I, Madman (1989)

Highly Overrated But Still Good

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

Virginia works at a used book store.She's really into horror novels and discovers a book called "I, Madman" and it's about an insane doctor who cuts off people's noses, ears, and hair and puts them on his face to please a girl he likes.Only Virginia discovers that the book is non-fiction, and every time she picks up the book to read it, she sees him.The insane doctor from the book has escaped the book into our reality...This is one of those movies that was released back in the late eighties, and as since been forgotten about. And whilst it's not the greatest movie out there, it does have some redeeming features.Obviously if you work in a used book store, you can afford to live in a very expensive looking pad like Virginia.Wright is god in her role, but it's no wonder she went into obscurity after films like this, one fees she could have been really big after 'Near Dark'.the killer looks like he's drifted in from 'The Phantom of the Opera' and does little else than wander around apartment corridors and moaning.The support is good, and although the film does suffer from Horror clichés (the redhead taking years to get to her apartment) it's cheesy fun, especially with the baffling stop motion creature that dwells around the beginning and the conclusion.

"I, Madman," is a lower budget horror film that plays with the idea that reading can draw monsters into the real world. The story attempts to blend a dark and horrific tale with the sleazy conventions found in pulp novels. While the goal definitely has potential, the execution is lacking. IM is bogged down by slow pacing and an unfulfilling development of the main antagonist. The failings are very unfortunate because this film had the potential to be scary, innovative, and engaging.The premise of the film is not really new. The plot is based on the idea that reading and interacting with a text has the ability to make the subject of the text a reality. Essentially, this is a theme explored by European mystics over the centuries. This film tried to take a "magical" assumption and apply it to the horror movie genre. In the past, this idea has usually been used in demonic film, for example, "The Evil Dead." The ingenuity here is contextualizing magic in the more mundane. The magical books are not esoteric religious. Rather, they are pulp novels written by a demented mystic and alchemist. The situating of dark magic within a mass produced yet poorly distributed article of mass consumption is creepy. The problem is that this part of the story is left mostly untold. The film seems to rush through any background setting so as to allow more shots of dimly lit corridors and shadows. Needless to say, the lack of development hurts the film far more than the "spooky" scenes lead to enjoyable mood. A second shortcoming is the story's reliance on characters to act stupidly when confronted with desperate situations. The assumption that humans react with less thought when pressured is valid. The assumption that humans become incoherent stupid messes when pressured is spurious. The film makers advance the story a great deal by relying on stupid characters as a plot device. This second assumption causes the film to overly distance itself from reality. In essence, the film lures people in with questions about horrifying occult evil placed in plain sight and then never answers those questions in a plausible way.On the whole, this is a devilishly fun idea involving off beat and unique antagonists. The film falters due to slow pacing, lack of background, and stupid by definition protagonists. The degree of negative criticism found here is unfortunate. IM really did have the potential to be a fresh take on some tried and true genre motifs. The lack of thought by the film makers led to a movie that is barely mediocre. With the current vogue of remaking films, IM would benefit from fresh eyes and a better thought out story line. However, the possibility of this film ever getting such a chance is vanishingly small.On a personal note, I loved this film as a kid. Watching it again provided that warm and fuzzy feeling typical of nostalgia. It also informed me that, as a child, I had some very lax criteria for evaluating movies. Should you choose to see this film, it makes a pleasant prequel to a nap after a large greasy meal. 5.5 stars out of 10.

Sweet and intelligent bookstore clerk Virginia (a fine and sympathetic performance by the lovely Jenny Wright of "Near Dark" fame) obsessively reads tacky old 50's pulp novels. Virginia's fixation on the morbid writings of the mysterious Malcolm Brand (well played with maximum creepy menace by ace special effects artist William Randall Cook, who also did the excellent and grotesque make-up) enables Brand to return to life in our world as a vicious and horribly disfigured scalpel-wielding psychopath. Alas, Virginia can't convince anyone that Malcolm is real and coming after her in order to win over her love. Ably directed by Tibor Takacs, with a supremely eerie and misty atmosphere, a clever and imaginative script by David Chaskin, a steady pace, a fair amount of grisly, but never too gross or excessive gore, polished cinematography by Bryan England, a wonderfully wholehearted affection for trashy 50's pulp fiction, some nice touches of dark humor, a nifty briefly glimpsed stop-motion animation monster, a spirited shuddery score by Michael Hoenig, good use of the gritty Los Angeles locations, and a tense and thrilling off-the-wall conclusion, this neat little B movie makes for a welcome and refreshing departure from the glut of run-of-the-mill slasher fare that was fashionable in the 80's. This film further benefits from sound acting from a capable cast: Wright registers strongly as an appealing and attractive heroine, Clayton Rohner is likable and credible as Virginia's amiable, but skeptical detective boyfriend Richard, Cook rates highly as one extremely scary and hideous villain, plus there solid supporting turns by Stephanie Hodge as Virginia's brash gal pal Mona, Michelle Jordan as ill-fated aspiring redhead actress Colette, and Murray Rubin as sleazy publisher Sidney Zeit. A hugely fun and worthwhile low-budget fright flick.

I first saw this movie a year after it came out, it was 1989, i was 14, and i have never been so scared in my life, I've just watched it again, and while its still scary i am now 32.While a lot of horror films from this time focused on annoying teenagers being slashed up. this deranged killer was far more interesting and sadistic, (it seems they took ideas from jack the ripper with the killer in black with brief case and piercing eyes while walking round misty murky streets)) there is one scene near the beginning, a killing of an actress that is so bloody and gore fested that at 14 i threw up.some of the acting is deliberately done bad, actors sometimes have to do this to make the movie look more enigmatic this seems the case with the lead actress jenny wright, I've seen her in other movies and she can most definitely act, the movie also has this 50's look about it, as the killer time travels his way out of her book.The only thing that i found fault with, was the murder scenes were not that gory, (apart from the redhead)but still it was very atmospheric and sinister, and you won't be disappointed if you watch it.