This film has no cohesive story, go figure it's an exploitation film, and as a true exploitation film it provides an abundance of spectacle. Maniac is about a......well a maniac. Throughout the film intertitles appear that define aberrant mental states (dementia, praecox, paranoia, etc..). Spectacle is furnished scenes such as a man popping a cats eye out of it's head and eating it, two women lounge about in their underwear, two women fighting with syringes!! Finally the last two scenes are nudie strip scenes, and are inserted for titillation sake only! Suicide recovery, cat chasing mouses, mad scientists, and a guy ranting "rats eat raw meat--you know, cat carcasses...so the rats eat the cats, the cats eat the rats, and I get the skins", are all part of this disjointed viewing experience everyone should see!!
85 Reviews
A silly shocker
stricklandpat23 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Sheesh! I wasn't expecting anything like this. I received the collection this movie is on for my birthday, from my sister in law. The whole family knows I love horror, fantasy and Science Fiction films. This one sat around for a couple of months. Constantly getting shuffled back to the back of the pile of unwatched DVDs that I try to keep on hand so I always have something to watch besides regular TV. The other night I awoke from a sound sleep and could not fall back and so this collection was put into the player. Immediately I thought I was in for a very strange treat. The actors were so over the top that I found myself even more awake. The story says it is based on some Tales of Edgar Allan Poe, but just barely. A mad doctor needs a dead body to test out his new re animating solution. So he and his ex vaudeville assistant go to the morgue to steal a cadaver, a young girl who committed suicide. They revive her and take her back to the lab, but we don't see her again for a while. The next time we do see her she stumbles zombie like into the arms of a madman who proceeds to tear off her clothes. We get nude girl in a 1934 movie! Its quick, so don't blink, but they come back to her a couple more times and then there are other 30's floozy types that spice up the proceedings with an old fashioned cat fight down to the underwear, along with several real cat, cat- fights that lead up to the part stolen from Poe, with a cat bricked in the wall with a murder victim. If you can stand the crazy bad acting its definitely worth a look and less than an hour long so you don't lose too much of your life.
Early Hollywood attempt to portray mental illness
sol12184 March 2004
******SPOILER****** At first sight "Maniac" seems to be some kind of educational film about the causes and effects of mental illness with a forward to the movie about the mind and how it works and effects us in our everyday way of life. But as soon as you see Dr. Meirschultz, Horace Carpenter, and his assistant Maxwell, Bill Woods, and how insane they act in Dr. Meirschultz's laboratory you start to realize that your in for a long and bumpy ride on the Loony Express.
"Maniac" would have been effective just as an unintentional comedy if there was a sense of continuity to the story. Where you can at least follow and understand just whats happening no matter how nutty the story is; but there are at least two giant gaps in it.
The first plot-hole has to do with Maxwell, a failed actor, whom Dr. Meirschultz seems to have something on him in regard to his being on the lamb from the police.Yet the movie never bothers to explains why? Is being a "ham actor" a crime? In another confusing scene in the movie Buckley, Ted Edwards, kidnaps the zombie-like Maria El'tura whom Dr. Meirschultz had brought back to life and takes off in the woods with her were we last see both of them.
Mrs. Buckley, Phillis Diller?, not that one but another Phillis Diller, tells Dr. Meirschultz that she would help him with his plans if he, after he kills her husband Buckely, puts a new brain in Buclely's skull that will make him totally obedient to her. Yet we never see Buckely again in the movie even though Mrs. Buckley is in the movie helping Maxwell until almost the end. That's where she has a ferocious cat-fight with his wife Mrs. Maxwell, Thero Ramsey! Did the budget for the film run out of money for Buckley's brain-transplant?
Dr. Meirschultz got very agitated earlier in the film when he couldn't get any human bodies for his experiment, which he felt were nearing completion, when Maxwell came back from the morgue empty-handed. Dr. Meirshultz then stupidly handed Maxwell a gun telling him to shoot himself! Dr. Meirschultz then promises Maxwell that he would reward him by bringing him back to life with a new heart that he has ready for him! In fact there was never any mention up to then or even later that Maxwell had any heart problems?
Maxwell after taking the gun instead shoots the insane Dr.Meirschultz and using makeup and wigs and a false beard took over Dr. Meirschultz's identity. Playing doctor his first patient is Buckley who's wife tell Maxwell that he's very tense and needs a sedative to settle him down.
Trying to inject Buckley with a syringe of harmless water Maxwell mistakenly injects him with super-adrenaline. This has Buckley go into a crazed and insane fit where he grabs the just revived from the dead Maria and they both check out never to be seen again in the movie.
Meanwhile Maxwell who at first tried to kill Dr. Meirschultz's black cat Satan who immediately check out of the laboratory. It turned out that Satan ate the heart that Maxwell wanted to use for his own experiments with dead bodies and continue what Meirschultz started. Later Maxwell sealed Dr. Meirschultz body into the wall of his basement with bricks, not knowing that Satan snuck inside the wall too, to keep up his charade of being the great Dr.Meirschultz. It's after they raided the place that the police found Meirschultz's body when they entered the basement and heard Satan meowing. At the end of the film we see Maxwell behind bars raving mad and obviously insane bragging about how he fooled the world with his brilliant impersonation of Dr. Meirschultz.
P.S Due Hollywood's failed attempt to explain the reasons and causes of mental illness to the movie-going public "Maniac" lost out to "It Happened One Night" for best film of the year in 1934.
"Maniac" would have been effective just as an unintentional comedy if there was a sense of continuity to the story. Where you can at least follow and understand just whats happening no matter how nutty the story is; but there are at least two giant gaps in it.
The first plot-hole has to do with Maxwell, a failed actor, whom Dr. Meirschultz seems to have something on him in regard to his being on the lamb from the police.Yet the movie never bothers to explains why? Is being a "ham actor" a crime? In another confusing scene in the movie Buckley, Ted Edwards, kidnaps the zombie-like Maria El'tura whom Dr. Meirschultz had brought back to life and takes off in the woods with her were we last see both of them.
Mrs. Buckley, Phillis Diller?, not that one but another Phillis Diller, tells Dr. Meirschultz that she would help him with his plans if he, after he kills her husband Buckely, puts a new brain in Buclely's skull that will make him totally obedient to her. Yet we never see Buckely again in the movie even though Mrs. Buckley is in the movie helping Maxwell until almost the end. That's where she has a ferocious cat-fight with his wife Mrs. Maxwell, Thero Ramsey! Did the budget for the film run out of money for Buckley's brain-transplant?
Dr. Meirschultz got very agitated earlier in the film when he couldn't get any human bodies for his experiment, which he felt were nearing completion, when Maxwell came back from the morgue empty-handed. Dr. Meirshultz then stupidly handed Maxwell a gun telling him to shoot himself! Dr. Meirschultz then promises Maxwell that he would reward him by bringing him back to life with a new heart that he has ready for him! In fact there was never any mention up to then or even later that Maxwell had any heart problems?
Maxwell after taking the gun instead shoots the insane Dr.Meirschultz and using makeup and wigs and a false beard took over Dr. Meirschultz's identity. Playing doctor his first patient is Buckley who's wife tell Maxwell that he's very tense and needs a sedative to settle him down.
Trying to inject Buckley with a syringe of harmless water Maxwell mistakenly injects him with super-adrenaline. This has Buckley go into a crazed and insane fit where he grabs the just revived from the dead Maria and they both check out never to be seen again in the movie.
Meanwhile Maxwell who at first tried to kill Dr. Meirschultz's black cat Satan who immediately check out of the laboratory. It turned out that Satan ate the heart that Maxwell wanted to use for his own experiments with dead bodies and continue what Meirschultz started. Later Maxwell sealed Dr. Meirschultz body into the wall of his basement with bricks, not knowing that Satan snuck inside the wall too, to keep up his charade of being the great Dr.Meirschultz. It's after they raided the place that the police found Meirschultz's body when they entered the basement and heard Satan meowing. At the end of the film we see Maxwell behind bars raving mad and obviously insane bragging about how he fooled the world with his brilliant impersonation of Dr. Meirschultz.
P.S Due Hollywood's failed attempt to explain the reasons and causes of mental illness to the movie-going public "Maniac" lost out to "It Happened One Night" for best film of the year in 1934.
Far more than just another bad film.
reptilicus6 June 2001
If you have never seen a Dwain Esper film you might feel nervous sitting in a room with people who have seen and enjoy them. Curiously there is no middle ground for Dwain Esper, you either love his films or you hate them. He was no filmmaker; originally he was a real estate agent and one of his clients defaulted on a mortgage and left a house full of filmmaking equipment. Esper was wondering what to do with all the stuff and suddenly the movie making bug bit him and that was that; he had a new career. Dwain was no Edward D. Wood. Eddie's films have a laughable ineptness but the sincerity was there despite the shortcomings, and they were legion. He wasn't even comparable with Andy Milligan whose filmic efforts make Ed Wood look like John Ford by comparrison. If I HAVE to compare Dwain with someone it could only be David Friedman. Both went directly for the cinematic equivalent of a heart punch and gave us images so unrelentingly gritty and brutal they dared us to keep looking. Having seen most of Dwain's movies I have to say MANIAC is his magnum opus. Horace Carpenter, a former director of silent westerns (check out FLASHING STEEDS sometime) and member of Cecil B. DeMille's stock company (ROMANCE OF THE REDWOODS, JOAN THE WOMAN, etc) plays Dr. Mierschultz, the maddest doctor to step in front of a camera. Bill Woods is his assistant, the dangerously neurotic Maxwell who is on the run from the police (we never find out why but Dwain was not one to clutter up his screenplays with needless facts). Neither of these characters is playing with a full deck. Meirschultz restores life to a dead woman and wants to restore someone else by transplanting a living heart into a dead body. When he demands that Maxwell shoot himself it brings an abrupt end to their employee/employer relationship and Maxwell kills him and decides to take his place ("I not only look like Mierschultz, I AM Mierschultz! I will be a great man!") And this is where the movie gets REALLY weird! The film has lately been restored and it available on both video and DVD so I don't want to spoil the surprises; and there are a lot of them in the 55 minute roller coaster ride of a movie. I will warn all cat lovers to avoid this movie. There are one or two scenes that will bother them, but there is no animal cruelty! That one eyed cat was a real one that Dwain bought from an animal shelter. Dwain always claimed he was making educational films to warn people against drugs, promiscuity, and to enlighten people about mental illness. He must have known it isn't WHAT you say but HOW you say it. So pop this cassette into your VCR. Good luck to you all. Viddy well, little brother, viddy well.
Not really that bad
stuthehistoryguy23 May 2000
I am somewhat embarrassed to say this, but _Maniac_ is simply not that bad of a film. The acting is hammy, but its ineptitude doesn't even approach the Ed Wood level. This is an exploitation film, pure and simple. It was created to show insanity and scantily clad women when such things were prohibited from the mainstream. It is actually quite entertaining, especially when compared to other 1930s B-movies. The plot is certainly loopy, but not beyond following.
_Maniac_ is not a "good" film, but I would not put it anywhere near the running for worst movie of all time. That honor should be reserved for complete disasters like _Manos, The Hands of Fate_, _Robot Monster_ (which is probably the ultimate "so bad it's good" film), _Glen or Glenda_, _Big Jim McLain_, _Ninja Wars_, _The Incredible 2-Headed Transplant_, or _Dracula vs. Frankenstein_. These films were trying to be snappy entertainment and came out horribly wrong. _Maniac_ was trying to be exactly what it is.
_Maniac_ is not a "good" film, but I would not put it anywhere near the running for worst movie of all time. That honor should be reserved for complete disasters like _Manos, The Hands of Fate_, _Robot Monster_ (which is probably the ultimate "so bad it's good" film), _Glen or Glenda_, _Big Jim McLain_, _Ninja Wars_, _The Incredible 2-Headed Transplant_, or _Dracula vs. Frankenstein_. These films were trying to be snappy entertainment and came out horribly wrong. _Maniac_ was trying to be exactly what it is.
Wow. What can I say?
jimtinder12 May 2000
In the 1980s, thanks to the Brothers Medved, "Plan 9" earned the reputation as the worst film of all time. In the 1990s, thanks to MST3K, "Manos, the Hands of Fate" earned the worst film moniker.
Allow me to submit the film "Maniac" as the very worst. This film is so wretched, so fallible, so awful, it's impossible not to have an opinion about it.
"Maniac" is a film of almost no reputation. However, cult film critic Danny Peary called it the very worst. It's easy to see why. "Maniac" has almost no frame of film that is expertly produced. The film is grainy, shots are poorly executed, actors are rendered unseeable by being filmed standing behind test tubes.
"Maniac" easily has the worst acting in any film, from any time, any country. Overacting must have been a prerequisite to being hired for this film. Everyone talks in such an imposing, declaratory style, you'd think you were watching a session of Congress. At least "Plan 9" has professional actors such as Lyle Talbot; at least "Manos" has interesting characterizations. "Maniac" cannot boast any of that, except that actor Horace Carpenter once worked at Biograph with D.W. Griffith. What a comedown for him to be in this film.
Don't get me wrong; the film is a hoot to watch. From the incredible cat's eye scene to the cat fighting to the women fighting with syringes, "Maniac" has it all.
This film, made in 1934, may surprise people with its brief nude scenes. But it was a "roadshow" movie, so it's not really surprising at all. This was the kind of movie that could only be seen in burlesque houses or tent shows. Often, a promoter would put ads about the movie in the local papers, gaining huge interest in the film. The promoter would pitch a tent on the outskirts of town for the screening of the film. The promoter all too often would have to fold the tent and get out of town quickly, trying to avoid local authorities and local moral laws.
Do yourself, do your family, do your community a favor. Rent "Maniac" and see if you don't agree it's the worst ever.
You'll howl, you'll cry, you'll kiss your rental money goodbye!
See! Incredible eye-popping scenes! See! A bevy of chorus beauties! See! Mad scientists go even madder! See! How long you can stand watching it!
Allow me to submit the film "Maniac" as the very worst. This film is so wretched, so fallible, so awful, it's impossible not to have an opinion about it.
"Maniac" is a film of almost no reputation. However, cult film critic Danny Peary called it the very worst. It's easy to see why. "Maniac" has almost no frame of film that is expertly produced. The film is grainy, shots are poorly executed, actors are rendered unseeable by being filmed standing behind test tubes.
"Maniac" easily has the worst acting in any film, from any time, any country. Overacting must have been a prerequisite to being hired for this film. Everyone talks in such an imposing, declaratory style, you'd think you were watching a session of Congress. At least "Plan 9" has professional actors such as Lyle Talbot; at least "Manos" has interesting characterizations. "Maniac" cannot boast any of that, except that actor Horace Carpenter once worked at Biograph with D.W. Griffith. What a comedown for him to be in this film.
Don't get me wrong; the film is a hoot to watch. From the incredible cat's eye scene to the cat fighting to the women fighting with syringes, "Maniac" has it all.
This film, made in 1934, may surprise people with its brief nude scenes. But it was a "roadshow" movie, so it's not really surprising at all. This was the kind of movie that could only be seen in burlesque houses or tent shows. Often, a promoter would put ads about the movie in the local papers, gaining huge interest in the film. The promoter would pitch a tent on the outskirts of town for the screening of the film. The promoter all too often would have to fold the tent and get out of town quickly, trying to avoid local authorities and local moral laws.
Do yourself, do your family, do your community a favor. Rent "Maniac" and see if you don't agree it's the worst ever.
You'll howl, you'll cry, you'll kiss your rental money goodbye!
See! Incredible eye-popping scenes! See! A bevy of chorus beauties! See! Mad scientists go even madder! See! How long you can stand watching it!
"Tonight my dear Maxwell, I'm ready to try my experiment on a human."
classicsoncall29 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I've never been at a loss to describe a film, but this time I think I've met my match. With no idea of what I was in for, "Maniac" managed to turn a mere fifty one minutes into a hallucinogenic experience without the drugs. With lines like "What I want is a victim with a shattered heart", and "What was IN that hypo?", this X-rated "B" movie is in a league of it's own.
That's not to say the film was bad, or even in the "so bad it's good" category. There are worse movies, believe me, if you've seen "The Beast of Yucca Flats" you'll realize that. However this film has some of the most bizarre elements you'll ever see, and they just keep coming at you. If the demented Dr. Meirschultz (Horace B. Carpenter) doesn't wake you up with his "bwa-ha-ha" maniacal laugh, then you'll certainly be entertained by the eye popping cat scene, and that's meant literally. If you thought it couldn't get any more gross, well just wait a second, and you'll witness mad doc impersonator Don Maxwell (Bill Woods) munch it down for maximum effect.
You've got things here you never expect to see - cats chasing mice, cats fighting each other, women fighting each other in a different version of cat fight, hypodermic needles, a dead body bricked up behind a wall, and more, so much more you won't believe what you're viewing. Oh yes, and there's a bare breasted woman too, so nonchalantly and provocatively inserted that you'll have to rewind to be sure you're not imagining it. All this from a film that starts out like your standard evil scientist creating life movie. There's even a dead woman brought back to life, which by the time the film is over, you realize is one of the more believable elements of the story.
Chalk this one up to one rare movie going experience. If I ever host my own late night Elvira fest, this will be the one to debut the series. It's "Reefer Madness" without the weed, and one weird ride into bizarro land you'll never forget, as hard as you may try.
That's not to say the film was bad, or even in the "so bad it's good" category. There are worse movies, believe me, if you've seen "The Beast of Yucca Flats" you'll realize that. However this film has some of the most bizarre elements you'll ever see, and they just keep coming at you. If the demented Dr. Meirschultz (Horace B. Carpenter) doesn't wake you up with his "bwa-ha-ha" maniacal laugh, then you'll certainly be entertained by the eye popping cat scene, and that's meant literally. If you thought it couldn't get any more gross, well just wait a second, and you'll witness mad doc impersonator Don Maxwell (Bill Woods) munch it down for maximum effect.
You've got things here you never expect to see - cats chasing mice, cats fighting each other, women fighting each other in a different version of cat fight, hypodermic needles, a dead body bricked up behind a wall, and more, so much more you won't believe what you're viewing. Oh yes, and there's a bare breasted woman too, so nonchalantly and provocatively inserted that you'll have to rewind to be sure you're not imagining it. All this from a film that starts out like your standard evil scientist creating life movie. There's even a dead woman brought back to life, which by the time the film is over, you realize is one of the more believable elements of the story.
Chalk this one up to one rare movie going experience. If I ever host my own late night Elvira fest, this will be the one to debut the series. It's "Reefer Madness" without the weed, and one weird ride into bizarro land you'll never forget, as hard as you may try.
In The Tradition Of Awful Movies...
ReelCheese8 September 2006
In the tradition of PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE and THE BEAST OF YUCCA FLATS, this turkey manages to earn four stars because it's so utterly, completely, bizarrely and amazingly awful. After murdering his boss, a doctor, an aspiring actor uses makeup to take his place. The rest of the movie is pretty much incomprehensible as the fake doc goes berserk. Women catfight with syringes, a topless woman is kidnapped and, most famously, our protagonist, for reasons known only to him, pops out and eagerly consumes a cat's eye.
One presumes that MANIAC, to some degree at least, was supposed to be this bad. It was released in 1934 as a "roadshow" movie, meaning perpetrators of what was then intolerable filth traveled from one town to the next with its reel, showing it in shady burlesque houses. By today's standards, it's probably not even an "R" film; other than the brief nudity, it's extremely tame. MANIAC will appeal to fans of terrible movies. In fact, this may very well be the very first "good bad" flick. It will also interest those curious to see what was deemed as immoral artistic expression all those years ago.
One presumes that MANIAC, to some degree at least, was supposed to be this bad. It was released in 1934 as a "roadshow" movie, meaning perpetrators of what was then intolerable filth traveled from one town to the next with its reel, showing it in shady burlesque houses. By today's standards, it's probably not even an "R" film; other than the brief nudity, it's extremely tame. MANIAC will appeal to fans of terrible movies. In fact, this may very well be the very first "good bad" flick. It will also interest those curious to see what was deemed as immoral artistic expression all those years ago.
quite simply, the worst film ever made,...and that's STILL being very charitable!
planktonrules4 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
For years, I thought that PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE was the worst movie ever made. However, in recent years I have seen quite a few films that actually were worse--though certainly not as much fun to watch. Of these films that are actually worse than PLAN 9, the very worst of these is MANIAC. In every possible way, it is worse than PLAN 9 and makes Ed Wood, Jr. look like one of the greatest writers/producers/directors that ever lived in comparison! Sure, both films had random stock footage inserted, but MANIAC managed not only to come up with more pointless footage BUT also managed to torment dogs and cats again and again and again!! The folks at PETA would have strokes if they saw the orchestrated animal fights and the average viewer will wonder WHAT these scenes have to do with the film (the correct answer, by the way, is "Nothing"). Other than Michael Vick, I can't see who would want to see this.
Both films also featured the worst actors of the day, but apparently 1934 had a bumper crop!! The guy who played the mad scientist was so awful and overacted so much that he made Tor Johnson (from PLAN 9) look like a thespian!! And so many of the supporting actors and actresses could barely read or remember their lines--in particular, the ladies who were undressing (in another irrelevant scene). Finally, the guy who was accidentally given the injection of "super adrenalin" overacted MUCH worse than the piano-playing guy from REEFER MADNESS!! I truly think the average 6 year-old is potentially a better actor than most of the folks who appeared in this movie.
But the worst aspect, and something that beats PLAN 9 for badness, is the plot and editing. I have never seen a more disconnected and plot-less film. It looked either like the director kept changing his mind and started and re-started many different films and ultimately just spliced them all together OR he was an active schizophrenic. Some parts were silly horror film, some was a porno flick (with a lot of exposed breasts), some was a snuff film for people who hate animals (featuring not just cat fights but a very, very, very realistic scene where a guy pops out the eye of a cat and eats it--done in closeup), and some was just irrelevant clips of ANYTHING they find!! And, on top of all this irrelevance, they interspersed long and dry text explanations of the accepted diagnoses of the day for mental illnesses (though terms such as "Dementia Praecox" are no longer used or accepted). No attempt was made to connect all this disparate images--like it was edited with a chainsaw!
Unfortunately, unlike PLAN 9, this film is also not particularly watchable or interesting. Perhaps bad movie films will still enjoy this mess, but due to it's high level of smut (something that Ed Wood, by the way, put into his later films--post PLAN 9) and disjointness, it's just not interesting--just BAD!
Both films also featured the worst actors of the day, but apparently 1934 had a bumper crop!! The guy who played the mad scientist was so awful and overacted so much that he made Tor Johnson (from PLAN 9) look like a thespian!! And so many of the supporting actors and actresses could barely read or remember their lines--in particular, the ladies who were undressing (in another irrelevant scene). Finally, the guy who was accidentally given the injection of "super adrenalin" overacted MUCH worse than the piano-playing guy from REEFER MADNESS!! I truly think the average 6 year-old is potentially a better actor than most of the folks who appeared in this movie.
But the worst aspect, and something that beats PLAN 9 for badness, is the plot and editing. I have never seen a more disconnected and plot-less film. It looked either like the director kept changing his mind and started and re-started many different films and ultimately just spliced them all together OR he was an active schizophrenic. Some parts were silly horror film, some was a porno flick (with a lot of exposed breasts), some was a snuff film for people who hate animals (featuring not just cat fights but a very, very, very realistic scene where a guy pops out the eye of a cat and eats it--done in closeup), and some was just irrelevant clips of ANYTHING they find!! And, on top of all this irrelevance, they interspersed long and dry text explanations of the accepted diagnoses of the day for mental illnesses (though terms such as "Dementia Praecox" are no longer used or accepted). No attempt was made to connect all this disparate images--like it was edited with a chainsaw!
Unfortunately, unlike PLAN 9, this film is also not particularly watchable or interesting. Perhaps bad movie films will still enjoy this mess, but due to it's high level of smut (something that Ed Wood, by the way, put into his later films--post PLAN 9) and disjointness, it's just not interesting--just BAD!
Certainly one of a kind
Hitchcoc14 March 2006
I had such a terrible print of this that it distracted from the enjoyment (such as it was). It is such a mis-edited hodgepodge that one never really gets into any kind of story. There are about six plots introduced and then pretty much dropped. We have the re-animated women, the nut case, high on adrenaline, The mad doctor, the specialist in disguises, the women whose patronage seems really out of place. There are virtually no motivations for anything--it just rambles on from one scene to the next. The little instructional breaks explaining various psychological anomalies lead us into--what? It's as if it's supposed to be a clinical film and then you have this ranting. The cat gets its eye popped out. There are Poe things, "The Black Cat," with the walled up person. I don't know. It just sort of ended, which was OK. The nudity was interesting, in that it must have been pre-production code. Why was it there. I suppose so the voyeuristic could be lured into a movie theater. Who knows. It's one big mess.
Film and early docudrama?
eavinci126 December 2004
I saw this film recently as part of a group of movies compiled and sold as horror classics. My one initial reaction was that I could not believe that a film made in 1934 allowed full frontal nudity and in several scenes. How did that happen? Did they get away with it by trying to be a docudrama of sorts? I wonder. I mean,after all it was 1934! You couldn't do that in Hollywood 20 years after that..............
The film has a brooding kind of energy, that is not often seen in early films such as this. It is clear that the person making the movie is was not your typical film maker.Even though it is not a film I would want to see again, many scenes from the film do replay in my mind.The film seems to have an impact on the unconscious mind of the viewer.I believe this due to the fact that the scenes replay in your mind almost begging for an explanation or perhaps redemption. The film explores the dark side of human desire.We all seem to want to peer in at those thoughts. Thankfully most of us only want to peer in!
The film has a brooding kind of energy, that is not often seen in early films such as this. It is clear that the person making the movie is was not your typical film maker.Even though it is not a film I would want to see again, many scenes from the film do replay in my mind.The film seems to have an impact on the unconscious mind of the viewer.I believe this due to the fact that the scenes replay in your mind almost begging for an explanation or perhaps redemption. The film explores the dark side of human desire.We all seem to want to peer in at those thoughts. Thankfully most of us only want to peer in!
A public service announcement about "the gleam"
manicgecko31 October 2005
This movie is one of my guilty little pleasures. The more I watch it the more I just have to laugh. This is far from one of the worst movies ever made, but it may be one of the most pointless. The actors are the founding fathers of the Shatner-Hasselhoff school of ham. The camera work is horrid. The plot -- lets see how many gratuitous points of senselessness we can throw into one movie and still base it (vaguely) on as many Edgar Allen Poe shorts we can throw in. Who cares about continuity we can always film cats. The best part of these 50 minutes is the blatant attempts by the film maker to make this exhibitionist trash a legitimate "educational" flick. Love it or hate it everyone with an interest in psychology, z-rated movies, or just an hour to pointlessly kill should watch this at least once.
Very bad...but still light-years ahead of its time!
Coventry11 February 2005
This film is, in one word, DEMENTED! No matter how you try to look at it either an early underdeveloped educative docu or an ambitious exploitation pioneer, you can only come to the conclusion that this is a masterpiece of awfulness! How else would you describe a movie that features images of fighting women in a basement (with baseball bats!) or a dude munching a cat's eye (which, by the way, has just been squished out)? The whole point of "Maniac" is giving some sort of anthology about all the possible mental illnesses through the adventures of a science assistant. Maxwell helps his employer with stealing bodies from the morgue and re-animating the dead tissue for the cause of science. When his boss (Dr. Meirschultz) becomes a little too obsessed, Maxwell kills him and replaces him in performing the art of mad science. In order to give the story an Edgar Allen Poe twist, he walls up the corpse and a black cat accidentally gets buried along. "Maniac" is one giant incoherent mess! Amateurish pacing, ridiculous dialogue and downright atrocious acting make it almost impossible to sit through this film even though it only lasts only a good 50 minutes. Bill Woods and Horace B. Carpenter overact terribly and especially their diabolical laughter is pathetic. And yet
I had a great time watching it and I have a great deal of respect for director Dwain Esper's risky and ahead-of-their-time ideas. Being a massive fan of eccentric exploitation and bizarre cult-films, I'm convinced that could have enjoyed a much more positive reputation by now if it only had been made in the period of sleaze-deities like Jess Franco or Jean Rollin. The editing of silent German expressionism highlights into the film is quite eerie definitely well attempted. Maniac also contains a lot of gore and even nudity, which is quite spectacular for a 1934 film. So, if you're not too easily disgusted (either by kitsch or awfulness) I recommend tracking this deranged early horror film down! I sincerely hope everyone involved in this production ended up in a mental asylum and lived happily ever after.
First impressions
Spondonman9 May 2004
Maniac is a badly conceived and executed film from 1934, with only wacky characters populating the reels saying and doing bizarre things. There's syringes waved about in nearly every scene, bare female breasts occasionally, a cat's eye popped out, a cat-fight, so many verbal and filmic non-sequiteurs it must have been made on the hoof. Maniac could have lasted a couple of hours if all the dropped threads had been picked up - just think what a state we the audience would have been in! I presume the Wild Man was still raping the naked reanimated woman at the end?
And yet after the the 50 minutes were up I felt vaguely satisfied and could have stood a bit more of this crazy world. Even with all of the on-screen tutorials this was not a pretentious film like Blazing Saddles or irredeemable like Plan 9, what you see is what was basically intended in the first place. It took me many plays in the 70's to fall in love with Beefheart's Trout Mask Replica, maybe I've got to see it again to move Kane off No. 1 spot ... Maybe I could have done with a few familiar faces - Lionel Atwill, Bela or Boris, or ... Dwight Frye!
No, it's OK as it is as splendid rubbish.
And yet after the the 50 minutes were up I felt vaguely satisfied and could have stood a bit more of this crazy world. Even with all of the on-screen tutorials this was not a pretentious film like Blazing Saddles or irredeemable like Plan 9, what you see is what was basically intended in the first place. It took me many plays in the 70's to fall in love with Beefheart's Trout Mask Replica, maybe I've got to see it again to move Kane off No. 1 spot ... Maybe I could have done with a few familiar faces - Lionel Atwill, Bela or Boris, or ... Dwight Frye!
No, it's OK as it is as splendid rubbish.
For fans of wacko film making an absolute must see!
horrorfilmx5 May 2006
I remember the first time I sat down to watch CITIZEN KANE many years ago. That movie had the reputation of being perhaps the greatest American film of all time, and I was sure I was going to be disappointed. I wasn't. It's a brilliant piece of film making that I've enjoyed again and again over the years, and one of the few times I remember thinking that a much-hyped film had actually exceeded its publicity. Last night I had a similar experience: I watched Dwaine Esper's classic MANIAC. We may be talking about the other end of the cinematic scale here but my reaction was similar: here was a movie I'd read about for years which not only lived up to the hype but surpassed it. MANIAC is a work of demented genius. I can't remember seeing another film that was more assuredly the product of a man unhampered by matters of good taste or conventional film making technique. It's one of the most consistently watchable and entertaining features I've seen, with an atmosphere more reminiscent of an old underground movie that a Hollywood production. The over the top acting, ludicrous but somehow clever dialogue, and nightmarish imagery (raving madmen superimposed over footage from silent horror classics, way ahead of its time gratuitous nudity, people being shot up with hypodermics the size of harpoons, and a killer catfight between two ferocious and seemingly indestructible women) all combine into a unique and surreal viewing experience. And yet the most shocking thing about this movie is the flashes of actual talent it displays (albiet sparingly). The sets and photography are occasionally quite atmospheric, and some of the dialogue, if competently delivered, would have seemed quite clever and original, foreshadowing the "postmodern" exchanges of people like Tarantino. All in all a movie that defines by example the word "unique" and an experience not to be missed.
A Terrible, Terrible Film, With Laughable, Performances
callanvass7 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This is just a terrible, terrible film, with laughable performances all around. It is sort of amusing , at times, but it's at times pretty dull, and, it had some of the worst performances i have ever seen!. I got this on a cheap 3 horror movie disc set called Psychotic Connections. The Dialog is especially bad, and some of it was headache inducing.And check out the laughable moment, when Dr. Maxwell starts, chasing a cat around, or how about near the end, when those two women, fight and argue constantly and hit each other, with baseball bats, and. The Direction is some of the worst i have seen. Dwain Esper, does a terrible job, here, everything is so bland, and lifeless, and most of all the Pace is very bad!. There is a tiny bit of gore(TONS for a 1930's film). We get, A heart in a jar,eyeball,severed head, and a cat gets his eye pulled out(I HATED IT!). The Acting is god awful!. Bill Woods, gives an amusing over the top performance, but it's Ludricously Bad, and, he totally over acts!, and the accent was laughable. Horace B. Carpenter, is also terrible, and made me groan. Rest are all terrible. Overall AVOID!!!!! BOMB out of 5, only watch, if your in the mood, for a type of movie like this.
Great fun, in a weird, dated, charming way.
lemon_magic16 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
No amount of solemn narrative justification in the captions can disguise this film's exploitation roots, and the film is so eager to get to the "good parts" that it loses coherence about 10 minutes in and never gets it back, but in spite of this (or even because of it), "Maniac" is a fair amount of fun to watch.
"Maniac" is distinctly lacking in polish or professionalism (there's at least one major thread that just wanders off and is completely unresolved (a man the doctor injects with "superadrenaline" carries off and murders the cataleptic revived zombie woman also wandering the premises, and we never see him again)(trust me, in spite of the flash of nipple it isn't nearly as exciting as it sounds), but you can tell it's also funny when it means to be funny -it just doesn't have the soundtrack to "tell us" when something funny is going on.
The movie does try to take a hack at being a "comedy of errors" and the payoff at the end is both welcome and deserved.
Worth watching just to see how they did exploitation films back in the day and on its on terms as a piece of over-the-top silliness.
"Maniac" is distinctly lacking in polish or professionalism (there's at least one major thread that just wanders off and is completely unresolved (a man the doctor injects with "superadrenaline" carries off and murders the cataleptic revived zombie woman also wandering the premises, and we never see him again)(trust me, in spite of the flash of nipple it isn't nearly as exciting as it sounds), but you can tell it's also funny when it means to be funny -it just doesn't have the soundtrack to "tell us" when something funny is going on.
The movie does try to take a hack at being a "comedy of errors" and the payoff at the end is both welcome and deserved.
Worth watching just to see how they did exploitation films back in the day and on its on terms as a piece of over-the-top silliness.
Casting
cpetr1312 January 2007
Yes, this is an awful movie, but the people who came to see these films weren't looking for quality; they were looking for titillation. And certainly this film delivers the good for nudity, outre violence, and drug use.
What has always bothered me after seeing this movie is that I could swear they meant this to be a vehicle for Bela Lugosi and Dwight Frye. First, there's the mad doctor part--certainly in Bela's range--and then there is that troubling, meaningless accent. To the best of my knowledge, Horace Carpenter didn't have an accent (and the one he uses in the movie is god-awful!) But the lines sound like they were meant for a central-European actor...especially one given to long tirades.
As for the assistant? Obviously Dwight was used to playing second fiddle to Bela, and in this movie would actually get to take over the movie! Even though Bela was noticeably taller than Dwight, Bill Woods appears to be shorter than Carpenter--I don't think the director thought that through.
Only a theory, of course, and unprovable as far as I know. But it makes more sense than the casting that WAS used.
What has always bothered me after seeing this movie is that I could swear they meant this to be a vehicle for Bela Lugosi and Dwight Frye. First, there's the mad doctor part--certainly in Bela's range--and then there is that troubling, meaningless accent. To the best of my knowledge, Horace Carpenter didn't have an accent (and the one he uses in the movie is god-awful!) But the lines sound like they were meant for a central-European actor...especially one given to long tirades.
As for the assistant? Obviously Dwight was used to playing second fiddle to Bela, and in this movie would actually get to take over the movie! Even though Bela was noticeably taller than Dwight, Bill Woods appears to be shorter than Carpenter--I don't think the director thought that through.
Only a theory, of course, and unprovable as far as I know. But it makes more sense than the casting that WAS used.
Maniac
Scarecrow-8811 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Positively strange portrait of dementia features Bill Woods as an insane vaudeville actor, Don Maxwell, working as the assistant of a deranged scientist, Dr. Meirschultz(Horace B carpenter) desiring to reanimate the dead. The very definition of ineptitude, the film features a gallery of oddball characters and situations, sectioned with narrative chapters speaking on various diagnosis regarding mental afflictions.
Dwain Esper(Marijuana)lets his cast ham it up without restraint and there are characters nonessential to the plot which come and go as if dropped into the film to fill the running time. For instance, there is a drop-dead hilarious scene where a police detective is meeting a neighbor of Meirschultz who owns a giant cage of cats and rats that has to be seen to be believed("The rats eat the cats, the cats eat the rats, and I get the skins."). What little plot there is consists of those who come in contact with Maxwell who has shot and killed his boss, assuming his identity. Bizarre scenes rarely come as close as seeing a troubled patient, Buckley(Ted Edwards), given a shot of powerful adrenaline by Maxwell, as he transforms into a Renfield type of deranged nut, carrying off a gorgeous female corpse which was stolen by Meirschultz for his experiments. Mrs. Buckley(Phyllis Diller, nope, not that kooky comedienne)actually seems shocked at first regarding her husband's sudden surge of psychosis, later propositioning Maxwell for control over her husband after discovering that he plans to re-animate the dead Meirschultz..to see her negotiating with Maxwell, after her husband had just snatched up a dead chick is jaw-dropping. And, in an uncanny decision, director Esper intersperses scenes from, I think, HAXAN when Maxwell has these demented inspirations which come along fleetingly. Such as when his wife, Alice(Thea Ramsey)desiring to get her grubby hands on Maxwell's inheritance from a distant uncle, comes a calling(..deciding to rid himself of both Alice and Mrs. Buckley, he concocts a scheme to have them murder each other in Meirschultz's basement)or his decision to hide Meirschultz's body under a brick wall as to not be caught(..this is the body he had planned to experiment on, but that falls to the wayside not long after). Edgar Allan Poe's THE BLACK CAT is used for the body hiding sequence thanks in part to a black cat named(..appropriate enough)Satan, who hops into the make-shift tomb. Perhaps the most mind-boggling scene features Maxwell getting revenge on Satan(..who had destroyed a living, beating heart kept in a jar)by popping out it's eyeball and eating it!
I have a hard time believing such a terrible film could be made seriously..I always had a sneaky suspicion, MANIAC was played as a black comedy. It's just too weird, with several instances of crazed behavior, to be taken seriously as a thoughtful subject on insanity. The acting is off-the-wall and their characters often speak some pretty inane dialogue. The film is basically a series of vignettes in the life of Maxwell the impersonator and how his life is eclipsed by sheer lunacy. A definite must-see for fans of rancid cinema. Those who consider this a precursor to those bad Ed Wood movies down the road are correct, in my opinion. Startlingly features bare breasts.
Dwain Esper(Marijuana)lets his cast ham it up without restraint and there are characters nonessential to the plot which come and go as if dropped into the film to fill the running time. For instance, there is a drop-dead hilarious scene where a police detective is meeting a neighbor of Meirschultz who owns a giant cage of cats and rats that has to be seen to be believed("The rats eat the cats, the cats eat the rats, and I get the skins."). What little plot there is consists of those who come in contact with Maxwell who has shot and killed his boss, assuming his identity. Bizarre scenes rarely come as close as seeing a troubled patient, Buckley(Ted Edwards), given a shot of powerful adrenaline by Maxwell, as he transforms into a Renfield type of deranged nut, carrying off a gorgeous female corpse which was stolen by Meirschultz for his experiments. Mrs. Buckley(Phyllis Diller, nope, not that kooky comedienne)actually seems shocked at first regarding her husband's sudden surge of psychosis, later propositioning Maxwell for control over her husband after discovering that he plans to re-animate the dead Meirschultz..to see her negotiating with Maxwell, after her husband had just snatched up a dead chick is jaw-dropping. And, in an uncanny decision, director Esper intersperses scenes from, I think, HAXAN when Maxwell has these demented inspirations which come along fleetingly. Such as when his wife, Alice(Thea Ramsey)desiring to get her grubby hands on Maxwell's inheritance from a distant uncle, comes a calling(..deciding to rid himself of both Alice and Mrs. Buckley, he concocts a scheme to have them murder each other in Meirschultz's basement)or his decision to hide Meirschultz's body under a brick wall as to not be caught(..this is the body he had planned to experiment on, but that falls to the wayside not long after). Edgar Allan Poe's THE BLACK CAT is used for the body hiding sequence thanks in part to a black cat named(..appropriate enough)Satan, who hops into the make-shift tomb. Perhaps the most mind-boggling scene features Maxwell getting revenge on Satan(..who had destroyed a living, beating heart kept in a jar)by popping out it's eyeball and eating it!
I have a hard time believing such a terrible film could be made seriously..I always had a sneaky suspicion, MANIAC was played as a black comedy. It's just too weird, with several instances of crazed behavior, to be taken seriously as a thoughtful subject on insanity. The acting is off-the-wall and their characters often speak some pretty inane dialogue. The film is basically a series of vignettes in the life of Maxwell the impersonator and how his life is eclipsed by sheer lunacy. A definite must-see for fans of rancid cinema. Those who consider this a precursor to those bad Ed Wood movies down the road are correct, in my opinion. Startlingly features bare breasts.
Watching this is one of the greatest regrets of my life.
I_Ailurophile5 October 2022
Some say "so bad it's good." I say "just unwatchable."
The acting is plainly awful. I don't know if it's poor sound design, degraded prints, or poor delivery that result in a fair share of dialogue being unintelligible, but that's what we have nonetheless. The frequent insertion of blocks of text, limply describing the writer's misunderstood notions of mental illness, flattens any would-be momentum. To that point, I can't help but think this is bizarrely ableist - or is it so flailing a movie that one can't reasonably take exception to the indelicacies? This also goes for scenes of cats fighting, with other cats or with dogs; that sure doesn't look like play to me, and it can surely be no accident that the animals repeatedly made it into various shots. Oh, and did I mention outright animal cruelty? No matter how well the scene just after the 30-minute mark is staged, there's no mistaking that this cat was being altogether abused to achieve the desired shots. The picture suffers from meager pacing that dulls moments of possible impact, as well as heavy-handed editing and sequencing, direction, and cinematography.
'Maniac' is just rotten.
There is theoretically a good idea or two somewhere in this screenplay. If so, they're hidden behind excruciating scene writing and dialogue, and senselessly penned characters that are all altogether dispensable. Narrative is already minimal, and is approached with so little thought that it's easy to get lost and wonder what's going on as one watches - or conversely, it's easy to fail to discern any plot at all. Story beats come and go, and I can make neither head nor hair of how some of the content herein is tied into the plot. This includes the climax - how all these characters came to arrive at the lab in the first place is a total mystery to me.
Care, mindfulness, and skill are unheard of among all who were involved in making this. I'd love to speak more on this abysmal putrescence, if only to give warning, but words fail me. Even for the direly curious there is no reason to watch this. 'Maniac' is unquestionably one of the very worst pictures every made, and that's all there is to it.
The acting is plainly awful. I don't know if it's poor sound design, degraded prints, or poor delivery that result in a fair share of dialogue being unintelligible, but that's what we have nonetheless. The frequent insertion of blocks of text, limply describing the writer's misunderstood notions of mental illness, flattens any would-be momentum. To that point, I can't help but think this is bizarrely ableist - or is it so flailing a movie that one can't reasonably take exception to the indelicacies? This also goes for scenes of cats fighting, with other cats or with dogs; that sure doesn't look like play to me, and it can surely be no accident that the animals repeatedly made it into various shots. Oh, and did I mention outright animal cruelty? No matter how well the scene just after the 30-minute mark is staged, there's no mistaking that this cat was being altogether abused to achieve the desired shots. The picture suffers from meager pacing that dulls moments of possible impact, as well as heavy-handed editing and sequencing, direction, and cinematography.
'Maniac' is just rotten.
There is theoretically a good idea or two somewhere in this screenplay. If so, they're hidden behind excruciating scene writing and dialogue, and senselessly penned characters that are all altogether dispensable. Narrative is already minimal, and is approached with so little thought that it's easy to get lost and wonder what's going on as one watches - or conversely, it's easy to fail to discern any plot at all. Story beats come and go, and I can make neither head nor hair of how some of the content herein is tied into the plot. This includes the climax - how all these characters came to arrive at the lab in the first place is a total mystery to me.
Care, mindfulness, and skill are unheard of among all who were involved in making this. I'd love to speak more on this abysmal putrescence, if only to give warning, but words fail me. Even for the direly curious there is no reason to watch this. 'Maniac' is unquestionably one of the very worst pictures every made, and that's all there is to it.
Rather interesting little film
ECheatwood6530 July 2018
I have to agree with another reviewer and say that, while not a great film, it is definitely not the worst. In fact, I found it a rather creepy journey into mental illness. Yes, the acting is over-the-top and you are left scratching your head at some things, but it also leaves an impression that I know I won't soon forget.
Awful and Weird
Rainey-Dawn7 June 2015
"Maniac" is aka "Sex Maniac" and why "Sex Maniac" is beyond me because neither one of the main characters (Don Maxwell & Dr. Meirschultz) are sex crazy that I could tell. The film is extremely loosely based on Edgar Allan Poe's "The Black Cat".
In all honesty I do not believe this film is supposed to be pure horror. I think it is an early comedy-horror film. Why? The deliberately comical looks on the actors faces, the deliberately bad over-acting, the deliberately bad script with lines such as: "I think too much of Satan to use cats for experiments" etc... it all adds up to a comedy-horror in my beliefs and NOT a real or pure horror film.
The film is simply awful and weird but, believe it or not, there are worse "horror" films out there to watch. You don't believe me? The take a look at the movie called "Monster (1980)" it is aka "Monstroid". "Monstroid" makes "(Sex) Maniac" look like a very artful and well done film.
Overacting? Yes this movie has it - but some of the other older films are full of overacting as well. It's not unusual for a films during this time era.
Would I recommend the movie "Maniac (1934)" to others? Only to the people looking for a terrible horror film to watch or to those that are extremely curious to see just how bad this film really is.
Why did I give this film 2 out of 10 stars instead of just one star? Because I did get a couple of giggles out of this awful flick.
2/10
In all honesty I do not believe this film is supposed to be pure horror. I think it is an early comedy-horror film. Why? The deliberately comical looks on the actors faces, the deliberately bad over-acting, the deliberately bad script with lines such as: "I think too much of Satan to use cats for experiments" etc... it all adds up to a comedy-horror in my beliefs and NOT a real or pure horror film.
The film is simply awful and weird but, believe it or not, there are worse "horror" films out there to watch. You don't believe me? The take a look at the movie called "Monster (1980)" it is aka "Monstroid". "Monstroid" makes "(Sex) Maniac" look like a very artful and well done film.
Overacting? Yes this movie has it - but some of the other older films are full of overacting as well. It's not unusual for a films during this time era.
Would I recommend the movie "Maniac (1934)" to others? Only to the people looking for a terrible horror film to watch or to those that are extremely curious to see just how bad this film really is.
Why did I give this film 2 out of 10 stars instead of just one star? Because I did get a couple of giggles out of this awful flick.
2/10
Twisted fun from the 30s
jz136014 July 2001
For those of you who enjoy bad films from the 30s, this is a can't miss. There is so much that is bad about this film (in a fun and mesmerizing way) that it's hard to know where to start. It is a disjointed experience for sure but very inspired. Just when you think there's some semblance of a story, there's a totally unrelated film title expounding the particulars of Dementia Praecox and there's an unrelated shot of a badly exposed fight between a cat and a mouse. (Subtle metaphors anyone?) This film is made by the Meirschulz and Don Maxwell comedy team. Meirschulz (Horace Carpenter, a stock character of 30s poverty row films--check the hilariously inept western The Irish Gringo sometime) is the prototype laughing and hand-wringing German mad scientist. Maxwell (Bill Woods, a Kramer from Seinfeld ringer) is the failed vaudeville "impersonator" who slavishly does the mad dr's bidding. I'll leave the rest of the story for your viewing, but believe me, this film has all-time classic moments. Take the otherwise meek Mr. Buckley, bring him into Meirschultz's office and deliver a shot of superadrenaline. Buckley's seething, slobbering reaction and his inspired "brain on fire" speech is worth the price of admission.
mmm
kairingler16 March 2013
first off you got to love the Edgar Allen Poe reference in the movie where the mad scietist, puts the guy behind the brick wall. and plasters the whole thing up with him still behind the wall. at first i didn't exactly know what to make of this movie,, yeah sure it's weird and all but you have to consider that a lot of these b movies were made in the 30's and they churned them out like crazy.. some people say this is the worst movie that they have ever seen,, not by a longshot,, it wasn't that bad,, try a dubbed Seagal movie sometime,, no this isn't near as bad as everyone says,, you gotta be a Poe fan to appreciate,, but ont he other hand,, this movie isn't great,, not something you can watch over and over again either,, so take this review with a grain of salt
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
