A scary thing happened on the way to the Movie Forums - Horrorcrammers

On a scale from 1 to 10, how upsetting is Maniac?

Let's assume Texas Chainsaw Massacre is about a 6.5

If you're referring to the 1980 film, I watched it in my early 20s and found myself questioning my interest in horror films afterward. Like maybe I should be pursuing more worthwhile interests. The only other time that has happened was with Last House on the Left.

EDIT: To use your scale -- If TCM is a 6.5 and 10 is an actual snuff film, I guess I'd say that Maniac was an 8. But that was 30 years ago.

__________________
Captain's Log
My Collection

It's like a bloodier, grimier Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. I would give it a 9 or so. I've actually been dreading giving it a rewatch.


That being said, I do think underneath the grime it's actually a deeply empathetic film and quite well made for what it is. Joe Spinnell's performance is one for the ages.


If you want to dip your toes in, Don't Go in the House is a slightly less (but still very) upsetting take on the same premise. But it also might be better to space these things out.

Maniac at least has less wildly out of place kazoo music.

More importantly, Maniac is actually a good movie. I wouldn't say it's as much more upsetting than TCM as some are implying, maybe 7 or 7.5 vs the 6.5 given to TCM. It has a legendary scene of movie violence, though.

__________________

Maniac is somewhere tonally between Henry and Martin, with some top notch Savini gore for the kills. It’s similarly great to them and I don’t consider it much more disturbing.

TCM is a 6.5
Maniac is 7.5.
Last House on the Left 8.5
Bloodsucking Freaks 8.5
Last House on Dead End Street 9
Cannibal Holocaust 9.5
Forced Entry 10

Maniac, 1980

Frank Zito (Joe Spinell) is a middle-aged man living in New York City, and we meet him in the midst of a brutal killing spree in which he murders and scalps women. Frank's violence stems from a troubled childhood with a mother whose sex work and abuse of Frank have left him with incredibly problematic issues with women.

This is indeed a brutal watch, a la Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, though both the lack of exploitative sexual violence and a relatively sympathetic lead character make it much more palatable than a lot of the 80s grunge films.

The film really rests on Spinell's performance as Frank, and for the most part he does a really good job. Where the character feels most real is in the handful of sequences where he is passing as a "normal guy"---most often in his interactions with photographer Anna (Caroline Munro). He hits the right notes as someone who seems like a guy who is just a little weird.

I'm currently waffling a bit on how I feel about the murders themselves and the way that they are framed. There seem to be two elements at play in what happens. The first, and the actual stated motivation from Frank, is that he wants to "keep" his mother (because he visualizes his female victims as his mother). But there is a cruelty to many of the murders that belies this simple motivation, as he frequently enjoys the fear that he gets from his victims. Obviously this can be read as revenge for the fear that his mother inflicted on him---forcing him into a closet and burning him with cigarettes. I suppose that both things can exist at the same time.

I also suppose that it's realistic that Frank doesn't show much remorse about his actions. It did surprise me a bit, as the film distinguishes between his more lucid moments and his more delusional moments. He obviously realizes that he hasn't actually killed his mother. Heck, he attends the funeral of one of his victims. Though, again, at the point we meet Frank it's pretty clear that he's sunk pretty far into his delusions. I guess I'm grappling a little with the way that his mental state seems to vary quite a bit.

In terms of the look of the film, I thought that it had the good kind of low-budget look. The subway station, dark streets, and Frank's mannequin-occupied room all feel very lived in and gritty. I also liked the parallel of first meeting Frank via his point of view through a beachside telescope, while the introduction of Anna is via her looking at Frank through her camera.

I did have a few moments here and there that didn't feel quite right. Probably the most notable was the woman who decided to take a bath alone in her apartment without locking her door. (Yes, I know that she thought she'd clicked the little thing. You still throw the deadbolt and I really won't hear otherwise unless a woman wants to come in this thread and tell me she's lived in a city and felt comfortable having a bath without making sure the door was locked). But the flow of the film is strong enough that these moments don't make a serious dent in the impact of the film as a whole.

Something that I definitely appreciated was the clear delineation that the film made between the (unseen) character of the mother and the women who are victimized by Frank. The first victim is a sex worker, but rather than the garish caricature we usually get, this is just a weary woman who is struggling to pay her rent and commiserating with a friend about it. The film switches pretty capably between Frank's point of view and that of his victims, and it's a nice way to manage building empathy for the lead character without dismissing the pain, fear, and suffering of his victims.

The movie also gets points for its unexpected and very memorable finale.

I've been waffling over whether or not I actually want to watch this.


Fun fact: the director also made a pornographic adaptation of A Christmas Carol. I have seen it and it's delightful.

The films reputation is mostly built upon two scenes. Two very long scenes. And I wasn't able to get through either of them. Not only because they were unpleasant, but because it got to the point I no longer saw any reason for myself to be subjecting myself to its endlessly repetitive violent smut. I got the point, thoroughly hated the point, and fast forwarded through them. Worst of all, at no point did I think either of them remotely justified themselves, making it pretty clear that they were that long because they were somehow meant to titillate. Which just made me feel worse for being involved in any way with it. I felt complicit in it existing. It was a bad feeling all around.



But, overall, erasing those two scenes from my memory, the film isn't without any value. There were tiny moments I found interesting. Certainly not to the point it made watching as much as I watched worth it. But at least it wasn't a completely pointless exercise.


Also, keep in mind, I don't like hardcore pornography to begin with, and so I probably have a significantly lower tolerance for this kind of thing. I also wouldn't be surprised that there isn't an absolutely huge amount of similar shit to be found all over the internet. The shock of such a thing is probably fairly diluted these days. That said, I can't imagine it being something that would go down easy with anyone, even those who have a stronger stomach for what this is peddling.

Cold Skin

https://boxd.it/2QAk3F

A well made, low budget “blender” film (as in throw Night of the Living Dead, the Shape of Water, the Descent and the Lighthouse in a blender and you get this film!). Not everything works but I admired the ambition, effects and atmosphere.

3.5/5

6.5? Alright, I thought that was closer to a 5.

Maniac has to be at least an 8-8.5.

Martyrs (the original) also should be around that point, if not a bit higher.

I love that you said this.

Well, this is interesting.
I have avoided this movie for years, while also feeling like I should watch it, as a Horror/grindhouse fan. Something just made me feel like it was gonna leave me feeling like Last House On The Left, which was not good. It's funny, people talk about the third act of that film and I'm like, "It had a third act?", because the first too left me basically numb and I didn't really even pay attention to the last 20 minutes. And historically, I have enjoyed some pretty hardcore shit, my favorite movie when I was twelve years old was Videodrome, and I loved Vice Squad and The Exterminator at about the same age, maybe 14 or 15, but I didn't enjoy that (LHotL, even though I thought it was a fairly good film all things considered) and I didn't enjoy I Spit On Your Grave either, for another example. So, even thought I feel like a lot of people have a healthy respect for Maniac, I kinda just didn't wanna see it.
But this sounds better. I mean, this sorta sounds like the best-case scenario for a film like this, so now maybe I'll make this a late September watch, before I get into October.

On a side note, where does Don't Go In The House rank? Is that like a 5? Or just a 4 on this scale?

I would put it about halfway between TCM and Maniac, maybe closer to Maniac. It has a lot of similarities with Maniac, but the violent isn't quite as gruesome from what I recall. I'd throw out numbers but apparently I was way more perturbed by Maniac than everyone else here, so I'll let you average out my scores.

__________________

Trying to figure out what a 1 would be on the splatter movie scale. Blood Feast?

Two Thousand Maniacs is significantly tamer than Blood Feast

Color Me Blood Red is even tamer and a far worse film. A 1 on multiple scales!

It's been a while, but I remember that being meaner. Blood Feast was more graphic, but also goofier, if I recall correctly.

Awwww....I didn't hate it, even though my review was entirely backhanded. It at least feels its runtime, unlike the Wizard of Gore which feels eight hours long.