I, Madman (1989)

hyped garbage

Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Virginia (Jenny Wright) works at a used book store and is into horror novels when she discovers an engrossing book from an estate sale. It is called "I, Madman" and it is about an insane doctor (Randy Cook) who cuts off people's noses, ears, and hair and puts them on his face to please a girl he likes.This film never achieved a wide audience in its day, which is unfortunate, and is not as well remembered as the other film featuring the collaboration of Randy Cook and Tibor Takacs, "The Gate". Heck, writer David Chaskin had previously done "A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge" and "The Curse" (with Wil Wheaton), so he has a good pedigree, as well. Maybe with the new Scream Factory release, this will change.The movie is a lot of fun, with all the slasher touchstones, plus some excellent cinematography that brings out a variety of lights, darks and vibrant colors (particularly in a flashback scene). Even early on, we have some visual cues to "Nosferatu" which were clearly intended: the mad doctor who looks like Max Schreck, and the hotel employee going up the stairs following his own shadow... not to mention Cook "ripping off Lon Chaney" (his words) in the creation of a villain.The special features on the Scream disc really show how much work and love went into this. A short (roughly ten minute) behind-the-scenes feature has Randy Cook explaining how he had to act, apply his own makeup, and also be responsible for the animation. So after hours on set, he would still be up until two in the morning working on making the creatures fit the scene just right. It is impressive, especially the Jackal Boy, and shows a real dedication (no wonder the man has three Oscars).If that alone was not good enough, there is also a full commentary track with Cook and interviews with various people involved with the picture. Scream has taken a better than average slasher film and made it one of the must-own Blu-rays of 2015: any horror fan will delight in seeing (and hearing) how films such as this are made.

"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.

This review is assuming you've seen the movie. In case you haven't a woman releases a murderer through reading his books. The killer becomes infatuated with the woman. This movie has a nice simple feel to it, it is graphic at times. There is a creepy atmosphere created with shadows. It's like a Grimm's fairy tale to the nth degree. There is some really good transitions to what she thinks she is seeing versus what she is really seeing. A small simple scary movie, no big name actors but, has a good story to pull it all together. Interesting idea that the killer fuses his victims facial features to his own face. The story uses the familiar police don't believe the woman scenario.

The setup here is a typical fold. An actress has a day job in a book store. She reads horror books and imagines herself in them. One day, she comes across an author who, when writing, had the story and real life merge. In reading the books, they "come alive."Her actor and book friends (plus a pianist) are murdered to provide parts of the writers face. This is such a clever idea that it attracted me to dig out this old project. The writer even understood the redhead thing: the first murder is to get the red hair of an actress we see playing Desdemona. Natch, the boyfriend is a police detective assigned to the case.What we see is simply turning the crank, but when do poor production values bother kids? The idea is the thing. It isn't a folded gialli, instead a dim reference. But its better at root than "Stay Alive," a similarly folded kiddiething with which I saw this.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.