Maniac (1934) review

(7/10)

     Maniac pushes the boundaries beyond what was common and typical of cinema back in the 1930s. It's frightening and disturbing even today, leaving the one watching feeling uncomfortable- which is exactly what it wants. Though the film possesses many problems from some terrible acting and unnecessary plot twists, it still remains a very unique exploitation horror made with a mindset way ahead of its time.

PLOT: Insane Dr. Meirshultz (Horace Carpenter) and his hopeful apprentice, Don Maxwell (Bill Woods), are planning to give life to a once-dead human being with a real human heart. After sneaking into the local morgue and bringing a dead woman back to life, the doctor's passions and psychotic tendencies get stronger. His lust for his experiments gets so crazy, Maxwell ends up shooting him out of panic. In an attempt to cover up what he's done from the public eye, Maxwell uses his skills as a master of disguise to impersonate Dr. Meirshultz. However, after taking on the role of the late doctor, he starts to actually believe he's the real Dr. Meirshultz and takes on his impassioned intentions to an even further degree. The plot is a very excellent concept altered too much. The plot at its bare bones is very well thought-out and perfect for a good horror film. What ruins it is that the filmmakers added a few too many excess plot twists that didn't really have anything to do with the film or its essence, like some of the sequences with the injected "maniac" and Maxwell's wife and her friends. Some of it just seemed to hold little relevance to the genius horror plot presented. However, it was executed well enough to fit almost snugly into the flow of the film.

ACTING: The acting in this film is very hit-and-miss. The two main leads are the best performances in the whole film and actually grow very realistic and convincing as it progresses. Horace Carpenter plays a very chilling role as the mad scientist Dr. Meirshultz, and Bill Woods plays an even more frightening role as Maxwell. Carpenter's performance was of a very convincing mad scientist, whereas Woods' is comparable only to a true mind going mad. His performance in this film is disturbing, almost iconic, and as manic and insane as the title and his character suggest. However, the rest of the Maniac's cast are best described as circus clowns. The performances are stereotypical, annoying, and very inexperienced. It look as if some of them had never seen a camera before in their lives. Aside from the two very talented leads, the cast is pretty terrible, granted it was the 1930s.

SCORE: The musical score of this film wasn't anything too special but fit the mood just right. It was very dramatic and spooky-sounding.

OTHER CONTENT: Maniac is an exploitation film worth praise and more recognition by horror fans around the world. The film pushed many boundaries beyond what was accepted to be filmed and what was considered taboo. It's one of the first of its time to contain content like animal brutality (staged), grotesque blood and gore, Satanic imagery, heavy talk of mental illness, and full-on female nudity. One didn't see anything like that from the 1930s world of cinema- even taking horror into consideration. Most of the rage around this time was from stars like Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff in spooky mainstream horror movies, but none of them had the guts to push past the boundaries of the taboo. Aside from being just controversial for its time period, Maniac is actually pretty frightening and well-styled. The leads set up and deliver a feeling of paranoia and terror and the horrific imagery really drives the feelings home. The director of this film (Dwain Esper) knew how to send a message and drive the point home by painting a portrait of madness on the screen rather than straight up telling the viewer what changes were going on. It wasn't just fighting animals and dramatic, Satanic overlays that signified the character's descent into mania but the well-written tidbits of psychological facts and life advice given in between each sequence of the film. Each one preceded a twist in the story and a change in Maxwell's character, helping the viewer feel not only well-informed about the science of his mental condition, but uneasy as the viewer knows what's coming next and that whatever it is won't be very pretty. The film has a very dedicated style, enhancing the frightening and disturbing moments and giving it the real dirty, gritty, and somewhat uncomfortable feel of watching a true exploitation horror film.

     Maniac is an exploitation horror that demands to be remembered. The frightening and disturbing imagery is way ahead of its time, racing past what's acceptable of the time period without looking back to wave goodbye. Most of the acting is quite awful and lackluster, but the two leads stole the show. Each's depiction of his own mania is a terrifying and convincing, delivering even still today. The plot is genius, punctuated with style and only interrupted by unnecessary plot twists that even still help the film's flow. Maniac is no true horror masterpiece for sure, but it definitely deserves credit for what it has done and for what it still does to viewers today- make them feel both frightened and uncomfortable.

Freaks (1932) review

(9/10)

   Combining the elements of pure horror and compelling drama, Freaks lives to be more than just your basic shocker. It lives to be as true a variety show as it portrays, but never falling short of a few chills.

PLOT: The story takes place in your average traveling circus with its own special set of sideshow freaks, including things from bearded ladies and sword swallowers to things as extreme as limbless, deformed, and Siamese twin humans. All of the entertainers are very close to each other except for a certain two people: Cleopatra, Queen of the Trapeze (Olga Baclanova) and Hercules (Henry Victor). These two are perfectly normal, beautiful, and talented people and separate themselves from the other acts. However, one of the acts, a dwarf named Hans (Harry Earles) falls in love with Cleopatra and plans to leave his prior engagement for her. Cleopatra at first uses Hans as a servant and an entertainer, but when she finds out he has a small fortune hidden away, Cleopatra decides to marry him. After the wedding and a good few drinks, Cleopatra and Hercules yell in disgust at the freaks when they try to accept them as one of their own, revealing their true colors. Afterwards, all of the freaks hate Cleo and Herc, including Hans, and plan on getting revenge, especially after finding out she might be poisoning Hans. The plot is very well developed and executed excellently, with every element standing out and finding its place, from shock and horror to comedy and tragedy. The story elements fall perfectly into place all the way up to the chilling ending.

ACTING: The performances in this film are excellent. Olga Baclanova and Henry Victor both are excellent as Cleopatra and Hercules, establishing definitive duo of villains. They stood out about as much as the actual sideshow acts. One of the best features of this film's cast is the idea the filmmakers had to use real circus freaks in the cast. Harry Earles is really a dwarf. Daisy and Violet Hilton are real Siamese twins. The living torsos and pinhead-like beings are real. This effect in the cast makes the film extremely authentic and that much more chilling. The cast is well picked and excellently talented, keeping the tension high all the way up to the outstanding ending.

SCORE: The score is very haunting and effective, instilling a nostalgic feeling of horror and despair for the film.

OTHER CONTENT: This film may have some truly terrifying moments,which are filmed excellently enough to create an ominous, suspenseful mood, but Freaks itself contains all the elements of the variety show within the film. This film has comedy, tragedy, terror, a compelling story, and is overall very much like the circus within the film. Though a little cheesier compared to today's standards, the film does very much remain a classic of its time.

   Freaks is very much a show; the comedy, tragedy, horror and story are all there. However, it's a show memorable through its haunting camerawork and ominous, suspenseful mood building up the the shocker ending. The film is a lot of fun, but also a lot of serious emotion, enhanced by the excellently-picked cast.

The Wizard of Oz (1939) review

(10/10)

"There's no place like home." Do I even need to say anymore? This classic film is iconic in every way and a family favorite in nearly every household.

PLOT:Young Dorothy Gale (Judy Garland) is a farm girl living in the grey plains of Kansas with her Aunt Em (Clara Blandick) and Uncle Henry (Charles Grapewin). Even though she's a young girl, she dreams big of traveling the lands before her. However, a tornado comes along and sweeps her house up with her and Toto, her little dog, inside. The house comes down in the town of Munchkinland in the wonderful land of Oz. To find her way back home, she has to find the wizard in the Emerald City while avoiding the Wicked Witch of the West (Margaret Hamilton), who's out to get her for dropping a house on her sister. On the way, she meets a Scarecrow (Ray Bolger), a Tin Woodsman (Jack Haley), and a Cowardly Lion (Bert Lahr), who choose to accompany her on her journey to see the wizard, wanting a brain, a heart, and courage in return. It's a great plot executed brilliantly.



ACTING:The performances in here were really good. Judy Garland played an innocent and iconic role as the young farm girl, Dorothy. Playing well off her and each other, Jack Haley, Ray Bolger, and Bert Lahr performed excellent, iconic roles as the Scarecrow, Tin Woodsman, and Cowardly Lion. I favored Bert Lahr out of the trio, for his performance doubled comedically as it did iconically. Margaret Hamilton also played a great part as the Wicked Witch of the West. She still seems menacing today. The other shiners would be Clara Blandick as Aunt Em, Charles Grapewin as Uncle Henry, Billie Burke as Glinda the Good Witch, Frank Morgan as The Wizard of Oz, and all of the munchkins. There really wasn't a bad performance in here.

SCORE:The musical score and soundtrack for this film are iconic, memorable, and catchy to sing as well as to hear. Everybody knows a song from it, whether it's "We're Off to See the Wizard", "Ding-Dong the Witch is Dead", or even "If I Only Had a Brain." Everybody knows the catchy soundtrack to this film.

EFFECTS:The effects were astounding back in their time and are still very colorful today. The best effect at the time would have to have been the dramatic and iconic change from sepia/grayscale to Technicolor. That was a dazzling change for people back then and is still a prominent mark in film history. The prop effects were pretty colorful, and the more digital effects (such as the fireballs and the bubbles) were pretty interesting. The effects overall back then were pretty top-notch, but they still stand as interesting to watch now.



OTHER CONTENT:This film is iconic on so many levels. Everybody has either seen or heard of the Wizard of Oz, and it's a family favorite for the young children and the older adults. Comparing it to the original book, the film seems to be based only loosely on it. However, this film adaptation improved it from its book form. Everything about this film is really perfect for its time and loveable even today.

OVERALL,an epic film with a brilliant plot, really good performances, catchy score and soundtrack, colorful effects, and an iconic legacy left for filmgoers everywhere.

The Most Dangerous Game (1932) review

(6/10)

I don't know why I didn't like this that much, aside from the several ways it's different from its source.

PLOT:After getting in a shipwreck off a boat headed to a hunt, world-renowned hunter, Bob Rainsford (Joel McCrea) swims to a mysterious island where he finds a castle lead by a Count Zaroff (Leslie Banks), a Russian Cossack that has also has a passion for the hunt. While there, Rainsford also discovers two more shipwreck survivors, heavy-drinking Martin Trowbridge (Robert Armstrong) and his beautiful sister, Eve Trowbridge (Fay Wray). They chat for a while, and Rainsford finds out by Zaroff that, on this certain island, Zaroff hunts the most dangerous game. Zaroff tells about how he got bored hunting some usually dangerous animals (such as tigers), and how he wanted a prey that can use reason. Through this we find out the most dangerous game is humans. After a suspenseful turn of events, Rainsford and Eve must play the role of the hunted and win against him within a day. It's a great plot executed decently.



ACTING:The acting in here is not so great. You can tell by far that it's dated. McCrea plays a decent part of Rainsford, but the screenplay does him almost no justice. Wray did a pretty great job of playing her usual damsel-in-distress character. She was a little over-dramatic, but overall she did great, as did Banks as Zaroff. Banks did a pretty great job as Zaroff as well, but he sounded angry almost all the time, as opposed to his role in the story of being smooth and calm. I think Zaroff's character would've much better been played by the likes of Bela Lugosi. It has the dramatic death scene and everything! The minor performances overall didn't really matter as well.

SCORE:The score was pretty cheesy, but for its time, it was pretty top notch, so I'll give it credit for that much.

CAMERAWORK:I noticed in here a pretty good use of the camera to capture the emotions of the actors, as used in old horror films. The director actually hit spot on with trying to capture the emotions with the camera.



OTHER CONTENT:I really don't know why I didn't like this film as much as I wanted to. I read the story before I watched it, and as early as the start of the film, I spotted about a thousand differences from the story that make the film lose some of its wit. That kind of ticked me off. If a film strays too far from its source material, I tend to get frustrated. The film also seemed to lag a bit in the middle and lose the suspense it did acheive. The film did have a good bit of suspenseful scenes, and it even used a handful of horror tactics to make things better. However, it altogether ended up pretty dated and mediocre.

OVERALL,an ok film with a decently-executed plot, dated acting, top notch score for the time being, pretty good use of the camera, some great suspense, and even some horror techniques, but the screenplay did the actors hardly any justice, the film falls from its source material greatly, and it lagged a good bit in the middle.