Customer Reviews
I mad woman like I, Madman - By: Jenny J.J.I., 26 Nov 2007 
This is interesting film that's been tip-off to me. I thought Canadian genre director Tibor Takacs, (more well-known for The Gate ), done a great job with this film. I, MADMAN is a loving salute to the days when movie monsters had hearts. For those who don't know this film is about a second-hand bookstore clerk Virginia Clayton becomes absorbed in the book `I, Madman' by Malcolm Brand. In the book the deranged, deformed Dr Kessler is obsessed with beautiful actress Anna Templar & kills victims, sewing part of each victim's face onto his own. But as Virginia continues to read, someone starts to emulate the killings in the book, targeting the people around her.
Takacs includes some wonderfully grisly scenes in which he injects himself with Novocain & slices off his own facial features with a scalpel to send as love gifts to the heroine & then cuts up the people in her life & reattaches their facial parts to himself. There is a tragic Phantom of the Opera -like to the villain's love, although this doesn't perhaps get as much airing as it should. One would have preferred if Kessler were alllowed to speak - what expression such a character would have.
The atmosphere of this film is very good like others has mention here & the moody moments was inviting. The most intriguing aspect of the film is its double-structure, flipping between the plot of the book & the reading heroine's life with both heroines being played by the same actress. It is filled with alll manner of fascinating smalll details - the way a rose knocked over in the book is mirrored in the real world; how when a tea kettle is placed on in the book one starts whistling in the real world even though we never saw Jenny Wright put one on when she entered the apartment. And although Kessler is given a nominallly rational explanation, by the end of the story we are never entirely certain whether it was Brand or Kessler that has been pursuing the heroine - certainly the explanation that would rely on it being Brand offers no explanation of how the abovementioned incidents of meta-fictional synchronicity occurred.
Less effective is Takacs's cast. Jenny Wright is obviously a sweet heart but seems distant & not reallly emotionallly involved at times. Clayton Rohner lacks any conviction at alll, looking hardly old enough to be out of college let alone a seasoned detective. The climax of the film is let down by Randalll Cook's unconvincing stop motion animation. Takacs shoots in Canada - like many other Canadians he attempts to give the impression the film is American-made & in one wonderful false move we have a downtown bus that is just labeled `Los Angeles'. Besides that "I, Madman" is worthy of our attention & fear but sadly underrated.
A GUILTY PLEASURE - By: stuart, 26 Oct 2007 Trying to overcome a sleepless night, Virginia, (Jenny Wright) asks over her boyfriend Richard, (Clayton Rohner) when everything else proves useless. Realizing she was reading horror tales before, he gets her mind off of it by offering to propose to her. Mulling it over with friends Mona, (Stephanie Hodge) & Lenny, (Steven Memel) they offer her a special gift, a copy of an ultra-rare book that she has been looking for. Becoming obsessed with the book to the point of madness, she begins to see halllucinations of the characters in the book & other visions. When a vicious killer begins going around town killing off friends of hers similar to characters & situations present in the book, she believes that the killer has jumped from the book & is causing the slaughter around town. When no one else believes her, she takes matters into her own hands & sets out to stop the killer before he strikes more victims.
The Good News: This wasn't anywhere as bad as it initiallly could've been. This manages to get right what very few slashers do, which is to make the killer someone to be frightened of. There's a lot of shadowy & back-lit shots that reallly make him effective, as does the bizarre facial reconstruction he decides to attempt. This includes a series of some wonderfully grisly scenes in which he injects himself with Novocaine & slices off his own facial features with a scalpel to send as love gifts. Afterward, the killer then cuts up known victims & reattaches their facial parts to himself. There is a tragic story here of the villain's love for the heroine that makes the killer substantiallly more intriguing than the usual movie psycho. The most intriguing aspect of the film is its double-structure, flipping between the plot of the book & the reading-heroine's life with both heroines being played by the same actress. It is filled with alll manner of fascinating smalll details, such as the way a rose knocked over in the book is mirrored in the real world; how when a tea kettle is placed on the stove in the book it starts whistling in the real world even though we never saw the character put one on when they entered the apartment. Of course, this also extends to the kills as well, with the manner in which the victim dies in the novel do exactly the same in the real world. The added bonus of having the relationship being the exact same in both realities makes it much more frightening. The few kills given aren't that bad either, giving lots of gore to the film. There's a particularly brutal head-scalping that is simply brutal, & the fact that there's some reallly bloody aftermath corpses add in the fun. There's a few good stalking scenes in here, with an utterly spectacular one through a giant bookstore the best. A library chase & ensuing encounter is pretty good, & there's a big action-packed conclusion to help it along. This is a pretty underrated slasher film.
The Bad News: There is a couple things wrong with this one. The first problem is that the film concentrates on only a few kills to get it through. There's only a smalll handful of victims in this one, & that is including the novel recreations & the real world variation. The low body-count here is a major source of desperation, as the fact that there's only so many opportunities for kills to be had for deaths that it can get irritating. They also pose a second quandary as they are alll, with the exception of a couple, they are alll off-screen. Out of the couple, they're alll done on-screen where we can't tell what's going on or is hidden by the view offered during the scene & then relying on the discovery to figure out what happened. This happens to just about every single kill in the film, & with they're being so few already, that doesn't reallly bode well for the film as it wastes a lot of time waiting to get around to the blood & gore. The last one is that this is quite hard to fully understand. There's no explanation for how the killer was able to accomplish his powers at alll, why this is happening or why the specific target was chosen. Nothing was given about anything at alll for either of those issues, & it's simply a generallly confusing film. Otherwise, these are it's only flaws.
The Final Verdict: This turns out to be a reallly underrated slasher films ever, even with more than a few flaws. Reallly recommended for slasher fans or those hunting for hidden gems, but cheese-haters might seek caution.
