2
(nothing substantial)
5
(mild violence, animal violence, nudity)
2
(so bad it's amusing)
This particular "Maniac" is an old, old shock/exploitation film. There are a few movies by this same title. This one is from the 30's (meaning black and white), and features a cast and crew you've likely never heard of (the Phyllis Diller in the movie is not the well-known comedian). Granted some of the shocks in this thing are laughable in today’s more desensitized time, but it may still be disturbing for some. Read on to find out why.
The story begins with a mad scientist (whose name I won't even try to spell) wanting to bring the dead back to life: a bit like Frankenstein although he’s not stitching together a body, just reviving a corpse. He does wish to advance to replacing a damaged heart, though. He doesn’t live to realize his dream. Don, his assistant, wants to continue his work and revive the dead doctor, but, realizing (more like “rationalizing” I guess) he must keep people from knowing the doctor’s fate and being a master of disguise, Don takes on the guise of the deceased man. Torn between keeping both identities alive and under the stress of keeping the secret of his impostorship (if that's not a word, it should be!), Don descends into insanity.
There are some interesting aspects to the narrative, probably because it borrows from Edgar Allan Poe’s writings. Some even credit Poe with the story although I don’t think it follows closely enough to be truly considered an adaptation of his work. There are direct references to Poe in the dialogue, but that doesn't make it a good story-to-screen translation.
There are also a few unusual artistic elements that I liked. The main one is the use of silent movie-type text inserts that give descriptions of various afflictions associated with insanity from psychological medicine. This lends a certain credibility to Don's actions as being illustrative of the real thing (not that they really are, it's all cinematic illusion). Something like this would never work in a contemporary mainstream movie. It’s slows the action down far too much. But, as long as you don’t mind doing a little reading, it works in a strange sort of way here and explains a little about Don's mental states as they change.
The acting is laughable. The part of Don, the assistant/mad scientist impersonator, grew on me a little, but the performances are way over the top for some and completely wooden for others. The woman with the high-pitched squeaky voice is almost unbearable. Could that possibly be her real voice? Tell me it ain't so! Surely she's doing a special voice to try to add some nuance to her character. Hahahaha, yeah right.
When we're not reading psych 101 flash cards the plot's pace is quicker than a lot of other B&W horror movies because this one relies more on shock value than any other movie I've seen from this time. So we are thrown one shocking scene after another to keep our interest alive. It's gimmicky, without a doubt, but it accomplishes its goal in that it's not boring.
Morality
As I said this is a shock flick. The human-on-human violence is downright silly but still on display more than a lot of similar movies of this era. As far as gore goes it is nothing worse than you might see in a high school stage play. Mostly it’s someone choking another person or girls ripping each other’s clothes off.
On that subject, yes, there is actual nudity in this movie which is rare for the B&W horror movies I've seen. Two women in a couple of different scenes are clearly shown topless. One alludes to sex, though there is none actually depicted, and the other is violent. The implication is that one crazed man carries off a woman to ravish her. There’s a lot of footage of multiple women in their underwear but it’s not particularly revealing (they didn’t have g-strings at this time). I guess this was shocking at the time. There is an alternate title for the film, “Sex Maniac,” but I don't think there's enough sexuality here to justify such a title.
What may really disturb some viewers is the animal violence. There are a few different shots of cats and dogs fighting which would probably make some animal rights groups today shoot steam out of their ears. The other is a scene of the villain putting a cat’s eye out. You can view this as a silly attempt at shock or a disturbing moment of film violence. Seeing as how the cat’s eye socket is clearly shown as empty I had to watch the scene a second time to be sure we didn’t see a real act of violence. Rest assured, though, the cat’s eye was gone before this scene and the violent act was most definitely staged. Even so, anyone particularly sensitive to violence against animals may want to steer clear of this scene.
There is no strong language in the movie at all.
Spirituality
This is more psychological than spiritual. The movie seeks to shock you with nudity and acts of violence though considering that in today's age of technology hardcore sex and graphic violence are a short Google search away not many viewers are likely to bat an eye at "Maniac." I guess it's an indication of what audiences find shocking then vs. now.
Final Thoughts
If you decide to check out "Maniac" it's best to do so with a group with a good sense of humor that can help you provide comical commentary as you watch, though the animal violence and other dark aspects maybe be a humor killer for a lot of people. It's almost comical in how bad some of it is.
Buying Guide
Yes, even "Maniac" (Dwain Esper's old shock flick) has a maniacal number of DVD releases out there. I guess being public domain and such an oddity of its time makes this one worth putting out. Sorting through the releases is made more difficult because of other (relatively) popular releases by the same title and others that just include the word “maniac” all of which search engines assume are the ones you're REALLY looking for. See? Even Google passive-aggressively makes fun of you for hunting down this title.
I perhaps exaggerated a bit above for the sake of a comedic descriptor. There really aren't that many stand-alone DVD releases when I compare the returns to the number I get when I look up a lot of other public domain titles. This movie is included in a large number of combo packs, though, most notably the “Maniac/Narcotic” double-feature. Note that some of the releases are under the title of “Sex Maniac.”
Even the “Maniac/Narcotic” double-feature doesn't appear to offer a better quality presentation than any of the other release I've seen. (I base this on reviews I read of this package). It does, however, appear to be the only set to contain any extras including a commentary, a letter from the censors, and an excerpt from “Maciste in Hell” which is evidently the source of some of the images in the movie. Besides that, "Narcotic," is not commonly found in the combo packs that include "Maniac," so this might be a good choice for anyone looking for other Dwain Esper movies. The case mentions this being the “definitive edition” so I assume it includes the uncensored version. It's listed as having a run time of 54 minutes which is 3 minutes longer than other versions, even those that include nudity and violence, but I'm not sure what those extra minutes may include.
I can't tell based on product descriptions which of the other releases might include the uncensored version and which don't. None of the others mention any extras, and none say anything about being remastered.
Final Recommendation:
The double feature is your best bet if you're hunting for extra features, and it does list a run time that is longer than any other I've seen. At the same time, know what you're getting yourself into before you go paying that price for this movie. The Horror Classics 50 pack (detailed below) is likely to be a much better value more along the lines of what the movie itself is worth. (The same can be said for the Chilling 20 pack, though the set as a whole has issues). I wouldn't expect any quality improvement out of any other edition, and it will be a shot in the dark as to which cut of the film you will get (unless the comments I've seen overstate the rarity of the more risque edit).
The first of my versions I'll look at comes with the 50 “Horror Classics.” It offers 50 movies on 12 DVD's.
Video
1.33:
There is no widescreen version. It's jumpy, trashy, fuzzy, and generally unclear not to mention that the framing cuts off some of the image. It looks rough which is not helped by the rough editing and other quality issues present just because of its age and history.
Audio
2.0 mono:
The audio is no better. It's full of white noise and jumps along with the video. It’s bearable quality, though perhaps just barely.
Packaging
This particular disc is housed in a cardboard sleeve contained in a Velcro-fastened box (repackaged in plastic since I got mine). You can read about the set as a whole in great detail in the Horror Classics (50 pack) guide.
While shorter than the runtime listed for the double-feature (being only 51 minutes), it does include the nudity thought by some to be nothing more than a rumor.
Extras
There are none.
Next up is the Chilling 20 pack.
Video
1.33:
It's pretty much the same as the one I described above. It's quite trashy, fuzzy, and too dark at times.
Audio
2.0 mono:
The audio has a lot of white noise with some loud pops and is a little distorted.
Packaging
The disc comes in a paper sleeve that lives in a plastic case. You can get more details about the set as a whole by checking out the Chilling (20 pack) guide.
This is also the 51 minute runtime.
Extras
No extras for this one, either.