text: What about Dahmer's childhood?- The double hernia operation which is believed to have sparked off his obsession with the inner workings of the human body? What about "infinity land"? - The game he invented as a child which involved stick men being annihilated when they came too close to one another, suggesting that intimacy was the ultimate danger. What about the relationship between his parents, and the emotional problems of his mother that were far more relevant than just his own relationship with his father? His feelings of neglect when his brother was born? What about his fascination with insects and animals? How he would dissect roadkill and hang it up in the woods behind his home?What about focusing more on his cannibalism? And what about his parent's divorce? These are all things that should have been included in the film. Instead the film maker chose to give us a watered down 'snapshot' from a night or two in his life, and combine it with series of confusing and at times unnecessary flashbacks, to events that weren't even particularly relevant to our understanding of Dahmer.<br /><br />Why didn't the film maker show how Dahmer was interested in people as objects rather than people? He could have made this point many times, particularly in the scenes in which he drugs his victims whilst he has sex with them (which actually took place in a health club, not a night club). Instead he just shows him ramming away at them from behind.<br /><br />Whilst I appreciate there is only so much information you can cram into 90 minutes (or however long), but why spend such a large part of the film examining his relationship with Luis Pinet? (known as Rodney in this film). My only guess is that the director was trying to build up Pinet's character, to try and make us fear for or empathise with him, but this film is supposed to be about Jeffrey Dahmer, so why couldn't he have spend those forty five minutes on something else? If the scene and their relationship was important enough to warrant such time then fair enough, but it wasn't. The scene in which he kills Steven Hicks, his first victim, is a vital part of the Jeffrey Dahmer story because it was the first killing, and because of the effect that killing had on the rest of his life. Unfortunately the film doesn't explain that it was his first killing, or that he didn't kill again for nine years. We assume, because his hair style is different, and he is wearing glasses that this is a flashback, but to when? And why? <br /><br />What about the shrine he made in his sitting room towards the end of his career?-one of the most important clues we have towards understanding Dahmer and his motivations..<br /><br />Some people may find my need for accuracy in fact and detail a bit anal, but having studied Jeffrey Dahmer in depth, it is plain to see that this film has very little in common with the person he was and the crimes he committed. Why bother to spend the time making a film loosely based on Jeffrey Dahmer rather than tackle the real issues behind his descent into madness and the carnage that ensued?<br /><br />Finally, a film with subject matter as repellent as this should carry an 18 certificate, not a 15. We needed to see his perversion in more depth, to understand just how detached he was from the rest of us. That doesn't mean showing the drill actually entering Konerak Sinthasomphone's head for instance, but at least an indication of the amount of people he killed, and what his Modus Operandi was when actually killing. Anyone watching this film who doesn't know the story of Dahmer might come away thinking he had only killed a few people. He actually killed seventeen men.<br /><br />Aside from the facts and lack of depth, the film isn't all bad. There is some nice cinematography, and good performances from the two main characters. I'd like to see this done again by a film maker who has more knowledge, more energy, and a better reason for making the film in the first place.