the night watchman
01-05-2001, 12:24 AM
"Maniac" bears a reputation so infamous among the annals of horror you'd expect the movie itself to exhibit a little more … infamy.
I remember first hearing about it on Siskel and Ebert's show on PBS. Siskel said he walked out after the first twenty minutes. Neither he nor Ebert had enough words in their collective vocabulary to express just how much they despised this movie. They said they couldn't even show any clips because it was just too gruesome. Of course, I had to see it.
After seeing "Maniac" twice - the first time, when it had just hit video, and second time, about two weeks ago - I beg to differ. Quite a lot of this movie could be shown on TV for the simple fact most of its running time is slow, tedious, and uneventful. As I prepared to watch it the first time I remember expecting non-stop carnage, endless buckets of blood, and to be deeply traumatized by the brutal imagery on display. Instead I found my attention wandering from the screen to a stain in the carpet, wondering what it was, and how it got there .... Oops, did something just happen? Nope. How long has that stain been there, and was there any hope of getting it out ....
The second time - nearly twenty years later - I went back to it because I thought I had been too naive to perceive the controversial work of art I'd kept hearing about. This time I was bereft of even a stain to interest me while the movie ran (although I was spared five minutes thanks to William Lustig's merciful excision of the restaurant scene in the Director's Cut).
I simply do not, nor have I ever understood what the big deal about this movie is. True, the gore effects are as impressive as is to be expected from Tom Savini. But it would take the most stalwart gorehound to sit through the endless nurse-getting-stalked sequence, or the Zito-talks-to-a-girl scene, or the even more lethargic Zito-talks-to-himself scenes, without thumbing fast-forward at least two or three times.
Joe Spinell usually receives much acclaim for his performance as Frank Zito. I'll give him credit for throwing himself into the role, but, c'mon, the was no thespian. His schizophrenic mumblings, whinings, and grunting breaths are at best amateurish and at worst unintentionally funny. William Lustig is a hack, and always will be. While I enjoyed his "other" Maniac movies ("Maniac Cop" I & II), his direction of "Maniac" was strictly by-the-numbers, having collected every cliché that had appeared in the slasher genre's short existence up to that point and then sprinkled them throughout his movie. Did you truly not expect Mom to spring out of her grave at exactly the moment she did? Did you not know that Zito's eyes would pop open in the final frame? Seriously?
Unlike superior psychotic-eye-view movies like "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" or the superlative "American Psycho," "Maniac" contains no character arch or dramatic arch. Why is Zito able to maintain normalcy for awhile with the photographer, and then completely loose it at the end? I dunno. Why is he horrified about killing the prostitute, but unrepentant about the nurse? Got me. The progression of events is haphazard at best, the dialogue is insipid, the sound muddy, the pace ill-timed, and all the murders are stagy and unconvincing (was that girl in the car getting bored screaming for so long, or what?).
Many people are deeply offended by "Maniac." The only thing that offended me was the hour and a half it took from my life. Twice.
[This message has been edited by the night watchman (edited 01-05-2001).]
I remember first hearing about it on Siskel and Ebert's show on PBS. Siskel said he walked out after the first twenty minutes. Neither he nor Ebert had enough words in their collective vocabulary to express just how much they despised this movie. They said they couldn't even show any clips because it was just too gruesome. Of course, I had to see it.
After seeing "Maniac" twice - the first time, when it had just hit video, and second time, about two weeks ago - I beg to differ. Quite a lot of this movie could be shown on TV for the simple fact most of its running time is slow, tedious, and uneventful. As I prepared to watch it the first time I remember expecting non-stop carnage, endless buckets of blood, and to be deeply traumatized by the brutal imagery on display. Instead I found my attention wandering from the screen to a stain in the carpet, wondering what it was, and how it got there .... Oops, did something just happen? Nope. How long has that stain been there, and was there any hope of getting it out ....
The second time - nearly twenty years later - I went back to it because I thought I had been too naive to perceive the controversial work of art I'd kept hearing about. This time I was bereft of even a stain to interest me while the movie ran (although I was spared five minutes thanks to William Lustig's merciful excision of the restaurant scene in the Director's Cut).
I simply do not, nor have I ever understood what the big deal about this movie is. True, the gore effects are as impressive as is to be expected from Tom Savini. But it would take the most stalwart gorehound to sit through the endless nurse-getting-stalked sequence, or the Zito-talks-to-a-girl scene, or the even more lethargic Zito-talks-to-himself scenes, without thumbing fast-forward at least two or three times.
Joe Spinell usually receives much acclaim for his performance as Frank Zito. I'll give him credit for throwing himself into the role, but, c'mon, the was no thespian. His schizophrenic mumblings, whinings, and grunting breaths are at best amateurish and at worst unintentionally funny. William Lustig is a hack, and always will be. While I enjoyed his "other" Maniac movies ("Maniac Cop" I & II), his direction of "Maniac" was strictly by-the-numbers, having collected every cliché that had appeared in the slasher genre's short existence up to that point and then sprinkled them throughout his movie. Did you truly not expect Mom to spring out of her grave at exactly the moment she did? Did you not know that Zito's eyes would pop open in the final frame? Seriously?
Unlike superior psychotic-eye-view movies like "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" or the superlative "American Psycho," "Maniac" contains no character arch or dramatic arch. Why is Zito able to maintain normalcy for awhile with the photographer, and then completely loose it at the end? I dunno. Why is he horrified about killing the prostitute, but unrepentant about the nurse? Got me. The progression of events is haphazard at best, the dialogue is insipid, the sound muddy, the pace ill-timed, and all the murders are stagy and unconvincing (was that girl in the car getting bored screaming for so long, or what?).
Many people are deeply offended by "Maniac." The only thing that offended me was the hour and a half it took from my life. Twice.
[This message has been edited by the night watchman (edited 01-05-2001).]