"Maniac" Remake in Production: Elijah Wood signs on.

[The Tall Man]

Maniac was a classic as far as I'm concerned. I loved it years ago and still do now. Yes it has flaws like most 80's slashers, but it's one hell of a gory sleazy movie. Can't wait to see the remake, from what i've read and seen so far it's gonna be good with any luck.

[DVD-fanatic-9]

I've seen better gory and better sleazy horror films than Maniac.

And, what's up with everyone calling it a slasher film? It isn't. It's a "psychological" exploitation serial-killer splatter film. The only even remotely slasher influenced scene has more in common with Dressed to Kill than Halloween, Chainsaw, Friday, Christmas, or the teens-in-the-house section of Bay of Blood.

In a previous reply, I called this film a combination (rip-off) of Deranged and Eyes of Laura Mars. Considering his ties with Bob Clark and Alan Ormsby and his interest in Alice, Sweet Alice- I don't see there being anyway anyone could rebuke this. Of course, my point being that neither Deranged nor Mars were slasher films either. (Not really.)

[mcchrist]

And, what's up with everyone calling it a slasher film? It isn't. It's a "psychological" exploitation serial-killer splatter film. The only even remotely slasher influenced scene has more in common with Dressed to Kill than Halloween, Chainsaw, Friday, Christmas, or the teens-in-the-house section of Bay of Blood.

I have been saying this for years. The "slasher" film focuses on the victims' point of view, front and center. In a slasher, the killer is in the background, when it comes to Maniac people immediately call it a slasher because of the poster art. It is a psycho thriller. The slasher is such a well defined genre, Maniac should have never been included ever.

[MorallySound]

Originally Posted by mcchrist

I have been saying this for years. The "slasher" film focuses on the victims' point of view, front and center. In a slasher, the killer is in the background, when it comes to Maniac people immediately call it a slasher because of the poster art. It is a psycho thriller. The slasher is such a well defined genre, Maniac should have never been included ever.

But that's the beauty of Maniac in my opinion, it's both. Frank is both the killer and the victim.

[DVD-fanatic-9]

If the end "murder" had not have been committed by bare hands, I might be inclined to bend at "supernatural slasher," like the Nightmare films. But, no: "psychological" exploitation serial-killer splatter film.

[Steel76]

Originally Posted by MorallySound

But that's the beauty of Maniac in my opinion, it's both. Frank is both the killer and the victim.

Agree, it´s the perfect mix between the psycho thriller and the slasher genre, and there are plenty of scenes in the movie that ARE "typical" slasher scenes. The scene at the subway station, the model getting attacked at home and the scene with Tom Savini getting his head blow of.

So what ever anyone thinks, "Maniac" has a place on MY slasher movie shelf

[DVD-fanatic-9]

Originally Posted by Steel76

and there are plenty of scenes in the movie that ARE "typical" slasher scenes.

I'm actually a little fuzzy about the order of the killings, but to clear that up- unless we don't see the face of Spinell's character before the first death scene, you can't truly call the film a slasher because none of the death scenes fit the slasher mold. Remember that the movie basically is following him as he commits this murder, that murder. We see where he lives and we see him out looking for victims. From the point of view of an audience watching a person watching other people. That's how I remember it.

Watching him actually stalk people and seeing his face is what invalidates your claim. It's a serial killer film, not a slasher. I'm not saying it doesn't want to be a slasher. Or that it hasn't seen them, doesn't envy them, or isn't better than most exploitation mixes of serial killer and slasher (The Prowler, The Burning, I Spit on Your Grave, and probably Mother's Day- I haven't seen it yet). But, it decided that we needed to know who the killer was at all times, to see him as himself killing people, and basically to take its' style from psycho-thrillers. Whichever ones as a genre/subgenre inspired Dressed to Kill.

"Psychological" exploitation serial-killer splatter film. Stamped.

It's official now.

[Anaestheus]

Lots of little comments:

I stand with DVD-Fanatic on this one, Maniac had some good elements, particularly Spinelli's performance, that Times Square grime, and some of the gore effects by Savini. But, overall I thought the film was uneven and sloppy. And, besides, it's the film that lead to Savini's temporary retirement from special effects (documented in his book "Grand Illusions") so it'll always get a small negative reaction from me just for that.

I'm surprised that there hasn't been much mention of Hatchet for a Honeymoon or Peeping Tom yet. Those two set the precedent for Maniac, and I also think are far superior, both in their story-telling and in the psychological exploration.

As for this whole, "is it a slasher" thing, I suppose it depends on what you want to point to as the dominant defining trait of a "slasher." If you think it the subjective exploitation of the "____ in peril" trope, then probably not. But, if you think it's the presentation of violence in a near pornographic presentation (no condemnation meant there, just didn't know how else to describe it quickly) then it definitely would be a slasher. But, man, that's also really nitpicking.

Either way, I still think it's a film that is ripe for remaking and am still looking forward to this new version.

[DVD-fanatic-9]

I define it very simply: if we follow the killer around while they kill, they must be wearing a mask and not narrating to the audience / a camera / documentary (Leslie Vernon).

Peeping Tom disappointed me. I was really expecting my guts to be wrenched. The trailer is just so powerful, unnerving, and... the movie is way too clinical. However, Hatchet for the Honeymoon was fabulous! I loved it. It's easily my favorite Bava film and, in my opinion, his best film.

[dave13]

Originally Posted by Anaestheus

I stand with DVD-Fanatic on this one, Maniac had some good elements, particularly Spinelli's performance, that Times Square grime, and some of the gore effects by Savini. But, overall I thought the film was uneven and sloppy. And, besides, it's the film that lead to Savini's temporary retirement from special effects (documented in his book "Grand Illusions") so it'll always get a small negative reaction from me just for that.

i don't know anything about this. was his experience making maniac that bad? didn't he return for the earlier commentary? he must have made his peace with it...

i think dvd-fanatic is correct, its not a slasher film. a slasher is pretty much wall-to-wall suspense, to varrying degrees - the killer is always out there, and could strike at any moment, so there's always the threat of danger. but there's no suspense whenever frank isn't stalking someone, because we know where the source of danger is in the film, and we know that - for the moment, at least - he's not a threat. in those scenes, especially when he's interacting with caroline munroe, it is definitely an exploitation drama.

but there ARE several scenes that are very slasher-esque, especially the nurse being chased in the subway station.

[Chomp]

Originally Posted by Anaestheus

But, overall I thought the film was uneven and sloppy.

Ha...you were expecting something different from somebody hot off of directing a slew of porn films? Comparing Maniac to a film such as Hatchet for a Honeymoon seems about as pointless as comparing Batman Begins to The Toxic Avenger. I mean, I see more glaring similarities in a film like Water Power, than say Hatchet for the Honeymoon.

Any artistic integrity the film has can be accredited to one man: Joe Spinell. If it wasn’t for his script, dedication to the project, and portrayal of Frank Zito, no one would be talking about Maniac. It would have been lucky to have reached the same popularity as Nightmare or Pieces.

Lustig’s interest in directing Maniac, at the time, was profit…and horror films with graphic violence were becoming HUGELY popular,… Lustig’s direction on Maniac’s violence parallels almost to the “T” on how one would direct a “money shot” in a porn film,… he essentially took what he learned shooting graphic sex and applied it to shooting graphic violence instead. And that made everything 10x more disturbing than it needed it to be. Friday the 13th has graphic kills, but they are “fun kills”….kills people often cheer for when they see them on screen. Maniac’s focal point towards violence as some sort of climax and the way it’s pornographically shot makes it all the more unsettling…and at the time, that wasn’t something that was often done in a well-publicized horror film…it was only after Maniac that you’d see films like Nightmare, Pieces, Henry: Portrait of Serial Killer and The New York Ripper start to spring up.

Is Maniac a slasher film?...it has slasher film elements. It’s not a straight forward stalk and slash…I mean, there is a bit of a character study on Zito and a rather odd interpretation of Beauty and the Beast. I guess I can see the argument for both sides.

[DVD-fanatic-9]

Originally Posted by dave13

but there ARE several scenes that are very slasher-esque, especially the nurse being chased in the subway station.

That's what I meant when I mentioned Dressed to Kill.

Originally Posted by Chomp

Ha...you were expecting something different from somebody hot off of directing a slew of porn films? Comparing Maniac to a film such as Hatchet for a Honeymoon seems about as pointless as comparing Batman Begins to The Toxic Avenger. I mean, I see more glaring similarities in a film like Water Power, than say Hatchet for a Honeymoon.

I think he was talking about the story. The killers are both characters with serious mommy issues.

[Anaestheus]

Originally Posted by dave13

i don't know anything about this. was his experience making maniac that bad? didn't he return for the earlier commentary? he must have made his peace with it...

In the book Savini talks about how he started to feel more and more like an assassin, going from horror film to horror film with his black bag, trying to come up with ways to kill himself. And he apparently had a profound moment when he shot himself in the face with a shotgun. That lead to him taking a break from FX for a while.

[Anaestheus]

Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9

I think he was talking about the story. The killers are both characters with serious mommy issues.

Yeah, I was thinking of the comparison being more about how they all try to get "into" the mind of the killer, present the killer as a sympathetic character, show the killings as a release of sexual tension, use of mannequins in the case of Hatchet, etc.

[Chomp]

I still don't know understand why Hatchet for the Honeymoon was brought up. Was it because it explored all those issues before Maniac? So what?...do you remember a little film called Psycho? Is it because Hatchet for a Honeymoon was better at exploring those issues? Well that's pretty obvious, hence my Batman Begins/Toxic Avenger analogy.

I don't think anybody here is claiming Maniac to be an original idea or some sort of stroke of genius horror film.