on symbolism, but Blythe leaves much too much up to the viewers interpretation and doesnt make anything clear enough for the average moviegoer to make any sense of it.
David Blythe appears to have taken some of his cues from Tarantino. The film is filled with flashbacks and takes a non linear approach to storytelling. It was almost impossible to tell what was happening, or why. The difference between Wound and a Tarantino film is that you actually want to know the answers to those questions in a Tarantino flick, and in the case of Wound, I did not. Tarantino also ties up some of the films loose ends and brings all of the sub plots together to create a cohesive film. Wound doesnt accomplish any of that.
The production values are better than many films Ive seen with similar budgets. The camerawork is pretty well done. The effects arent bad. The film has a cast of virtual unknowns but, the performances are not terrible. The film does an effective job of helping us identify with the Susan, the lead characters misery. The viewer can almost feel her agony reaching through the screen. Unfortunately, none of that mattered. Wound was so bizarre and hard to follow that it is simply unsalvageable.
You can find the film currently on DVD, however, I would absolutely not recommend watching it. Even if you are on a plane and its the in flight movie, you would be better off reading the evacuation instructions that are adhered to the emergency exit for entertainment.
