Maniac (the best modern horror remake ever?) (2012)

[HungFist]

"This isn’t only one of the best horror remakes ever produced but a masterpiece of technical wizardry and a deserving horror classic in its own right."
- http://www.dreadcentral.com/reviews/maniac-2012

I've been dying to see this since the first reviews arrived last year. And the praise is coming from genre fans who usually throw up at the sight of a remake and consider the original Maniac a classic of the genre. Supposed to be extremely brutal (enough to have censorship problems and not win mainstream popularity), but equally brilliant.

Shot (almost) entirely from the killer's point of view, with star Elijah Wood's face only visible via mirrors and other reflections. The film is a French production, with Alexandre Aja as one of the main producers with the original film's director William Lustig.

I still have to wait for a few months before the local opening.

trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHPXeWpION8

[saltysam]

think is due out on BD in France very shortly.

[HungFist]

think is due out on BD in France very shortly.

June 12.

The French theatrical opening was around the new year. I was in Paris at the time, and the subways were full of billboards.

[Markgway]

The original is misogynistic garbage and according to Mark Kermode the remake is a glossier version of same.

[Shingster]

I wouldn't say the original film is misogynistic, the only sympathetic characters are the women, but it is intensely boring. Great performance from Joe Spinell though!

[HungFist]

The original is misogynistic garbage and according to Mark Kermode the remake is a glossier version of same.

Donald Duck said the same. I'm still willing to give the film a chance, though.

[Markgway]

I wouldn't say the original film is misogynistic, the only sympathetic characters are the women, but it is intensely boring. Great performance from Joe Spinell though!

I like Spinell as a character actor, but he was grossly miscast. Would Caroline Munro look twice at someone like him, really? I guess, at least Elijah Wood has a babyface appeal. For me the film isn't about anything except a psycho's hatred of (real) women and idolisation of their (grotesque) mannequin form. Did I miss something? If that's not misogyny, what is it? Also if you hear Tom Savini and co. talk about the exploding shotgun effect, it's apparent that this was the filmmakers raison d'etre since it adds zilch to the 'story'. This isn't creepy character study, it's a wallow in repellent behaviour. Kermode's view is that the remake offers nothing new, other than it's more polished. Just as nasty and just as empty.

Donald Duck said the same. I'm still willing to give the film a chance, though.

Is he the Daily Mail's new film critic? My problem is that I can never understand what he's saying!?!

I'm not sure what's to be gained by watching... but if that's your bag go for it!

[Shingster]

Yeah the Spinell-Munro relationship is possibly the most ludicrous ever committed to celluloid, but I would argue that if anything you should put the blame on the casting of the gorgeous Munro considering Spinell is completely immersed in his role in all other aspects. They should have cast someone less glamourous or made the character blind!

Also, Spinell's character is obviously an extreme misogynist, but at no point does the film invite the viewer to share his viewpoint on women. The title of the film pretty much tells you how you're supposed to approach the main character. I agree that the film is (mostly) empty and exploitative purely for exploitation's sake, but it certainly doesn't make any misogynistic statements. Also I'd argue that while Lustig may have been more interest in the grand guignol than the character study, Joe Spinell was obviously fully invested in the character side of things and his script does reflect this, so there is a tiny bit of depth there (not enough imo).

[Markgway]

Also, Spinell's character is obviously an extreme misogynist, but at no point does the film invite the viewer to share his viewpoint on women.

OK, that's fair. However, if misogynistic behaviour is all that's left - either by design or by default - then what else can you take from the movie? Sure, the film isn't saying 'this is a good idea, guys, go try it!'; but if you watch Spinell slobber and slaughter for 90 mins, and are invited to enjoy the process, if not the reality, isn't there an inherent misogyny in that?

[Shingster]

I personally don't think so, but then I didn't get much enjoyment out of the film! You do have a point though that there is a danger when you focus on the violence and mindset of a completely warped character to the extent of Maniac that the wrong type of viewer would be "invited" into a misogynistic mindset. I would still say that it would be a rare thing for someone to be affected to that extent, so it's not enough to label the film misogynistic, but it would certainly be interesting to see someone put that question to Bill Lustig himself!

[Markgway]

Hung Fist is very enthusiastic about this film (and it's remake) and I'm wondering why? I can't see any appeal or value whatsoever. That doesn't mean 'he's wrong and I'm right'. Maybe Hung has seen something both you and I missed? I'd like to know what that is. All I could see was graphic depictions of misogyny (I think we can agree on that much). Whatever Spinell's noble(?) artistic or thematic intentions - a quote from KFC "Joe Spinell put his heart in to that film. he said it was "his Rocky", after Sylvester Stallone snuffed him. (sic)" (Rocky, really? No wonder Stallone dissed him if he said that! ) - exploitation is all there is... unless Hung and fellow enthusiasts saw something different. But what?

[HungFist]

Mark, you're jumping into conclusions, I haven't seen either film

[Markgway]

Mark, you're jumping into conclusions, I haven't seen either film

I saw this comment:

"Supposed to be extremely brutal (enough to have censorship problems and not win mainstream popularity), but equally brilliant."

and (wrongly) assumed that was your verdict.

So that BD was a blind buy?

Hmm.......

[HungFist]

If you're talking about the original Maniac, yes, the DVD was a blind buy at 4€. I had been meaning to see it for a long time as it's held in high regard among genre cinema fans.

The case with the remake is similar: it's been praised by hard core genre fans; those people who love 80's genre cinema and consider Expendables 2 a disgrace to 80's action flicks (sorry for a strange comparison, but the way how the CGI packed, making-fun-of-itself-cause-we-were-so-ebarrassing-in-the-80’s Expendables 2 somehow became praised as the "return of the 80’s" is, In My Opinion, a perfect example of "genre fans" who don't have clue about real genre cinema). *

Secondly, the UK trailer looks terrific. I love the visual style and the music. The film has been praised for exact same things: brilliant visuals and an 80’s style soundtrack, they say.

Thirdly, I don’t really give a damn if a movie is supposedly misogynist because the victims are female. I don’t count how many of the victims are women or men. It’s a horror movie about a maniac killer. Wouldn't it be silly if he was being fair and killing men and women, straight and gays, blacks and whites, and asians, too, evenly in sake of "political correctness"? He's a killer, he has the right to choose who he kills

(I do get your point, though, but personally I have never come across a film that would advertise dangerous behavior in a way that I would consider risky. Well, maybe Jackie Chan films as kids may not understand that kicking a friend in the face is no laughing matter, but horror flicks like Maniac are 18 rated movies anyway. I have enough trust in adults to deal with it. Especially in exploitation movies if you can find real "misogyny" then it's more of a laughing matter than anything else as you wonder in disbelief whether the filmmakers were really serious. You can't take such stuff even half serious. At least I can't.)

* Expendables 2 is not a terrible movie, has some good things in it, but to call it the comeback of the 80’s??? And this is not aimed at you, I know you gave it a positive review, but I just can’t even begin to understand some people claiming it's anything like the real 80’s stuff...

[Shingster]

Maniac has a very loyal fanbase, it's a film I've known about for decades before I finally got round to watching it, although most of its notoriety over here stemmed from its treatment by the BBFC. As a character piece it's not totally without merit, but there's only enough plot & character study & violence to fill out maybe 40mins of a film maximum, the rest is mind-numbingly tedious. When I saw it last halloween I commented on another forum that "There's only so many scenes of Joe Spinell sweating in a room full of scalpy-mannequins you can go through before wishing an actual narrative might form!", which pretty much somes up the film: Sweating & Gore.

[Markgway]

Oh, I know The Expendables 2 is very much a pastiche of 80s action cinema and can't be compared to the real thing. I still (quite) enjoyed it for what it was though. Same with Bullet to the Head.

I don't have a problem with the victims in Maniac being female. That's not what makes it misogynistic. The problem is the exploitative treatment of the subject matter and 'spectacular kills'. I'm not averse to strong violence or gore - it's the how and the why that concerns me.

Do I think Maniac will turn out sweaty killers?
No.
Does that absolve it of any responsibility?
That's a debate.

[HungFist]

ok, now I have seen both films and love them both.

The original is a fantastic film. It's a got terrific, dirty New York feel and atmosphere. Very much a grindhouse film with some unforgettable gore effects (Savini in the car!), great cinematography and music + a terrific performance by Joe Spinell. The film draws you into his world – not to sympathize with it, but to witness it. Clearly, for some viewers this is too much and they would prefer a moralizing story or a thriller structure with cops chasing him at every turn. But for me, this is real horror cinema! Though the film suffers from two flaws - Caroline Munro's poor performance, and seriously cutting corners in the romance part - it is a frightening film that draws a very dark vision.

Complaints about the film lacking content could be expected, just like some people will claim Drive has nothing but kills and Ryan Gosling staring silently. Just because the film doesn't constantly throw stuff at your face, doesn't mean it doesn't have any content - or room for content. It is not always important, nor clear, whether any "invisible content" really was written into a film. It is more important that a film builds good frames and then allows the viewer some room to think on his own. But make no mistake - this doesn't equal to lazy filmmaking. The effect will never realize unless you first build characters and a world that draws you in. This is where Spinell's acting and Lustig's moody capturing of dirty and dangerous New York comes becomes vital.

Of course, the above is by no means a dominating part in Maniac, but it has bits and pieces if it, and does it rather successfully. Plus the film really benefits from its grindhouse feel and look - it gives it certain "street credibility" that you don't find in more polished productions.

It's no wonder Nicolas Winding Refn adores Maniac and calls it a fusion of American splatter and European arthouse that has never been matched.

I'll write about the remake later.

[HungFist]

...continued

The remake is excellent as well – only a notch behind the terrific original. It retains many of the same strengths – excellent use of big city locations, and a horrifying dive into the mind and world of a mentally disturbed killer - but achieves them in different ways.

Spinell’s performance was obviously hard to match, so wisely they opted for a different path. The POV cinematography, which only reveals the killer’s face a few times via mirrors and such, not only forces the viewer into the killer’s world with no escape, but also effectively makes comparisons to Spinell needless.

Hiring Elijah Wood was a rather successful move, as he makes a different kind of killer. Some will complain Frodo cannot possibly be scary, but that’s a matter of opinion. I think many of the real world killers are exactly like Wood: shy young men who kill women and children because they wouldn’t stand a chance against a grown up man.

Technically the film is terrific: cinematography and soundtrack are excellent, special effects also, and acting from both Wood and female lead Nora Arnezeder is great. The film improves on the original in the romance part, which is now much better developed. At the same time, it doesn’t over-scrip itself but allows viewer some freedom of thought and psychological challenge – and will provoke accusations of emptiness thanks to this.

Except for a couple of needlessly recycled scenes, the film really stands on its own. The POV does not work flawlessly, though – in some scenes the camera imitates the killer’s view successfully, while in others the illusion breaks due to too slick camerawork.

In any case, this is the strongest horror movie in a while, and psychologically far heavier stuff than your typical splatter roller coasters.

**********************'

Less amusing about the remake is that the fucking idiot Japanese distributor played me a censored version. They wanted to attract Lord of the Rings and teen girl audiences, and sell it as a bizarre love story, so they optically censored some of the killings to obtain R15+ rating. That is madness – Maniac doesn’t (shouldn’t) become a 15-rated film no matter how much you censor the kills because its horror is in the overall vision, not in any specific scene.
- http://curse.jp/misc/20130605051525.html

New Zealand did not approve the film either. Film fest screenings aside, the film has been banned from public distribution.
- http://www.movie-censorship.com/news_en.php?ID=5815

US BD is $13 at Amazon. Pre-ordered!
- http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DPUB57Y

[Markgway]

It doesn't surprise me in the least that Hung would love these movies (although how anyone could love such material is beyond me). Our opinions are polar opposite and that's why cinema has to cater for all viewpoints and tastes.