This series begins with the desire to study the classics, gain more knowledge, have both a deeper understanding of, and maybe develop respect for, the Horror films of our past. The reviews I find cover thoughts on both films, with the reviewer watching the original film FIRST. Not me. Not this series. Having virgin eyes to many ‘vintage’ films, I come with unbiased viewership.
Both films do follow similar storylines, a man struggling with the inner war of giving in to the desire to scalp beautiful women. But here’s where the similarities end. I’m trying my hardest to keep this series spoiler free, so you can easily decide whether both, one, or neither sound good to you. Or you can argue me in the comments below! Be prepared for me to argue back. 😉
We’ll follow this order:
Explore thoughts on the 2012 remake starring Elijah Wood and directed by Franck Khalfoun
Dig deep into thoughts on the 1980 original starring Joe Spinell and directed by William Lustig
Does the remake measure up to the original?
Recommendations
Maniac (2012)
My initial thoughts after viewing the opening scene of the 2012 remake are mixed. I mean, it is a hell of an opener, way to set the scene! The story can’t possibly be going anywhere GOOD. But there’s a lot of telling, and not enough showing me information I need. I feel like I’m meant to be shocked, but that’s it, nothing more complex than that. But that can be okay in some instances. Let’s truck on.
I’m loving the depiction of paranoia, but I want more. I want to see our main character, played by Elijah Wood, drenched in suspicion at every turn, in every scene. I want him pulled down, stuck in the loop of paranoia, not just shown this part of him so little. Give me more!
Advertisement
Watching from Wood’s POV for the majority of the film is fun, a little touch of individuality we don’t see everyday. The obsessive interest and behavior we get to see as if we, too, are a part of Wood. As if we, too, have similar interests and behaviors. Neat!
I wish the auditory cues were a little more…specific…and I didn’t have to work as hard to ‘get’ what’s happening. But thankfully this did not take away from the terrifying notes and rhythms of being a woman afraid, being surrounded by the evidence of humans, yet no help comes. How deep this can run. Fantastic job getting me worked up!
In addition, we’re shown the tragic results of giving into our instincts and transgressive thoughts. Medicating the symptoms, while the tumor grows. The horrifying pieces of this remake aren’t throughout, but are strong enough to give nightmares and inspire thought.
Neither Wood’s character or any of the women convince me to like them. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy an unlikeable character, I find them the most fun, the most…REAL. Nobody is really all that likeable, are they? But I feel like I would be dreading the inevitable more if I was given the opportunity to find redeeming, surface level human qualities in our main male and female characters.
Wood’s acting is fine. There are points of genius, but that ending scene….I can’t. I just can’t. Don’t.Make.Me.Start.Laughing.Again.
But the nods to other horror greats! I caught a little wink to American Psycho, 28 Days Later, and Silence of the Lambs. Did I miss any? Nice little kisses to HORROR. Cool, this film is shouting fanboy, which is fine. Errr… but I thought it’s supposed to be a remake?
Maniac (1980)
The opener immediately has me hooked, the grunting and vocals, like our main character is ravished and starving. Gorgeous. I’ve always found older horny gentlemen to be the most creepy. They have to know this, right? The director William Lustig had clear vision, and this is evident from the get go.
Advertisement
Talk about REAL scenes! The special effects are surprising in their success of getting me to believe in the horrifying scenes throughout. For 1980, phenomenal! There’s such a brilliant mix of violence and everyday mundane life actions.
In addition, the inner dialogue I find brilliant, and wish it’s more popular. Not that I think stories should solely be told in thoughts of our main characters, but it could be nice for tough spots in explaining complex human emotions. Forceful storytelling doesn’t work, but in the original Maniac psychological slasher, everything’s connected perfectly and makes sense. We watch our main character, played by Joe Spinell , exercise and validate his feelings. And what feelings those are!
BLOOD! There’s blood! I thought the remake was bloody….oy! And the scenes involving violence aren’t drawn out, like some…others I’ve seen. Perfect length, each scene having specific purpose to bigger picture. The dread and intensity created is unbelievable. Lustig understands that the shock factor is necessary but isn’t excessive. Superior Horror here, guys!
The characters are, for the most part, layered, human, and likeable. Us, the audience, are constantly kept in mind, which is clear in both the overall chilling atmosphere and in the ending. I haven’t felt this way after viewing a film since the first time I watched Wes Craven’s Scream, back when I was….well, a long time ago.
Is Maniac (1980) better than Maniac (2012)?
No. Although they’re both considered Psychological Slasher films, they both speak to very different audiences. Both gory and original, but because they’re so different, I cannot say which is superior. I can say, however, that each should be viewed separately, as their own pieces of art and storytelling.
Comparing the two films against each other would be an injustice to film in general. The original is masterful, intense, and a perfect use of film as this story’s mode. Now, the remake. If you’ve seen the original, watching the remake could make you…angry. Or maybe you’ll love the twisted, poisonous apple, this film gives.
Advertisement
The side by side comparison shows little from each being the same. Aside from the main story, these are two very different films, both with cool aspects. Okay, okay. They’re both pretty gory and intense. But calling the most recent release a remake of the 1980 original should probably not happen.
Horror Movie Recommendations
If you liked Maniac (2012), to get a similar feel, the best horror movies to watch Drag Me to Hell (2009), You’re Next (2011), The Strangers (2008), Mama (2013), American Psycho (2000)
If you liked Maniac (1980), watch some of the finest Horror films, like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), Hereditary (2018), Midsommar (2019), High Tension (2003) P2 (2007)
I’m extremely interested in your thoughts! If I watched them in their release date order, I wonder how my thoughts would differ. Argue me, make me take your side. Whichever that side may be.
If you’d like to see my thoughts on other remakes of horror originals, I’ll be sure to watch the remake first and compile my thoughts! Just leave both titles in the comments below.
“The Demon of Death” is the season 3 premiere of the supernatural dramaEvil, created by Michelle King and Robert King. The central cast includes Katja Herbers, Mike Colter, Aasif Mandvi, Michael Emerson, Christine Lahti, and Andrea Martin. As of this review, it’s available through Netflix and Paramount+ and its add-ons.
The assessors investigate the weight of a soul. Father Frank Ignatius (Wallace Shawn) agrees to participate in this test despite his growing disillusionment. David (Mike Colter) and Kristen (Katja Herbers) deal with the ramifications of their confessions. Kristen’s girls go on the warpath with Leland (Michael Emerson). Andy (Patrick Brammall) signs his death warrant.
What I Like about “The Demon of Death”
As season 2 ended with a cliffhanger, “The Demon of Death” picks back up with an interesting addition. The episode provides a more obvious stopping point that Season 2 should have taken advantage of. It dumbfounds me because this addition makes for a more interesting and darker cliffhanger. The added context would have made the cliffhanger more palatable. However, it’s a nice twist for the episode.
Dr. Boggs (Kurt Fuller) and Sister Andrea (Andrea Martin) make an interesting pair that adds complexity to both. We even explore some of Sister Andrea’s character flaws, best displayed by her interaction with Kristen in the next scene. Few wise sage characters that display flaws, making this addition appreciated.
Father Ignatius’ introduction adds layers of interest for a character who will play a recurring role, tying into Monsignor Korecki directly. The yet-to-be-explored relationship between Father Ignatius and Monsignor Korecki (Boris McGiver) evokes an interest.
Advertisement
While “The Demon of Death” isn’t a haunting episode, but explores the mysteries and terror of death through science to provide an interesting environment for an episode. It introduces a new character that adds to the cast.
Tired Tropes and Triggers
There’s not much to report here that particularly crosses the line and what teeters on the line holds a dark comedic tone.
Perhaps Sister Andrea’s flaw might rub some the wrong way, as it deals with her overwhelming faith. However, it’s a minor point at the moment. Again, I lean on liking some complexity for the wise sage archetype.
What I Dislike about “The Demon of Death”
“The Demon of Death” still plays it safe with its supernatural elements, but that does seem to be Evil’s standard. At this point of the series, it seems a strange restraint. However, the new normal remains functionally paranormal.
While the premiere starts with an interesting procedural plot, it doesn’t direct the season like prior premieres. This episode doesn’t deliver a massive refocus as season 2’s premiere, but that’s because its conclusion doesn’t deliver as focused of a direction. Regardless, “The Demon of Death” is still an episode that slips away despite its premiere status.
Ben (Aasif Mandvi) seems needlessly hostile as they investigate a soul’s potential weight. The study delivers a thorough scientific process, which makes his resistance linger on the “angry atheist” archetype.
The demon shown on screen certainly isn’t the demon of death the title suggests. While the plot revolves around the mystery of death, there is a demon with a more carnal domain. As future episodes dive into their respective demons, it does seem to be an inaccurate title. However, the demon of the episode will get further focus in a different episode.
Advertisement
Final Thoughts
“The Demon of Death” doesn’t stand out as a premiere but provides an interesting procedural episode. As Father Ignatius will become another key character in the series, giving him an entire episode to introduce him is a nice strategy. While it’s not a haunting episode, it still provides a level of camp with interesting characters to pull it off. (3 / 5)
Released in 2010, Rare Exports asks an important holiday question. One that no one else has dared to ask.
What if Santa was a ten-story-tall monster buried under the ice for centuries?
The story
Rare Exports is the story of a little boy named Pietari. After doing what is frankly too much research for a little boy, he realizes that Santa is not the jolly old elf we all think of. He is, in fact, a monster who eats bad children. And it turns out that Santa was trapped in the ice near Pietari’s little town. All this would be well and good if a Russian mining team weren’t in the process of cutting him out of the ice. So it’s up to Pietari to convince everyone of the dark, horrific truth.
Why were the Russians digging in the snow to find Santa? What was the plan there? What happened to Pietari’s mom? And who did they sell the elves to? Do the elves need air or water to live?
We don’t get answers to any of those questions. And frankly, we don’t need them to enjoy Rare Exports.
This is a wild story about a little boy who discovers that Santa is a mythical monster with a bunch of scrawny old men with big white beards to do his evil bidding and eats bad children who haven’t been beaten by their parents enough. What sort of explanation would help this story in any way?
I mean, we could pick apart why it’s suddenly legal to sell people, or at least mythical creatures that look like naked old men, or why this all happened right next to the only little kid who had the exact knowledge needed. But in the end, wouldn’t that be like asking how Santa gets into people’s homes when they don’t have fireplaces? Doesn’t that objective reasoning just piss on the Christmas magic?
Advertisement
What didn’t work
While Rare Exports was fun, there were parts that I did not appreciate. For one thing, there wasn’t a single woman or person of any color in this film. Literally not one. Not an extra, not in the background. This little Finnish town is populated entirely by white men. And yes, it is Finland and there isn’t a hugely diverse population. But it’s also 2010. People move. Also, women exist.
On the subject of seeing too many white men, we also saw too much of the white men. Specifically, we saw far too many old white male actors entirely nude. There was just no reason for this. These men were portraying elves. They didn’t have to be naked. If they were naked, they didn’t have to have, um, yule logs. Maybe elves are like Ken dolls. There were so many options that didn’t include so much old man wang.
Finally, I wish we’d seen Santa Claus. Not to spoil the ending, but he never actually emerges to attack anyone. And that feels like a cop-out. If we’re going to be teased the whole movie with this depiction of monster Santa, we should at least get to see monster Santa.
Though, after what they did with the elves, maybe it’s a blessing we didn’t see him.
In the end, Rare Exports was well worth watching. It was hilarious, creepy and bloody. And while it wasn’t perfect, it was a delightful holiday horror comedy.
Released in 2016, Christmas Crime Story is about a disastrous robbery on Christmas Eve, and all the many lives impacted by the selfish decisions of one person.
And then, suddenly, it isn’t. But we’ll get to that part.
The story
Christmas Crime Story is the tale of a Christmas Eve holdup gone wrong. We see the story from several points of view, starting with Chris, the detective first on the scene.
Chris is having a hard Christmas Eve. So, on his lunch break, he visits his mom at her diner. It appears that they have a contentious relationship. But nothing is solved in this quick visit.
Advertisement
Chris goes on to pull over a man speeding. When the man, named David, pulls over, Chris discovers something in the trunk. That something must have been pretty damn incriminating, because rather than open the trunk, David shoots him dead.
We then switch to David’s pov for the night. Then his girlfriend’s pov. Then, the man his girlfriend has been cheating on him with. And on and on we go, until we see how all of these different stories and people come together for a dark, sordid Christmas Eve.
What worked
The first thing I want to say about Christmas Crime Story is that it’s heartwarming. Like, to a fault, which we will be talking about.
The ending is very sweet, in a Christmasy sort of way. Families come together, people are filled with joy, and all is right in the world for almost everyone. Except for Lena, who deserves to have a bad Christmas, everyone gets a happy ending.
That brings me to my next point. The characters, mostly, are all deeply sympathetic. Even when David or James are killing people, you feel bad for them.
Advertisement
You don’t agree with what they’re doing, but you do feel bad.
You have to feel sympathetic for the man whose girlfriend hired a killer to merk him. Or the woman whose daughter has cancer. Or the guy who just can’t find work, even though he’s trying to make good decisions. You want things to work out for them. You want them to be okay. Even when they do terrible things.
Finally, I always love stories told from so many different points of view. It’s always fun to see a story unfold in a nonlinear way, but in a way that makes more and more sense as we get more points of view. It’s a hard thing to pull off, and I think Christmas Crime Story did it very well.
What didn’t work
Unfortunately, all of the sympathetic characters and clever storytelling methods in the world won’t save a story that doesn’t work. And Christmas Crime Story just does not work.
Let’s begin with the ending. The big twist near the end of the movie. I won’t spoil it, but you will for sure know it if you’ve seen the film. Or, if you waste your time watching the film.
Advertisement
As a rule, twists work when they make sense. Not when it feels like the writers threw up their hands and said, “Okay, but what if everything we just did for the last hour and fifteen minutes didn’t happen, and instead…”
This wasn’t clever. It wasn’t fun. It felt like the writers didn’t know how to end their movie and just decided to cheat.
Finally, I mentioned earlier that Christmas Crime Story was heartwarming. And yes, that is nice.
But is it maybe a little too heartwarming?
I mean, we have an adorable angel of a child with cancer. Her parents don’t have enough money for her treatment. We have two poor guys who are in love with a black-hearted woman. And we have a detective so sweet and kind that he makes you rethink ACAB. And, he’s about to get married to his pregnant girlfriend. And they’re naming the baby after his mom. And his name is literally Chris DeJesus. His mom’s name is Maggie DeJesus. I tried to think of a sillier less subtle name to use as a joke, and I literally couldn’t think of one.
Advertisement
They could have at least named him De La Cruz. That would be more subtle, and I still would have complained.
In the end, Christmas Crime Story just missed the mark. It came very close to being a good movie. But it focused too much on how it wanted you to feel, rather than telling a satisfying story that made sense. Much like that third glass of eggnog, it’s fun in the moment and regretful after. If you’re looking for a satisfying Christmas horror, I’d suggest looking elsewhere.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Pingback: Supernatural Horror: Suspiria (2018) vs Suspiria (1977) - Haunted MTL