I love how negative and hypocritical The Snob is in this review on a slasher film.

6:46- More like “The Cinema Snob Presents: Your nightmare for the next 2 weeks.”

7:49- That’s more complaints I gave to everyone involved in “Skyline.”

11:21- That’s was perfect, and I say this because I just got done watching the entire Halloween film series for my October horror marathon.

13:55- Jillian, great job. Brad, you’re such an evil bastard.

15:21- I sure hope that’s not Lupa’s scalp.

OMG, the ending was just sooooooooooooooooo funny.

The words you're looking for are "cynical" and "sarcastic". Just to let you know. ;)

awesome awesome awesome awesome awesome awesome awesome awesome awesome awesome awesome awesome

Comment:
Man, this movie sounds pretty cool! Like a Hannibal Lektor movie without the whole police tracking the killer side of the story! Hell, the whole thing with the killer that has mommy issues that goes after women and actually seems to nearly have real feelings for a woman is a lot like the killer from Red Dragon or Manhunter if you prefer the 80s version of the story!
Also, Tom Savini worked on it and he's one of my favorite in the effects field. I could definitely see his Living Dead work being used here!

Nice tongue stud!
Jerrid as hippy Jesus is awesome put that in more reviews!

A deranged killer motivated by issues with his dead mother falls in love with a woman who indirectly causes his downfall. This movie is almost a remake of Psycho. Based on that the Snob, and all the real critics, should have loved this movie. I have to check this thing out.

Ahahahahaha if Jerrid showed up on my door in that outfit, I'd probably scream too. Have to say, though, that movie looks pretty awesome.

I remember that Brad said once that the movies he usually reviews he loves and are merely riffs, so seeing his character, the snob, being forced to hate this because his fellow highly established critics hated it really made this review funny in a different way, like giving into peer pressure and lying to yourself, that is just genius in its own right.

Possibly one of my favorite reviews so far.

you know something , cinema snob is like TGWTG white version of lando calrissian.

everyone at team snob can party with me anytime. you guys rock , you give it your all , your team puts up with some rough shit , you guys deserve all of my praise.

brad , your always awesome , you'll always be awesome , and I always enjoy your reviews.

I hope to see great things in store , and I cant wait to see what movie your planning.

take care to everyone at team snob,
from a fan and character artist,
Jason Schwab aka LordJason - Maryland USA

^-^

PS - 2 brand new music videos were finished and posted this evening. the 10th brand new music video I much rather share on this page can be seen here:
LordJason Presents - The Game Has Changed "Ziecon's Remix" (Daft Punk)
http:// thatguywiththeglasses.com /community/myvideos/ 93232-lordjason/video/ 7095- LordJason+Presents+The+Ga me+Has+Changed+Ziecons+Re mix+(Daft+Punk)

"Maniac. He kills people."

That was the TV guide description of this movie when I saw it on IFC a few years ago. Accurate? Yes. Dismissive? Possibly. There's nothing to be dismissed about this movie. It's got New York sleaze a surprisingly interesting main character. Maniac does have gore, but I found it to be surprisingly underwhelming given my first impression of the movie.

Funny review. The movie does look like a really good slasher flicker though.

"whose kidding who around here?" genius moment

Best. Cinema Snob. Review. Ever.
You tell em, man, with their violent horror films, and their sleezy sleeze films, and their nonfattening blood substitutes.

lol, I love the change up in this review, making The Cinema Snob all "offended and squicked" by this movie. Its a nice twist and well-done.



"Goddammit Horror Movie quit creeping me out!"
lol, my you sure showed it whose boss Snob.


I loved the bit with Jillian-RUN JILLIAN RUN! KICK THOSE CRAZY LEGS! XD

I enjoyed this review a lot Snob; I just loved your use mock disgust and well-timed wit/sarcasm! I mean, I'd never watch the film myself (for my own personal reasons) but heck, I consider this one your best yet!!

"This movie...also has sex?! Now how are the kids supposed to see it!" XD Bril-li-ant!

Anyone else feels Brad is a bit...out of place among the Channel Awesome crowd?

Not me!

lol, Brad is soooo going to be sleeping in the doghouse for a whole week if Jillian ever found out it was him playing a trick on her.

Which is even worse because they don't have a doghouse and it could rain XD

No dude I dont think that. I first learned about the snob by watching a video in which spoony told us to watch him and now I like the snob more than spoony

Oh man, and I just bought the Blu-ray of this movie. Can't wait to see all this 80s sleazy in high definition!

And I gotta say, I'm already intrigued by this movie since this is October, and I'm already having a craving for slasher films.

I wanna see this movie real bad now. XD & the ending skit was hilarious.

I got irony overload from this review.

didnt know about this movie. 'go in search for it'

I hope Brad reads comments because I feel like sharing this.

It reminds me of how I feel about Silent Night Deadly Night which I love, because I like it how the main character is being all tormented by phobia and finally snapping.
The psychological stuff is what makes me like it among some other things, like the crazy grandpa who made the main character all paranoid.
I like it because I get to see someone break with all the details up to that point.
He sees and hears the wrong things and it makes me pity the killer. He could've turned out to be a really nice guy.

And yeah I think both Siskel and Ebert hated that movie for the violence.

Of course people are allowed to have their opinions it's just.. when you like something in this way, it's like you can enjoy the deep meanings of a painting and then someone brushes it aside because it's too colorful or not like the other paintings.

That was probably very offensive to say I am so sorry.

Man, I gotta get a copy of that "someone's following you" music for myself.

Wow, Brad... If I didn't know you from other reviews, I might have thought you were being sarcastic, and actually really liked this movie for being creepy and sleazy.

I know - stupid, right?

I wish I too was married to Jillian's rack

I think with this review you broke the sarcasm meter over your knee and Falcon Punch'd the Take That scale into infinity and beyond. lol

Why do serial killers always have to kill people anyways? Can't they do something more productive?

And man, Jerrid with hair is scary XD !

That would be a really scary (yet silly at the same time) idea for a slasher flick, a crazy Jesus-costumed maan quoting a random, irrelevant passage from the bible and then murdering the person. I half expected them to end that little skit with him attacking her, actually, since he was playing it so creepily.

I was kind of expecting a callback to Too Smart For Strangers during the scene with kids riding their bikes.

I love how there is a Disney World commercial before the video. hahaha!!!

I actually do hate this movie intensely. But it's not because of the violence, it's because of the lack of logic and what I felt was abuse of the audience. Even if I'm supposed to assume this was all jumbled in the head of the lead character, I felt Deranged (1972) did a much better job of creating an interestingly unlikable character with mother issues. It helps that that film also had a terrific atmosphere, great music, an incredible performance from the man playing the killer, was appropriately sleazy, effective, creepy, etc. Sure it didn't happen in NYC, but exactly what about this film was that relevant to New York? The subway, the fashion, and the idea that Savini's character frequented disco clubs... anything else? Combine Deranged with Eyes of Laura Mars and you just don't need Maniac. Which is fine because Maniac annoyed the hell out of me.

I haven't seen this movie and don't intend to. In fact one of the reason I even watch Brad's review is so I DON"T have to see for myself if some notoriously nasty movies live up to there reputation.

However while I can't offer my own opinion on Manic, I will say that this review with too far for me the mocking of it's bad critics. For once Brad seemed less like a parody of a high art snob and let his bias show through to the point of sounding like the oppiosite persona: an edgy transgressive art snob!

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of hearing that anyone who bad mouths a sleezy movie for not being anything other than (a sleezy movie) else is just a soft-stomiched egg head. This assumption going around that Siskel and Ebert trashed anything with a gritty horror because it was too violent for there tender tastes is pure BS! They both rated Dawn of the Dead (1978), The Fly (1986), Re-Animater (1985), and Seven (1995) quite highly, all of which were notorious for there gore content. Now Gene did tend to be a little harder on SOME movies he thought were overtly bloody, but don't believe he avoided discribing context!

In face there was a horror movie reference guide published in 1988 that gave similar reviews to a some of film mentioned about and they gave Manic zero stars. Wish I could remember the exact name of the book, because it's intro summed up my views exactly. That the ability to sicken and distrub is just part of what makes a horror movie good. While I can't say I agreed with everything those rewiewers wrote either, I hardly think wanting someone more from a horror movies than random killings and gross out effects makes you a snob.

9ansean wrote:
"I haven't seen this movie and don't intend to. In fact one of the reason I even watch Brad's review is so I DON"T have to see for myself if some notoriously nasty movies live up to there reputation.

However while I can't offer my own opinion on Manic, I will say that this review with too far for me the mocking of it's bad critics. For once Brad seemed less like a parody of a high art snob and let his bias show through to the point of sounding like the oppiosite persona: an edgy transgressive art snob!

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of hearing that anyone who bad mouths a sleezy movie for not being anything other than (a sleezy movie) else is just a soft-stomiched egg head. This assumption going around that Siskel and Ebert trashed anything with a gritty horror because it was too violent for there tender tastes is pure BS! They both rated Dawn of the Dead (1978), The Fly (1986), Re-Animater (1985), and Seven (1995) quite highly, all of which were notorious for there gore content. Now Gene did tend to be a little harder on SOME movies he thought were overtly bloody, but don't believe he avoided discribing context!"



You say you won't give your opinion on this movie, though it seems you've done just that, much like you gave your very strong opinion about Wolf Creek even though (by your own admition) have never seen it ethier. Just saying.

The fact of the matter is that Siskel and Ebert DO have a grudge against violent horror movies, and the fact that they pick a few (for whatever reason) to praise doesn't hide the fact that they seem to loath the genra as a whole. And if they hate it, fine, they hate it and they have every right to their opinion: but they take it a step too far by calling the makers of these films and the fans things like "vicarious sex offenders" (they've used those exact words). In fact in their "Women in danger special" they blatnely took clips out of context, and made wild acusations about hidden messages against women (much like a religious fanatic talks about hidden satanic messages in Harry Potter) They also blatenly ignored plot points in these movies (like the fact that both the killer in Friday the 13, and the last survivor were both women, and that Misses Voorhees was killing men and women) and seemed not to have even seen some of the movies they were attacking (like the Howling) I could go on about this, but Brad did a respons to "Women in danger" on his site, and it pretty much makes the argument very well, so I suggest seeing that.

And again, I don't know everything, if you hate a movie I like, fine, to each his own: but when you start judging me, and Brad, and millions of people that like these movies on a personal level, especially if you've never met me, I take it personally, even if you are a (suppossedly) respected critic.

It took a while to figure out the proper respond. First off I agree it isn’t fair to prejudge an audience. In fact that was the real reason for my first comment. I was personally offended by the suggestion in this review that anyone who thinks a violent thriller should be more than JUST violent to a good, if simply an egghead. I realize this was directed at the professional critics, but as someone who’s studied film as a passion for over a decade without even being paid, I felt lumped into the mix. Normally I see Brad is just spoofing intellectual snobbery, here I thought he crossed the line into what I call anti-intellectual snobbery: the idea that if you’re not with the scene than you can’t have a clue.

I Initially assumed Brad’s response to the Women in Danger special would also convey this attitude, but after reading your post I checked it out. It was interesting, though like the original special I found plenty to agree and disagree with. I won’t gave a detailed comparision because this isn’t the place for it and because I’d like other see both before drawing there own conclusions. Instead I’ll just make this point.

I can’t go with the notion that a slasher movie or any movie is ever just a movie. It’s like seeing the Bible is just a book. I know that most people who go to see those kinds of films aren’t expecting to get any sort of message from them (my dad was the same way with cowboy pictures), but this doesn’t mean ideas can’t be found. Both the notions that audiences are just having a good time or that they are being indoctrinated by entertainment are seriously flawed because audiences are made of individuals and people are funny. The same character that provokes applause from one person may insight boos from another.

Even when messages may seem clear, people still have a tendency to seize upon moments that resonate with them and overlook others they find discomforting. Just to sight one famous example: the many young Republicans in 1984 who embraced Bruce Springsteen’s angry ballad Born in the U.S.A. as a patriotic anthem.

I realize that hearing talk of symbols hidden everywhere can be tiring, but you see I come at it from a different angle. As someone who’s been analytical since grade school, I’m far more tired of being told NOT to find meaning in entertainment. Of being told, “it’s just in your head.” Of course every idea I get from a movie is in my head, just as whatever you get or don’t get from a movie is in your head.

I could elaborate on that last part, but different personal interpretations and standards are beside the point here. What I really want to make perfectly is that I'm not judging an entire audience (and honestly a don't believe S&E were either, but I could explain why some other time). Being devoted to a genre doesn’t make you a Neanderthal. Neither does being critical of trends in entertainment make you an egghead.

Could you let him know that while S&E didn't do a show on 80s pornography, they did do a show in 1983 on 80s teenage sex comidies and it isn't hard to find.
I'd love to her Brads reaction that!

Glad to see you paid tribute to Charles Napier.

MikeKz was that the Sunday Times TV guide by any chance?

Most films just get one word so it must be good!

No, it was the onscreen guide from my cable service.

Hookers AND a serial killer that scalps his victims?
Sounds vaguely familiar. I think some guy on some site did a low budget flick with a similar premise only with no gore and a lot of swearing.

You're the man, Brad!
Can't wait for the Snob movie.

A great criticism of...movie critics. More reviews like that!