Maniac

[steve9872]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2103217

Just back from watching this at Castleford.

WARNING!! Shakeycam alert. This story is told entirely from the killer's point of view - literally. Its almost as if the camera is attached to his head so you see exactly what he sees. So if you're like me, this is essential knowledge as I get motion sick and I had to look away to prevent vomiting.

However what I did see was very realistic and left me wondering how they achieved those grizzly effects.

[stuartboy]

Is this really only 89mins long? Is hardly worth going out to see if so short. Pretty poor value for money, no? (Especially when contrasted with the brilliant Cloud Atlas).

[Horseknight]

Just came back from the movie. Too gory for my tastes. I can't take a relaxing bath or shower now without letting my imagination go wild....

[RAZORBACK]

This was much, much better than I expected it to be and thought seeing (pretty much) everything from the killer's POV made it a really immersive experience.

I loved it's soundtrack, visual style & dry sense of humour so overall 'Maniac' gets a well deserved 7/10 from me ...

[dfletch08]

A great throwback to "Peeping Tom" and some of the gore is just hilarious! Worth seeing with a free voucher.

[richlou]

Just got back from watching this in Bristol, only 12 people in the cinema watching it, before we got half way through the film, 5 people had walked out leaving only 7 of us watching it.Too be honest i was not very keen on it and glad that it was a freebie otherwise i would have thought it was a waste of money,i was just not into it at all.

[ramper77]

I thought this was unusual, dark and managed to be stained by some of the grubbiness that made the original so infamous. The whole experience made me feel like I'd been assaulted, which was fine by me. 8/10.

And the comment by stuartboy that 89 mins is too short and not value for money seems very odd. Surely you can't like or dislike a film by that criteria. The original versions of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (83 mins), Friday the 13th (95 mins), Halloween (91 mins) and Nightmare On Elm Street (91 mins), all point towards the 90 minute mark, being a classic length. Oh, and the highly anticipated remake of The Evil Dead is 91 minutes, which is far better value for money as it's 6 minutes longer than the original.

[moggers]

Is this really only 89mins long? Is hardly worth going out to see if so short. Pretty poor value for money, no? (Especially when contrasted with the brilliant Cloud Atlas).

Not really comparible Cloud Atlas is an epic journey of thought provoking story threads, Maniac is a slasher flick. 3 and a bit hours of shaky viewpoint camera work and blood/guts might just be a bit on the spewtastic indulgent front

[dfletch08]

There is no perfect running time for movies. Each film has its own story to tell and the length it takes to do so is subjective. The film market is saturated by films that run over 120min and the majority of these "drag" or lose context. These films will usually present the narrative in the same predictable way. Steven Soderbergh is a believer in this and might touch on it in his speech at the San Francisco Film Festival this year. It is an interesting topic for debate.

[stuartboy]

My point is nothing to do with the quality or otherwise of a film. It was purely to do with the economics. If I am p*ying upwards of £10-12 on seeing a movie and dedicating an evening to see it I am going to be disappointed if it is all over in just over an hour. A 3 hour epic of the stature and grandeur of Cloud Atlas is far better value. It has nothing to do with whether a film is good or bad, nor liked or disliked.
£10 for 89 mins seems wrong to me. The same could be said for b*ying a thin paperback novel that is basically only a few chapters, yet having to p*y the same price as full-size epic novel.

A feature film is exactly that - it should be feature-length.

That said we are seeing this for free and thus it can be judged purely on its artistic merits, which is as it should be.