SHERDOG MOVIE CLUB: Week 37 Discussion - Maniac

[europe1]

The comparisons to John Carpenter are completely warranted

Another thing that It Follows (agree that it's great, btw) does to imitate Carpenter is the camerawork. They use wide-angle lenses (so that you get a broad view of the characters surroundings) and panning shots. The result being a sense of dread and foreboding.

I appreciated the cinematography, and the use of both muted colors and shadows.

I thought it came out looking mostly bland. The darkness didn't add to any sense of mood to the piece. It just made the screen look dark.

I'm sort of struggling to come up with a good comparison to another movie that did what Maniac did but did it good... Cat People I guess would be one example of a movie that used a lot of darkness and shadow but made it look atmospheric. But those two films are quite diffrent.

And just for the hell of it, another American Psycho gif:

I always found it funny that he's more interested in himself than the two chicks his banging. He's such a narcisist that he gets more turned-on by himself than the two prostitutes. The author of the orignal novel is gay. Sort of wonder if he was projecting or something when he wrote that.

To me, it's always meant perfection. Not just the pinnacle of the craft, but actual perfection. And I don't really believe in perfection.

To me, ratings should be comparative based. Each movie should be viewed in context of everything else you've seen and judged accordingly. So the number of tens you give out should be less than one procent of all the films you've seen, and be the best among them.

For example, on IMDB I've rated around 3400 movies, and of those 20 are a perfect 10. With most ending up in the 5 to 6 category.

Damn. Brutal.

You weren't holding back this week, were you?

I was dead-tired writing that and hoped that if I was really mean then I would get my point across quicker so that I could go to bed.

... didn't really work.

And I don't really believe in perfection.

Not 12 Angry Men. It's a good movie, but a 10? I don't know about all that.

Never been keen on Schindler's List tbh

I will make sure to . . . get to it soon.

It's a 9/10 for me.

Come and See is my go to whenever I need a reminder that Nazism's bad

Every time I see that movie mentioned on these forums I experience Nam-styled flashbacks to first watching it -- and then live in a trauma-induced coma for a couple of hours.

as a single lonely mother looking for affections wherever she could find them.

I sort of got the impression that she was a wanton exhibisionist. A prostitute or a lonely mother looking for affection would have been more protective and sheltering of her son. Wood-mommy didn't seem to care at all what effect all her toomfollery was having on him, which indicates that she was only into it for the debauchery and sensory stimulation. Notice how she brought in two guys at once, for instance.

Regardless, if you think he's a caricature and this movie is more or less one, is that in and of itself a bad thing? Just the thought of this being inherently a bad thing reminds me of his caricature in Sin City and actually how fantastic that character was.

Well that goes into the definition of the word "caricature". The word caricature is inherently a negative one. If a performance is effective then it can't really be called a caricature.

The bad thing about Wood's performance in Maniac is that it cranks-up the self-doubt, nervousness and neurotic behavior of serial killers to eleven. None of those emotions are menacing or engaging if played straight. They are so exaggerated that they become ostentatiously eye-rolling.

Is Sin City an exaggeration? Yeah... I suppose you could say so. But it works for two reason. Firstly, It's a minimalist portrayal, eliciting menace through not showing much at all. 2: It feels organic for the film it's featured in. Wood's stone-cold psycho is at home in the world of Sin City, him and it mesh-togheter really well.

But unlike Sin City -- which clearly takes place in some parallel dimension -- Manic is much more rooted in our "supposed" reality. And viewed in the context of the real world, Wood's behavior seems so outlandish and laughable that it dulls any edge the movie intends to have. If the rest of the world had reacted to him in some more organic way (or if the characters had been better written, many are really one-dimensional, asshole black guy, coquettish date, arthouse snob, etc) then maybe this would have leant a helping-hand to Wood's performance, but no such thing occured.

I feel the exact opposite. And by the apparent emotion in your writing I think it triggered something in you, like it or not.

Cinephilia triggered.

I disagree again. There wasn't just a passing mention of his mommy. There were at least three visually disturbing scenes that put the story together about his past. Would all of that worked say other way? By him divulging his troubled past to Anna or a victim on the first date? I think the subject matter and maybe vulgarity is more troubling than the manner the story was told.

My trouble with the "mommy stuff" is more that it was told in such a straight-forward manner. Wood has flashbacks to seeing his mother have kinky sex and feels traumatized by this. It's a straight-up this=this scenario. My reaction to all this is just... "okay", "affermative", "I got it". There is no stimulating methodology to how it's told.

I... guess the perversity of it all adds something (that the first one was a threesome. And the second one being viewed as-if in public). But Wood is such an unengaging character for me to begin with that those bites don't sink deep either.


To put this in context, I'll babble about some comparative examples. Here the director of Manic was trying to set-up an explanation for his protagonists behavior through some previous trauma endured. To name some movies I thought did this really well, I'd name Tenebre, Psycho, original Friday the 13th, The Cell... and even stuff like Bram Stoker's Dracula and Black Sunday

These four films tried establishing the same thing that Maniac did: personality as explained through trauma. But they all did it in some "special" way that made it feel good. In Tenebre and Psycho, it's slowly and subtlety revealed through the course of the film (with symbolic dreams in Tenebre and Bates odd disposition towards his mother in Psycho), the explanation is left to dawn and linger in your mind with curiosity and then be brought out in full-force at a cataclysmic juncture. In Firday the 13th, the explenation comes out-of-nowhere in the end, but it works because it's so off-kiltered to the rest of the film, feeling almost as a shock, and because of Mrs Voorhees mad performance. The Cell is like Maniac very up-front about the mommy stuff, but it's saved by it's visual brilliance. And Dracula and Black Sunday do it through a strong origin-story at the beginning of the film, which impact is so strong that it resonates through the rest of the film, giving context to everything else that you're seeing.

All of these films tried establishing the same thing. But they all did it their own, special way. I just didn't think that Manic had that special-factor going. It's a generic mommy-explanation.

The slow-carving of the agent's back didn't look like someone dragging a blade with corn-syrop behind it.

That was probably the best moment for me.

kills were far more realistic and weren't disguised by camera filters like in Evil Dead

(original Evil Dead?)

Well Evil Dead and Maniac tried achieving different things. Maniac aimed for versimilatude while Evil Dead was more into gory spectable. Diffrent methods and aims -- but I'd say that Evil Dead was much more effective in eliciting a response from me than Maniac was.

The knife through the girl's jaw seen through her gaping mouth

That wasn't bad, but it's been done much better. Opera for example had an identical knife-through-jaw scene which was directed and shown in a much more startling manner.

Or that scene where he's knifing that floored girl repeatedly. There is a similar scene in Suspiria, but there there was a sadistic rhythm to it. Wood just lays into her.

, no, the deaths were certainly not same old same old. I

I'd point to Bone Tomahawk as a modern movie that did much better death scenes. That film relied on the disconnect between it's very slow and deliberate pace and the suddeness and shortness of it's violence. If Bone Tomahawk was directed more conventionally (that is to say, quickly), then those murders wouldn't have been so impactful, because the movie plays on the shock you experience seeing such gruesome and sudden violence after being lulled in by it's lethargical pace.

 

[dissolved]

I sort of got the impression that she was a wanton exhibisionist. A prostitute or a lonely mother looking for affection would have been more protective and sheltering of her son. Wood-mommy didn't seem to care at all what effect all her toomfollery was having on him, which indicates that she was only into it for the debauchery and sensory stimulation. Notice how she brought in two guys at once, for instance.

You're speaking from the morality of a suburbian. This crap (that of the movie, I'm speaking) happens all the time.

Well that goes into the definition of the word "caricature". The word caricature is inherently a negative one. If a performance is effective then it can't really be called a caricature.

No, caricature does not have a necessarily negative definition. And that's your opinion anyway. But it doesn't. And Wood's character in Sin City was much more caricature than Maniac's.

The bad thing about Wood's performance in Maniac is that it cranks-up the self-doubt, nervousness and neurotic behavior of serial killers to eleven. None of those emotions are menacing or engaging if played straight. They are so exaggerated that they become ostentatiously eye-rolling.

Disagree 100%.

Is Sin City an exaggeration? Yeah... I suppose you could say so. But it works for two reason. Firstly, It's a minimalist portrayal, eliciting menace through not showing much at all. 2: It feels organic for the film it's featured in. Wood's stone-cold psycho is at home in the world of Sin City, him and it mesh-togheter really well.

Feels organic? Nope. That was an artistic piece from start to finish.

But unlike Sin City -- which clearly takes place in some parallel dimension -- Manic is much more rooted in our "supposed" reality. And viewed in the context of the real world, Wood's behavior seems so outlandish and laughable that it dulls any edge the movie intends to have. If the rest of the world had reacted to him in some more organic way (or if the characters had been better written, many are really one-dimensional, asshole black guy, coquettish date, arthouse snob, etc) then maybe this would have leant a helping-hand to Wood's performance, but no such thing occured.

Disagree 100%.



Cinephilia triggered.

My trouble with the "mommy stuff" is more that it was told in such a straight-forward manner. Wood has flashbacks to seeing his mother have kinky sex and feels traumatized by this. It's a straight-up this=this scenario. My reaction to all this is just... "okay", "affermative", "I got it". There is no stimulating methodology to how it's told.

I have no clue what you are talking about here. "Methodology" what?

I... guess the perversity of it all adds something (that the first one was a threesome. And the second one being viewed as-if in public). But Wood is such an unengaging character for me to begin with that those bites don't sink deep either.

Perversity? I'm glad you understand basic morality. That's not the intent with these scenes. You've missed the point.

To put this in context, I'll babble about some comparative examples. Here the director of Manic was trying to set-up an explanation for his protagonists behavior through some previous trauma endured. To name some movies I thought did this really well, I'd name Tenebre, Psycho, original Friday the 13th, The Cell... and even stuff like Bram Stoker's Dracula and Black Sunday

The original Friday the 13th? What? All of your movies outside of Psycho are misses. And Psycho doesn't get into the detail of Norman's childhood abuses, just a domineering mother. So wrong.

These four films tried establishing the same thing that Maniac did: personality as explained through trauma. But they all did it in some "special" way that made it feel good. In Tenebre and Psycho, it's slowly and subtlety revealed through the course of the film (with symbolic dreams in Tenebre and Bates odd disposition towards his mother in Psycho), the explanation is left to dawn and linger in your mind with curiosity and then be brought out in full-force at a cataclysmic juncture. In Firday the 13th, the explenation comes out-of-nowhere in the end, but it works because it's so off-kiltered to the rest of the film, feeling almost as a shock, and because of Mrs Voorhees mad performance. The Cell is like Maniac very up-front about the mommy stuff, but it's saved by it's visual brilliance. And Dracula and Black Sunday do it through a strong origin-story at the beginning of the film, which impact is so strong that it resonates through the rest of the film, giving context to everything else that you're seeing.

No offense, but what are you talking about?

All of these films tried establishing the same thing. But they all did it their own, special way. I just didn't think that Manic had that special-factor going. It's a generic mommy-explanation.

Sorry dude, you don't get to talk yourself out of your paper bag with this tripe.

That was probably the best moment for me.

Was probably the most-realistic segment. But it doesn't negate the other great scenes.

(original Evil Dead?)

Well Evil Dead and Maniac tried achieving different things. Maniac aimed for versimilatude while Evil Dead was more into gory spectable. Diffrent methods and aims -- but I'd say that Evil Dead was much more effective in eliciting a response from me than Maniac was.

I was speaking about the remake, but the original didn't compare either in real effects as it was made in the 80s. This was much better. And we're comparing supernatural to slasher, which isn't a comparable entity overall.

That wasn't bad, but it's been done much better. Opera for example had an identical knife-through-jaw scene which was directed and shown in a much more startling manner.

Or that scene where he's knifing that floored girl repeatedly. There is a similar scene in Suspiria, but there there was a sadistic rhythm to it. Wood just lays into her.

I've seen Maniac five times now (I believe). This scene isn't what carries the weight of the movie and actually to me was the most-uninspiring one. So as far as I'm concerned it's a bit boring to talk about and the knife through the mouth isn't worth debating on any level to me.

I'd point to Bone Tomahawk as a modern movie that did much better death scenes. That film relied on the disconnect between it's very slow and deliberate pace and the suddeness and shortness of it's violence. If Bone Tomahawk was directed more conventionally (that is to say, quickly), then those murders wouldn't have been so impactful, because the movie plays on the shock you experience seeing such gruesome and sudden violence after being lulled in by it's lethargical pace.

No offense, but what? I'm not going to get into the scenes from Bone Tomahawk because I hope it gets chosen at some point some time down the road. But the one scene is probably the most-brutal scene in cinematic history, as subjective a thing as that might be. I don't need a film-school definition of it to know what it was. And to me it was totally different in every aspect than what could be expected in a film like Maniac.

Regardless, please excuse some of my curt responses.

 

[europe1]

You're speaking from the morality of a suburbian. This crap (that of the movie, I'm speaking) happens all the time.

Sure it does. But people who have sex in front of their children tend to have some pretty darn big psychological issues -- which is what I'm getting at.

Feels organic?

You don't think that Wood's performance and character fits-in with the rest of Sin City? What about it makes you feel disconnected form the rest of the film? He's about as over-the-top as everything else in it.

I have no clue what you are talking about here. "Methodology" what?

It's not what you do that matters.

It's how you do it.

Playing the mommy trope doesn't matter.

It's how you do it.

Perversity? I'm glad you understand basic morality. That's not the intent with these scenes. You've missed the point.

Isn't the intent of the scene that Wood was traumatized by the behavior of his mother?

All of your movies outside of Psycho are misses.

No offense, but what are you talking about?

All of those movies tried to establish the same thing. That their main character is-who-he-is because of some trauma. But they all do so differently. I was using them as examples to compare and contrast with Manic.

This scene isn't what carries the weight of the movie and actually to me was the most-uninspiring one.

It is nit-picking, yes. But if you want to get down into the nitty-gritty of it, movies are made up of nits to be picked. What is an Ocean but a Sea of Waterdrops and all that.

No offense, but what?

The pace in Bone Tomahawk is very slow.

The violence is very quick, sudden and brutal.

The dynamism created between those two contrasts amplifies the shock of the violence.

Great filmmaking.

 

[dissolved]

Sure it does. But people who have sex in front of their children tend to have some pretty darn big psychological issues -- which is what I'm getting at.

Ah, okay. Well this wouldn't take anything away from Wood's psychosis/history.

You don't think that Wood's performance and character fits-in with the rest of Sin City? What about it makes you feel disconnected form the rest of the film? He's about as over-the-top as everything else in it.

Since it was me who brought up the SIn City comparison originally in this conversation, I'll just say we're talking about the value of caricature. You said it had a negative connotation generally, which I disagreed with. So, regardless if the other characters of Sin City are caricatures, their portrayal as such is not a negative.

It's not what you do that matters.

It's how you do it.

Playing the mommy trope doesn't matter.

It's how you do it.

This doesn't explain your position to me. The mom was portrayed through flashbacks effectively as far as I'm concerned. It's psychological effect was obvious.

Isn't the intent of the scene that Wood was traumatized by the behavior of his mother?

All of those movies tried to establish the same thing. That their main character is-who-he-is because of some trauma. But they all do so differently. I was using them as examples to compare and contrast with Manic.

The Maniac's mother had the most detail ascribed to her of any of the aforementioned films.

It is nit-picking, yes. But if you want to get down into the nitty-gritty of it, movies are made up of nits to be picked. What is an Ocean but a Sea of Waterdrops and all that.

It was an opening scene. If you want to talk about opening scenes I'll take Scream's opening scene all day every day. It doesn't negate this one other than in GOAT conversations.

The pace in Bone Tomahawk is very slow.

The violence is very quick, sudden and brutal.

The dynamism created between those two contrasts amplifies the shock of the violence.

Great filmmaking.

Sure, I'll give you that. But why are we talking about that? If we're talking about slow-build and contrasts that would be another conversation entirely as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway, good enough. You either got it or you didn't. I don't mind that you didn't like it - I sure haven't liked a lot of films myself.

 

[Guestx]

I thought it came out looking mostly bland. The darkness didn't add to any sense of mood to the piece. It just made the screen look dark.

I'm sort of struggling to come up with a good comparison to another movie that did what Maniac did but did it good... Cat People I guess would be one example of a movie that used a lot of darkness and shadow but made it look atmospheric. But those two films are quite diffrent.

I thought the cinematography was pretty stylish. In fact, from the first frame I was thinking to myself, "This is a good looking movie. The cinematographer really knows what he's doing."

I always found it funny that he's more interested in himself than the two chicks his banging. He's such a narcisist that he gets more turned-on by himself than the two prostitutes. The author of the orignal novel is gay. Sort of wonder if he was projecting or something when he wrote that.

LOL yeah. The guy is all about the superficialities. Think about that very early (first?) scene where he's talking about his morning facial routine.

I believe in taking care of myself and a balanced diet and rigorous exercise routine. In the morning if my face is a little puffy I'll put on an ice pack while doing stomach crunches. I can do 1000 now. After I remove the ice pack I use a deep pore cleanser lotion. In the shower I use a water activated gel cleanser, then a honey almond body scrub, and on the face an exfoliating gel scrub. Then I apply an herb-mint facial mask which I leave on for 10 minutes while I prepare the rest of my routine. I always use an after shave lotion with little or no alcohol, because alcohol dries your face out and makes you look older. Then moisturizer, then an anti-aging eye balm followed by a final moisturizing protective lotion.

That one scene, combined with his obviously exquisite physique which is prominently on display, tells you SO MUCH about the character.

To me, ratings should be comparative based. Each movie should be viewed in context of everything else you've seen and judged accordingly. So the number of tens you give out should be less than one procent of all the films you've seen, and be the best among them.

For example, on IMDB I've rated around 3400 movies, and of those 20 are a perfect 10. With most ending up in the 5 to 6 category.

So what are some of the movies that you've given a 10?

6.5 at best.

 

[europe1]

That one scene, combined with his obviously exquisite physique which is prominently on display, tells you SO MUCH about the character.

Yeah there is just a ton of things to analyse and pick-apart in American Psycho. A very deep movie.

In fact, it might be the best movie of all time that was directed by a woman.

6.5 at best.

You low-down yankee liar.

So what are some of the movies that you've given a 10?

Currently I have...

Sword of Doom
Suspiria
Seven Samurai
Stalker
Shane
The Shining
In A Lonely Place
Blade Runner
Full Metal Jacket
Once Upon A Time in the West
12 Angry Men
2001
Dr Strangelove
Starship Troopers
The Thing
Monty Pyton and the Holy Grail
Dredd
The Road Warrior (that should probably be a 9)

And some B-movies like The Blood of Heroes and She (1982)

Stuff like Metropolis and Barry Lyndon should probably be a 10 too.

 

[Guestx]

Yeah there is just a ton of things to analyse and pick-apart in American Psycho. A very deep movie.

In fact, it might be the best movie of all time that was directed by a woman.

Agreed.

I didn't fully appreciate it when I first saw it in the theater. I don't think I understood it. Frankly, I was probably too young.

But somewhere along the line it became one of my favorite movies of all time.

Currently I have...

Sword of Doom
Suspiria
Seven Samurai
Stalker
Shane
The Shining
In A Lonely Place
Blade Runner
Full Metal Jacket
Once Upon A Time in the West
12 Angry Men
2001
Dr Strangelove
Starship Troopers
The Thing
Monty Pyton and the Holy Grail
Dredd
The Road Warrior (that should probably be a 9)

And some B-movies like The Blood of Heroes and She (1982)

Stuff like Metropolis and Barry Lyndon should probably be a 10 too.

So this is interesting. I see shades of the same phenomenon here that I often see with many other lists, like Sight and Sound's greatest films, or AFI's list or whatever, and that's that apparently the people compiling these lists think that all (or at least most) of the great movies are old movie.

Why do you think that is?

 

[europe1]

So this is interesting. I see shades of the same phenomenon here that I often see with many other lists, like Sight and Sound's greatest films, or AFI's list or whatever, and that's that apparently the people compiling these lists think that all (or at least most) of the great movies are old movie.

Why do you think that is?

Well I can't claim that I know anything about the people that line-up those websites top movies... But just some speculations.

1: Film has over 100 years of history. So obviously the movies should be fairly spread out over that timespan. So most movies shouldn't be new.

I just noticed that my list is dominated by the 50's, 60'sm 70's and the 80's, with all other decades getting only 1 or no films.

2: Some critics seem to rate films on technical innovation and influence (ie: purely on a films craftsmanship, instead of things like artistry, entertainment, emotions-induced, etc). This favor's old films since their innovations and influences are much more well-documented. Citizen Kane for example seems to gain a lot from this.

3: Critics and filmmakers tend to be refined and cultured people. Refined and cultured people tend to like refined and cultured things. (every time I say this I remind myself that apperently one of Alfred Hitchcock's favorite films was Smokey and the Bandit).

4: Most critics and filmmakers are on the older side and people tend to like stuff they watched in their formative periods. It appears that some directors are quite timeless (Hitchcock, Kubrick, Kurosawa, etc) while others gain from this. For example, you have people like Spielberg, Scorsese, Mann, Kurosawa, Carpenter praising John Ford's films as if they're the best thing since sliced bread, but Ford doesn't seem to have nearly as much traction among modern filmmakers as he did of those generations.

5: Watching a massive amount of film will probably give you some very broad horizons, meaning you'll end up liking stuff that doesn't exist in the popular counciouss. A lot of laymen for example say that they can't watch old movies just because they're old. Either due to plain snobbery -- or there is such a vast gap in culture between the then and the now. They don't "get" old movies because they are not used to the style and culture of that time-period. People that watch a lot of film naturally get over these hurdles and therefore have a more widespread taste in film.

6: It's tradition. Get in line newbie! (so group-thinking and all that).

And that's all I can mention off the top of my head.

 

[Xuh]

Currently I have...

Sword of Doom
Suspiria
Seven Samurai
Stalker
Shane
The Shining
In A Lonely Place
Blade Runner
Full Metal Jacket
Once Upon A Time in the West
12 Angry Men
2001
Dr Strangelove
Starship Troopers
The Thing
Monty Pyton and the Holy Grail
Dredd
The Road Warrior (that should probably be a 9)

And some B-movies like The Blood of Heroes and She (1982)

Stuff like Metropolis and Barry Lyndon should probably be a 10 too.

Lol we have very similar taste in movies. You give 'She' a 10? That's pretty funny (Honestly though, I love those No-budget 1980s 'barbarian mad maxpocalypse' movies and that one is great, I love it, it's one of my favorites too). IMDBtards give it 4.8 though

that reminds me I have to watch 'Hell Comes to Frogtown' ASAP, I swore I wouldn't watch any other movie before it since Piper died and it's been some time (that oath has not been kept...)

 

[europe1]

Lol we have very similar taste in movies.

You give 'She' a 10?

Oh man, She is the most awesome film of all time. I love that picture to death. It's just one amazing scene after another. Words don't do it justice. Sandahl Bergman playing an Amazon Goddess in a post-apocalyptic world where she has to fight off Frankenstein, Wearwolves, Mutants, The Cult of Nod and fucking Godan man!

I want one of those posters damit!

I love those No-budget 1980s 'barbarian mad maxpocalypse' movies

Dude I'm trying so hard not to come off as a total weirdo right now... but I absolutely adore those films as well. I've hunted down and watched almost every Conan B-movie cash-in that came out in it's wake. It's just a genre that I find immensly watchable. Ator, Amazons, Conquest, you name it. The same can be said for Mad Max and all the imitations it spawned. There are a ton of Italian rip-offs out there and in the Philippines Cirio Santiago directed over half a dozen alone (and they are all awesome of course!)

Sandahl Bergman is just an amazing presence in She. She really holds it all togheter. In case you recognize her -- Sabrina Siani is another one of my B-movie starlets. She was in a slew of these films as well.

mad maxpocalypse

Also, you HAVE to check out The Blood of Heroes as well. It's a maxpocalypse sports-movie starring Rutger Hauer! I say with no hyperbole or irony -- that it's the greatest sports movie I have ever seen in my life. A really fantastic film.

that reminds me I have to watch 'Hell Comes to Frogtown'

Oh that one is superb as well! Another one of my all-time B-movie favorites. I gave it a 9/10 on IMDB. Piper is awesome in it and Sandahl Bergman from She is in the co-lead.

The 80's was just a golden age for B-movies in general.

 

[dissolved]

Yeah there is just a ton of things to analyse and pick-apart in American Psycho. A very deep movie.

In fact, it might be the best movie of all time that was directed by a woman.



You low-down yankee liar.



Currently I have...

Sword of Doom
Suspiria
Seven Samurai
Stalker
Shane
The Shining
In A Lonely Place
Blade Runner
Full Metal Jacket
Once Upon A Time in the West
12 Angry Men
2001
Dr Strangelove
Starship Troopers
The Thing
Monty Pyton and the Holy Grail
Dredd
The Road Warrior (that should probably be a 9)

And some B-movies like The Blood of Heroes and She (1982)

Stuff like Metropolis and Barry Lyndon should probably be a 10 too.

Those are mostly old movies. I'm sure I'm older than you and there have been many fantastic movies since the 70s and 80s. In fact I'd say there are many more 10/10s after the 80s, even after the 90s and onward than before.

And Starship Troopers is one of the most-overrated movies I've ever seen. In fact it has the element I hate in movies - false reward/consequence (or at least insufficiently-explained/unbelievable). The skinny little model girl playing QB, straight-arming tackles lol and out-playing the stereotypical jock QB. Then the supposed cohesive, disciplined army unit that lacks basic self-discipline/morality and yet is able to understand the commanders decision to kill one of his soldiers who was pierced by an alien-being and the statement, "I would expect you do the same to me," he shouts gruffly as if this makes clear sense. Anyway, Starship Troopers is one of my least-liked popular movies for the reasons listed and many more.

Dredd was good. Some of the others on your list were good as well.

 

[dissolved]

Agreed.

I didn't fully appreciate it when I first saw it in the theater. I don't think I understood it. Frankly, I was probably too young.

But somewhere along the line it became one of my favorite movies of all time.




So this is interesting. I see shades of the same phenomenon here that I often see with many other lists, like Sight and Sound's greatest films, or AFI's list or whatever, and that's that apparently the people compiling these lists think that all (or at least most) of the great movies are old movie.

Why do you think that is?

Bingo.

 

[europe1]

And Starship Troopers is one of the most-overrated movies I've ever seen. In fact it has the element I hate in movies - false reward/consequence (or at least insufficiently-explained/unbelievable). The skinny little model girl playing QB, straight-arming tackles lol and out-playing the stereotypical jock QB. Then the supposed cohesive, disciplined army unit that lacks basic self-discipline/morality and yet is able to understand the commanders decision to kill one of his soldiers who was pierced by an alien-being and the statement, "I would expect you do the same to me," he shouts gruffly as if this makes clear sense. Anyway, Starship Troopers is one of my least-liked popular movies for the reasons listed and many more.

The film is a satire. It's a straight-faced parody of militarism and fascism. Listen to the Audio Commentary with director Verhoeven and writer Neumeier. They go through it step-by-step, subtly pointing out the various inversions in the scenes. Neumeier in particular is practically livid that no-one got the joke they were making. Verhoeven even based some of the movie on old Nazi propaganda videos that he watched as a child.

Watch the film with this in mind and you might unveil a whole other aspect of the film.

Starship Troopers would make an excellent Movie Club subject, actually. Since virutally every scene has something to pick apart.

 

[dissolved]

The film is a satire. It's a straight-faced parody of militarism and fascism. Listen to the Audio Commentary with director Verhoeven and writer Neumeier. They go through it step-by-step, subtly pointing out the various inversions in the scenes. Neumeier in particular is practically livid that no-one got the joke they were making. Verhoeven even based some of the movie on old Nazi propaganda videos that he watched as a child.

Watch the film with this in mind and you might unveil a whole other aspect of the film.

Starship Troopers would make an excellent Movie Club subject, actually. Since virutally every scene has something to pick apart.

I almost never read, watch or care what a producer or director (and actor I suppose) says about their film. If the film didn't convey itself, they screwed up and their explanations are pointless as far as I'm concerned. Why should anyone have to read, hear or watch an explanation ever? 99% of the time anything beyond the movie itself and my experience with it detracts from the film.

And I have seen it at least twice, but obviously if it were chosen through nomination vote I'd watch it again.

 

[europe1]

If the film didn't convey itself, they screwed up and their explanations are pointless as far as I'm concerned

As a rule of thumb, I agree with that. But movies don't need to (and should not) make themselves painfully obvious to the viewer. Subtlety is a good thing since it makes scenes resonate more.

That said, some movies you unlock on multiple viewings. I've watched Starship Troopers a great multitude of times. Every time I noticed something diffrent. Like how some of the officers are wearing Nazi uniforms. Or how Carmen never actually loves Casper Van Dien (Caspar only thinks so). Or how many of the info-videos are propaganda meant to cover-up deficiencies in the Federations military.

Noticing that sort of things feels rewarding. And thus the movie gets better and better as you watch it.

Why should anyone have to read, hear or watch an explanation ever? 99% of the time anything beyond the movie itself and my experience with it detracts from the film.

If you like something -- then wouldn't you want to know more about it? Wanting to figure out and deconstruct the things one enjoys seems like a natural inclination to me. If I like something, I wish to entrench myself in it, discover how others have assessed the film, find out as much as I can about it.

 

[dissolved]

As a rule of thumb, I agree with that. But movies don't need to (and should not) make themselves painfully obvious to the viewer. Subtlety is a good thing since it makes scenes resonate more.

That said, some movies you unlock on multiple viewings. I've watched Starship Troopers a great multitude of times. Every time I noticed something diffrent. Like how some of the officers are wearing Nazi uniforms. Or how Carmen never actually loves Casper Van Dien (Caspar only thinks so). Or how many of the info-videos are propaganda meant to cover-up deficiencies in the Federations military.

Noticing that sort of things feels rewarding. And thus the movie gets better and better as you watch it.




If you like something -- then wouldn't you want to know more about it?

If I like a movie I may want to learn more. But I rarely watch or read supplemental information about movies and almost without exception when I have, I've been disappointed.

 

[europe1]

almost without exception when I have, I've been disappointed.

If its not to laborious to answer, may I ask why?

 

[dissolved]

If its not to laborious to answer, may I ask why?

Movies are an escape (for me anyway, 90% of the time unless I'm watching a documentary). They are portraying a story -fictitious or not. The better the movie, the more it makes a believable, compelling case even when dealing with outlandish subject-matter (see sci-fi for example if one dislikes horror or comedy [genres I do like]). Explanation takes away from the mystery and experience for me. It's only in the last 10 or 12 years that I've begun to understand the truth behind "less is more." And I do think pop culture is failing in this regard. The more we learn about the nitty-gritty, behind the scenes, the more we lose mystique and a part of enjoyment.

 

[dissolved]

First off, I'll start by saying something that I more or less said when the movie won, and that's that this is not a movie for me. I know that a lot of people enjoy movies like this in the same way that a lot of people enjoy movies like Saw and Hostel, but I'm not one of them.

Saw 1 was excellent and not just from a horror standpoint. It's got some serious twists and an interesting story tbh. The flaw in it for me, was that it took until about half an hour left for it to get really good. But I wouldn't list it a favorite of mine either. Not a "must watch."

The Hostel movies were garbage to me. Those were all gore and nothing more. Saw 1 shouldn't be mentioned with those IMO, but I can't can understand why. Further to this, I didn't have much appreciation for the Saw series except for the first one.

With that said, I'd like to start with the good.

I thought that the overall presentation of the film was great. I appreciated the cinematography, and the use of both muted colors and shadows. I thought the score was excellent, with its 80s-esque synth tracks. I thought the acting all around was very good, and on this point I disagree with @europe1's contention that Wood's portrayal of the character was laughable. And I felt like the kills, for what it's worth, were disturbingly brutal.

Agreed on all points.

I also found it interesting simply to see someone like Elijah Wood take on a role like this. I tend to find myself rooting for the guy because, whether fair or not, if you're not a physically imposing man with hunky good looks then it can be difficult to stay relevant in Hollywood. Despite his relatively short stature, small frame, and boyishness, he has managed to continue to have a solid career.

I agree with this as well. He was great in The Oxford Murders and Pawnshop Chronicles as well IMO. And I started the new Netflix show Dirk Gentley's Holistic Detective Agency and it is pretty solid so far.

Also, am I the only one who gets him mixed up with Daniel Radcliffe?

With all that said, however, I have one question: Why? Why did this film need to be made? What joy are we, as viewers, supposed to take in watching our main character go around the city brutally murdering innocent women? I know that @In The Name Of mentioned the psychological component, but I don't feel that aspect really makes the film INTERESTING to me. It makes it DISTURBING because I'm being reminded that such people actually exist, and it raises some interesting questions about the human brain and how it can go rogue, but it's not something that I actually want to sit down and watch a film about.

That's quite an interesting question, actually. Honestly this could be a question for why most horrors? For me there's an emotional reason, and that's fear, or the exploration of it. A second reason is that I truly enjoy seeing and understanding the psychology of almost any type of person. You like supernatural horrors or thrillers, and I similarly appreciate them more than slasher type flicks. But the odd one, like Maniac to me, does offer more than something like The Devil's Rejects, or even movies like Friday The 13th and Halloween.

Here's one thing that's curious though, and something that I have been thinking about over the past couple of days: One of my favorite films of all time is American Psycho. It's also a film about an insane killer who goes around brutalizing innocent women and doing the most unnatural shit to them. So why do I enjoy American Psycho but not something like Maniac?

That, indeed, is an interesting question.

Without looking at your answer, I'd suggest that Maniac isn't as bad as movie as you might have thought. Also, perhaps one day down the road, some of the posters in here who hated it now, might see it differently then.

The answer that I arrived at is style. Not the style of the film--though American Psycho is indeed very stylish--but the style of the protagonist. Simply put, putting aside the teensy weensy little detail that he's a psychotic murderer of innocents, Patrick Bateman is cool as shit! He's just a cool dude! And the character, as brought to life by Christian Bale, is always entertaining to watch. I think this is also why movies and TV shows featuring Hannibal Lecter are popular. Just look at the TV show Hannibal with Mads Mikkelsen. As much of a crazy cannibal that Lecter may be, he's also full of style.

I actually agree with this, the reason why many (including yourself) would appreciate American Psycho more. Ultimately there is a missing enviable power dynamic missing in Maniac. Bale's character is wealthy, dresses well, is physically fit, is good-looking . . . He's a model, that, men (particularly young men), would want to emulate. So there's this sort of dark exploration of psychosis mixed with power. Ironically it turns out to be a fantasy for Bale even, an exploration of his mind.

Interestingly, along this point, I find younger men and boys enjoy the manifestations of power. I used to love Goodfellas and Casino - basically all gangster movies. They dressed well, did what they want when they wanted. Now I find those movies sort of "Meh," and mostly juvenile.

It was no surprise to me that my nephew's favorite show is "Suits" which, to me isn't horrible, but the plots are kind of thin and generally fail the plausibility inspection when applied. But, again, they display the elements of youthful, male power.

So that's why I'm down for this guy:

But have no interest at all in watching this guy:

LOL, I'll tip the hat to your honesty.

So that's pretty much it. On a craftsmanship level, I thought the film was interesting and well-made. But on a narrative level, it's not something that I want to spend my time watching. Oh Bone Tomahawk, we did not mean to foresake thee!

5/10

Hopefully we get to see BT eventually. I'm sure we will.

 

[dissolved]

And now, Kung Fury. . .

So I rewatched Kungy Fury last night. Since I just got done talking so much about STYLE in my Maniac write-up, I suppose I'll continue the trend here. And indeed, Kung Fury is absolutely filled to the brim with it. You could almost make the argument that the entire film is really just a style exercise, but frankly I don't think that would be fair. There's more to it than that.

I think style is important to the spoof or whatever the technical term is.

But holy shit do they fucking NAIL IT in terms of getting everything right and really evoking a sense of the 80s. It's one of those things that you watch and you just have a smile plastered on your face almost the whole way through. It's especially true for me since, when I was a kid growing up in the 80s, I was obsessed with martial arts and action movies of the time. Just fucking OBSESSED!

Haha, totally agree. I think everyone who grew up in the 80s was lol.

My neighbor friend and I would have 24 hour movieathons (mainly during the summer when there was no school). There used to be 99 cent Tuesdays, so we'd somehow scrape together 15 dollars and rent like 8 or 9 movies whilst drinking "Jolt" cola to stay awake. We'd usually fall asleep somewhere in the wee hours of the morning, but then would wake up to make sure we finished the movies we rented. Ninja/martial arts movies were a staple part of the tradition.

Anyway, Kung Fury is totally eighties.

A few specifics that stood out to me as being particularly amusing:

* "I knew he was dead straight off" after his partner gets cuts in half with a sword.

I laughed so hard at that.

* "I was struck by lightning and bitten my a cobra."

* Hackerman shows up. First off, his name is Hackerman. Second, he's "the most powerful hacker of all time."

* Powerglove! I had one of those when I was a kid. It was a piece of shit, but holy fuck did it look cool!

* "ERROR: HACKING TOO MUCH TIME!" Uh oh, we've just hacked TOO MUCH TIME guys!!! Danger, Will Robinson! Hilarious.

That part slew me.

* "Fuck! That's a laser raptor!"

* "I'm a cop. From the future." This line and his delivery made me crack up several times when I watched the trailer, and then again when I watched the actual film.

* The Aryan Mustache conversation is awesome.

My older brother about died at this part.

* The cartoon where he dies and goes to heaven is SOOO perfect in terms of capturing the 80s style. Just amazing.

It was like something out of He-Man. Indeed perfect.

And now, that leads me to my one real gripe with the film, and frankly it's a major one.

The portrayal of Hitler is all off. In the trailer, they build him up to be this super-enemy. He's KUNG FUHRER: THE MOST EVIL KUNG FU MASTER OF ALL TIME!!! But in the actual film, he's this sniveling, weaselly fuck who doesn't seem to actually know how to fight. When he does throw any techniques, they're these limp-wristed punches and weak kicks that seem the opposite of what a kung fu master would do.

They really should've lived up to the idea in the trailer and made him this badass and then have the whole story build into an awesome face off between Kung Fury and Hitler. Instead, well, we got what we got.

So I think in some ways KF is a bit of a missed opportunity to make something TRULY AWESOME, but it's still a lot of fun and it's absolutely one of the most original productions to come out in years.

I agree with this too. He certainly was portrayed as this sniveling weasel, and, Kung Fu aside, Hitler was a powerful, charismatic person who had command about him, not, as you say, what was portrayed here.

But, for me, it didn't detract that much. I saw it as mockery more than anything, some creative license. They did get parts right with his perpetuity to violence when he shot the police staff through the phone lol.

Also, I think part of Hitler's portrayal had to do with an 80s villain re-creation.

Regardless, it was a bit of a miss in an otherwise enjoyable ride.