Tag: Psychopath

Maniac (1980)

Posted on by fenrisfil

We’re back to the world of 80’s horror again. This is 1980’s “Maniac” from director William Lustig, who would go on to create the Maniac Cop franchise in the late 80’s. The story is by Joe Spinell who also stars as the titular character. Spinell is mostly known as an actor. Cinematography is by Robert Lindsay and music is by Jay Chattaway. In the UK this was one of the infamous “Video Nasties” and was banned until 2002. This features the effects work of Tom Savini. Savini also has a small role as one of the victims and as a result got to blow his own head up. Effectively he was cast because he happened to already have a model of his own head for just such occasion. That’s Tom Savini for you.

The movie follows the exploits of deranged serial killer “Frank Zito” (Spinell) as he goes on a killing spree around New York City. Zito’s madness stems from his mistreatment at the hands of his deceased prostitute mother. So now he seeks out young women to kill. He also takes their scalps and puts them on his mannequins. After photographer “Anna D’Antoni” (Caroline Munro) takes his photo, he tracks her to her apartment. However, when he introduces himself he is invited inside as she recognized him from the photo. The pair start dating, but with Zito still dealing with his madness things cannot possibly last.

Character Study

This is an interesting horror film, but with a number of issues and limitations. The movie follows the psycho, which gives Zito a lot more depth than killers often get. The main problem is we don’t really get to know any of the other characters. Even Anna is just sort of there. It doesn’t help that she is so incredibly nice and friendly to this person that was very obviously stalking her. One of her colleagues Rita acts similarly when Zito randomly turns up at her apartment. She doesn’t invite him in and start dating him, but isn’t remotely freaked out but this near-stranger bringing her a bracelet. Moments like these took me out of the narrative. Really any scene not directly related to killing or madness was a negative.

The movie is a character study of a psychopath. These kinds of movies are fairly common these days, but in 1980 I can only think of a handful of examples that would have existed. Peeping Tom (1960) stands out the most and is easily a superior film. Better filmed, better acted and with a more complicated and involved story. However for what this film lacks, it attempts to make up for it with violence and gore. In it’s day, the violence would have been quite shocking. These days, not so much, but the kill scenes still stand out 45 years later as somewhat unique and original. Tom Savini’s effects work obviously helped, but the scenes are all well designed and emphasize the sheer terror of the situation.

Conclusion

Maniac is strangely boring for a movie with so much death and violence. We really know all we need to about the killer fairly early on and after that it just becomes rinse and repeat until he inevitably the wheels fall off the wagon. The scenes of madness are played out quite well and the kills are very well set up and executed. But despite that, what little plot surrounds it isn’t particularly interesting and most of the characters don’t feel realistic. Anna should have been introduced earlier. Instead second half of the movie feels rushed while the earlier half lacks content outside of kills and the killer talking to himself.

That’s the thing with this film, the script has some good ideas but fails in the detail and frankly with some of the basics. In places it is very atmospheric and it sort of rides the line between gritty 70’s horrors and 80’s slashers. Honestly, this is a hard one to score. Horror fans may find this interesting, but not ground breaking. There are certainly better psychopath character study movies out there. Overall I think this falls just short of a general recommendation. So this is a high 5.5/10 (High enough that I will round up to 6 for my IMDb score). One for the horror faithful out there, but the general audience probably won’t like it.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

Stoker (2013)

Posted on by fenrisfil

“Stoker” (2013) is a movie that’s been on my watch list for a long time. This is director Park Chan-wook’s English language debut. This is the director of “Old Boy” (2003), a deeply disturbing, yet compelling revenge thriller that takes taboo to the extreme. This movie has a number of unique elements to it’s production. While Clint Mansel provides most of the music, Philip Glass was originally on board as composer and created a key piece of diagetic music for the film. The writer here is none other than “Captain Cold” himself, actor Wentworth Miller in his screenplay debut. The core cast is Nicole Kidman, Mia Wasikowska and David Alford. All very good actors, but none were the first choice. Chung Chung-hoon, a long time collaborator of the director, provides cinematography.He has also worked with Edgar Wright on his last two movies.

On the day of her eighteenth birthday “India Stoker” (Wasikowska) and her mother “Evelyn” (Kidman) are shocked to learn of the death of India’s father “Richard” in a car accident. India is a very distant and cold young lady who rarely forms attachments and has no friends. The family are however very well off. At the wake, the pair are surprised at the arrival of Richards brother “Charles”, a man neither were aware of. Supposedly he has been traveling the world. After discussion with Evelyn, it is revealed he is staying with the family for a while. Richard is a charming man, but it becomes clear to India something isn’t quite right with him. But then the same is true of India.

The Elephant in the Room

So this is the second Park Chan-wook movie I have seen, the previous one being Oldboy. If you don’t want a major Oldboy spoilers, skip the rest of this paragraph. I find it a little odd both these movies involve incest. In Oldboy the incest was unintentional and part of a convoluted revenge scheme. Here it is entirely intentional and there is no illusion of innocence on either party. It is at least between an uncle and niece instead of a father and daughter, but it’s still incest. This is a psychological thriller of course and the pair in question are both psychopaths. So it’s not like these are characters of high morality. This is a very dark story.

So now we’ve acknowledged the elephant in the room. It’s time to talk about the rest of it. Park Chan-Wook is a very good director with an eye for detail. He can tell a dark story like this and fill it with subtle symbolism. Perhaps the problem here is that it’s a very obvious and somewhat blunt story. Unlike Oldboy there isn’t really a mystery here, at least not one you can’t guess fairly easily. It’s pretty clear India and Charles are psychopaths. The way it plays out leaves a lot of questions as to if certain things are real or not, specifically the duet piano piece the pair play, which may just be in India’s imagination. The trouble is, it doesn’t really mater.

Duet

So this is a film with a bit of a disconnect between the story and the presentation. But this isn’t really a plot based story. As I said, you can largely tell where it will all go. This is a character based horror, where the symbolism is all reflective of the mental state of it’s primary psychopath, India. Regardless of whether the piano duet scene is real or in her head, it is an incredibly scene. The piano piece was written by Philip Glass specifically for the movie. It was designed as a duet that requires one of the players to effectively embrace the other by requiring them to reach around to their other side to complete it. It’s actually an incredible piece of music in itself and easily the best scene.

That said, I didn’t find India particularly compelling as a character. She’s creepy, but also intentionally somewhat blank. Instead Charlie, who is presented as the classic charismatic, manipulative psychopath is far more interesting. But since we never really know how much of his appearance is genuine or India’s imagination, his impact is also diminished. Evelyn is also an interesting character, a woman determined to handle her burden with elegance. It’s a subtle performance from Nicole Kidman that really works. Yet she is not really given a lot of screen time. There is so much good in this film, yet the movie seems far more concerned with the incestuous romance angle.

Conclusion

The screenplay is a problem in my view. Wentworth Miller is not a script writer by trade, but obviously had an idea he thought was good. The screenplay remained unproduced for a long time but found it’s way on to the famous “Black list” of best unproduced screenplays. I can see why, it has compelling elements but also feels like something very difficult to make work. For Park Chan-wook, this is his first English language movie. Yet he is not fluent and required a translator. Between these two factors I believe this is why the film feels such a mixed bag. On one hand it is visually and socially compelling and the director got solid performances from all the actors. Hard to say if this is the director or just that all three of the leads are very good actors anyway.

Ultimately this is going to be a difficult one to rate. I did not like the story. I did not really buy India’s character or really enjoy her presentation. Her voice over also felt unnecessary. But the movie is well made from a technical standpoint. I suspect I may not have a true score for this until I’ve had more time to think on it and maybe give it a second viewing. I could end up adjusting it anywhere from a 5.5-7.5. It’s that kind of movie. As it stands, despite this review probably sounding more negative than positive, I think the movie is worth watching. This is a more likely to win awards than fill theaters. It’s sort of unpleasant to watch, yet compelling too. I’m giving it a 6.5/10.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.