|
Post by biscuitpower on Aug 10, 2007 22:35:13 GMT -5
You know something... I never thought of "Multiple Personalities." Though I probably should have. Especially with the scene that pissed me off the most - the scene where he talks to the photographer about Art. It still pisses me off though, those scenes. Because of her, not him. But, how much do you know the movie did work on "Multiple Personalities"? You probably have the DVD. So, if you know any stories about that, I would actually be very interested in knowing about it... I would actually watch it again if I thought the movie actually did some psychological research into that sort of thing. And the fact that I'm obsessed with "Multiple Personalities" in movies. The multiple personalities is VERY obvious. In most of the scenes where he is playing with the mannequins and nailing the scalps onto the dolls he talks to himself. He says things like "I told you not to go out tonight didn't I? Every time you go out this kind of thing happens." which shows he is a schizo without a doubt. It's a pretty realistic portrayal IMO. The annoying girl he tries to date was there because he started stalking her in the park, then he pretends to be the editor of a magazine in order to meet her. I also think it's really creepy how he scalps women in order to "keep them forever"
|
|
|
Post by biscuitpower on Aug 10, 2007 22:40:36 GMT -5
You should read the IMDB page, that's how I know all the behind the scenes stuff about the movie. Like I said it's one of my favourites so I read pretty much everything about it online. I have a lot of free time
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Aug 10, 2007 22:40:50 GMT -5
Um... well I was talking about "Multiple Personalities" in the sense that there is more than 2. This character was just reiterating things his MOTHER said and did to him. But, you know something...that was already done in Alfred Hitchcock's immortal Psycho. As well it was also later done in the amazing Deranged (1972), aka- Confessions of a Necrophile.
You're helping to further my case that Maniac was just ripping off those films, as I suspected it was doing all along.
|
|
|
Post by biscuitpower on Aug 10, 2007 22:46:28 GMT -5
Um... well I was talking about "Multiple Personalities" in the sense that there is more than 2. This character was just reiterating things his MOTHER said and did to him. But, you know something...that was already done in Alfred Hitchc ock's immortal Psycho. As well it was also later done in the amazing Deranged (1972), aka- Confessions of a Necrophile. You're helping to further my case that Maniac was just ripping off those films, as I suspected it was doing all along. Well, since all those charecters are based on Ed Gein, wouldn't Maniac be a rip off of him?
|
|
|
Post by biscuitpower on Aug 10, 2007 22:47:56 GMT -5
And if he says "You" to himself, while talking to himself is a multiple personality disorder.
Not all mutiple personalities are 30 year old women thinking their 120 year old chineese midgets.
And no, it's not a rip off of psycho one bit.
|
|
|
Post by biscuitpower on Aug 10, 2007 22:49:55 GMT -5
Crazy guy in a hotel who stabs a girl and shoots a cop.. Crazy guy who stalks new york and nails human scalps to mannequins then talks to them.. The only similarity is that they were both abused by their mothers... Is day of the dead a ripoff of psycho just because Dr. Logan talks to his dead mother? You're making very poor cases against a very good movie, and that's just sad.
|
|
|
Post by biscuitpower on Aug 10, 2007 22:51:40 GMT -5
The shotgun scene alone is enough to make Maniac great
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Aug 10, 2007 22:52:45 GMT -5
Yeah, and the "abused by their mothers" thing was done so well in Psycho, why would another movie try to do it again??
You can't prove that the movie is good. Only that you liked it. Which to me, is much more sad than what you're suggesting.
|
|
|
Post by biscuitpower on Aug 10, 2007 23:09:13 GMT -5
Yeah, and the "abused by their mothers" thing was done so well in Psycho, why would another movie try to do it again?? You can't prove that the movie is good. Only that you liked it. Which to me, is much more sad than what you're suggesting. Well you like a lot of movies I would describe as utter pieces of garbage, so let's just agree to disagree. BTW, psycho was beyond boring, it is the most over-rated movie of all time. My mom made me watch it and a lot of other hitchcok movies. I thought the birds was alright, but psycho was crap. You probably haven't seen Maniac since the 80's anyways.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Aug 10, 2007 23:16:30 GMT -5
I won't argue with you on Psycho. I think it's a little boring too. Depending, that is, upon why one decides to watch it. I think it's actually a really wonderful film for the landscape - the setting and locations. Hollywood films taking place in California or New York in the 1960's (from the perspective of the more cleancut characters) are really evocative of a wonderful era in movie-making. Hitchcock really know how to shoot a location. And cinematically, he knew exactly how to manipulate the viewer's Mind's-Eye to tilt the reality and quality of a scene just the way he wanted you to.
So that's why to me, Psycho will always be a movie where if you sit through enough of the boring parts, you see something that really grabs you and makes you love the movie. For me, the scenes I love the most are the one near the opening of the movie at The Bank with the rich guy and him flirting with Marion Crane, and the scene in the office (?) where Norman Bates and Marion are eating sandwiches. Which is one of the greatest scenes in horror history. Just because of the shots of Norman against that wall with the stuffed bird on the wall (looks like... a hawk?). The way the shot, just based on how crazy Norman is becoming, starts to look like it's moving. But it's standing still. We're watching Anthony Perkins completely mentally breaking down, becoming psychologically unglued.
|
|
|
Post by biscuitpower on Aug 10, 2007 23:17:40 GMT -5
Honestly how many serial killers were abused as children?? All of them ?? So since psycho had a serial killer that was abused(ripped directly from ed gein) no other movie can?
You have some really strange arguments, and you need to get your priorities straight
You seem to ignore the fact that there is pretty much no horror movie that is 100% original, it's simply not possible. Any moron can sit here and link any horror movie together by some insignificant similiarity. But that will never make it a ripoff.
You're just being stubborn, and arguing for the sake of arguing.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Aug 10, 2007 23:17:43 GMT -5
You probably haven't seen Maniac since the 80's anyways. I saw Maniac 6 months ago.
|
|
|
Post by biscuitpower on Aug 10, 2007 23:21:57 GMT -5
I just don't get how you can say Maniac is a ripoff based on the fact he is obsessed with his mother?
That's the only thing I want to discuss right now, let's not get off track.
Psycho and Maniac are nothing alike, Norman and Frank are nothing alike besides the fact they're both off their rockers and obsessed with their mom's.
Pretty much all modern film draws influence from real-life or other types of media. Do you not agree?
|
|
|
Post by biscuitpower on Aug 10, 2007 23:24:55 GMT -5
And I don't see how you can tottally trash Maniac.. even if you don't like it there are still plenty of good things to say about it.
The score for one is AWESOME, it reminds me a bit of Once Upon a Time in America, and this tape they use to play during nap time at my daycare.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Aug 10, 2007 23:45:43 GMT -5
Plenty of things? I don't agree. There were 4 things that I thought were sort of okay about the movie. And the thing about them is that none of them remained good for long. They all worked for a short amount of time and then went dead when the movie started sucking again. Maniac is one of those movies that operates of a Scale of Suckage. It's okay for awhile, then it starts to suck.
Anyway, those 4 things are as follows...
1. the opening bits of the score. I thought they were interesting. However, for the rest of the movie, the score just felt flat. And I hate flat elements in movies.
2. the Nurse Subway-Bathroom Chase scene. It was very suspenseful... until she walks over to the MIRROR. Which is a clear sign in any horror or suspense-thriller that the killer will appear in the mirror at one point or another. And... he did. Imagine that. Predictability is often a bad element in movies. Here it's bad because, how could any self-respecting director not know how completely, painfully stupid the killer's reveal in the mirror would be? How could they even continue to stage it as a scare when it's so predictable that it's not scary?
3. the Graveyard Visit scene. Some good use of atmospheric elements. But this was ruined as well. By the predictability of the Hand that leaps out of the grave and grabs the character. Um... Carrie? Yeah. It's predictable. Therefore, it's not scary. It's a cheat. And stupid.
4. the Mannequins' Revenge scene. Came right out of nowhere! The one thing in the movie that wasn't predictable. And it is a really good idea. However... it was ruined by two things. The first was the shot of Frank's head being ripped off. It wasn't really satisfying. The shots of the mannequins moving is unbelievably creepy and freaky (sort of like a psychologically visually-cracked Night of the Living Dead homage)... that the extremely gratuitous (and again, predictable) shot of something gruesome happening to someone's head and the dumb way it looked (especially since it happened on that pillow making it look like he was lying on a white Garbage Bag - not a cool image), it didn't work as far as I'm concerned. The other thing is the way it was only happening in Frank's imagination. When his apartment is broken into later... his head is still on his body. That was just stupid. It would have been so much better if the cop / guy with gun had seen a viciously murdered Frank on the bed. Then, he/they would have had to wonder... who killed the killer? But that's just my preference. What actually ruined this scene was the HORRIBLE final shot of Frank's eyes opening. It just screams: Sequel. I say: Bullshit. Director ran out of ideas and too often fell back on what was Easy.
|
|
|
Post by biscuitpower on Aug 10, 2007 23:49:23 GMT -5
Plenty of things? I don't agree. There were 4 things that I thought were sort of okay about the movie. And the thing about them is that none of them remained good for long. They all worked for a short amount of time and then went dead when the movie started sucking again. Maniac is one of those movies that operates of a Scale of Suckage. It's okay for awhile, then it starts to suck. Anyway, those 4 things are as follows... 1. the opening bits of the score. I thought they were interesting. However, for the rest of the movie, the score just felt flat. And I hate flat elements in movies. 2. the Nurse Subway-Bathroom Chase scene. It was very suspenseful... until she walks over to the MIRROR. Which is a clear sign in any horror or suspense-thriller that the killer will appear in the mirror at one point or another. And... he did. Imagine that. Predictability is often a bad element in movies. Here it's bad because, how could any self-respecting director not know how completely, painfully stupid the killer's reveal in the mirror would be? How could they even continue to stage it as a scare when it's so predictable that it's not scary? 3. the Graveyard Visit scene. Some good use of atmospheric elements. But this was ruined as well. By the predictability of the Hand that leaps out of the grave and grabs the character. Um... Carrie? Yeah. It's predictable. Therefore, it's not scary. It's a cheat. And stupid. 4. the Mannequins' Revenge scene. Came right out of nowhere! The one thing in the movie that wasn't predictable. And it is a really good idea. However... it was ruined by two things. The first was the shot of Frank's head being ripped off. It wasn't really satisfying. The shots of the mannequins moving is unbelievably creepy and freaky (sort of like a psychologically visually-cracked Night of the Living Dead homage)... that the extremely gratuitous (and again, predictable) shot of something gruesome happening to someone's head and the dumb way it looked (especially since it happened on that pillow making it look like he was lying on a white Garbage Bag - not a cool image), it didn't work as far as I'm concerned. The other thing is the way it was only happening in Frank's imagination. When his apartment is broken into later... his head is still on his body. That was just stupid. It would have been so much better if the cop / guy with gun had seen a viciously murdered Frank on the bed. Then, he/they would have had to wonder... who killed the killer? But that's just my preference. What actually ruined this scene was the HORRIBLE final shot of Frank's eyes opening. It just screams: Sequel. I say: Bullsh it. Director ran out of ideas and too often fell back on what was Easy. I honestly don't see how you can be talking sh it about maniac with a Mrs. Vorhees avatar, not to mention the fact that you like bride of chucky..
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Aug 10, 2007 23:55:15 GMT -5
You have no idea what you're talking about. I'll give you some time to compose yourself.
|
|
|
Post by biscuitpower on Aug 11, 2007 0:09:46 GMT -5
You're insulting an 80's movie for being cheesy? Come on!!
|
|
|
Post by biscuitpower on Aug 11, 2007 0:11:27 GMT -5
Your argument is pointless, you don't like the movie so stop wasting time talking about something you think is trash
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Aug 11, 2007 0:12:07 GMT -5
I said cheesy? I thought I said sleazy... How far back are you quoting me? I don't remember saying that.
|
|