I, Madman (1989)

I fully agree with my pal WoodyAnders' review above. This is a nice, old-fashioned Retro style Horror Thriller with great creepy atmosphere and mood. The film uses an effective style with old-fashioned makeup and effects. YES, the stop-motion is a little rough, but if you are into films like this, you won't mind :)You DO need a good imagination and ability to suspend disbelief to enjoy this film, since this has an almost Dark Fairy Tale type feel to it at times. I frigg'n LOVE how she comments that the book she is reading makes Stephen King look like Girl Scout stories (or something like that...)The entire film has a real Retro feel to it and the story is DEFINITELY created along the lines of old-fashioned Horror films. So, if you DO like that type of movie, then you will likely enjoy this one. BUT... If you like your Horror more like the modern films, full of Brutal 'Realism' and sadistic gore, you probably will find this one pretty boring. But, if you DO really like your Horror a bit more old-fashioned, then you might really enjoy this movie...

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.

Librarian book-worm(Jenny Wright), who enjoys reading horror stories which she invests all of herself into, finds that a sadistic alchemist, from a "non-fiction" book titled "I Madman" has emerged from the literary page believing she is Anna, his muse for whom he wishes to please with the "perfect face." In the novel, Malcolm Brand(Randall William Cook, who looks like Noseferatu with a scarf around his face, hiding a missing nose)removes his facial features because the one he longs for found him repulsive. Virginia(Wright)finds that Brand has somehow manifested into modern Los Angeles and is murdering people she knows, grafting a part from each victim's face after slicing them away with a razor. Following "I, Madman" as a source for where Brand will strike next, the difficult part is getting her boyfriend/detective, Richard(Clayton Rohner, with a light beard and jacket, resembling a hard-boiled PI from a noir film)and the police to believe her cockamamie story. Virginia is often visited by the maniac before and after he kills his victims.Tibor Takács(The Gate)brings us quite a startlingly original slasher with imagination to spare, if the viewer can give over to the supernatural aspect of the story. In regards to the madman's ability to manifest from words to flesh, committing his grisly deeds on the streets of Los Angeles, I felt derived from the reader's complete belief in the printed material. He wasn't real until the fear of him become so vivid, Virginia, in essence, gave him life..his shape and form evolve from a written work into a true being. Perhaps it took both the reader and the writer himself to make this unbelievable situation come to fruition. When delving into the author's life of "I, Madman"(..and another novel, which featured a created monster by a Dr. Kessler, who actually leaps from the printed page to kill Malcolm Brand)Virginia finds that Brand himself believed wholeheartedly that what he wrote was real not fictitious...so perhaps the killer without a face, was given birth thanks to the writer and reader's complete faith in what was written.Besides all that Freudian jazz, the film has a wonderfully morbid atmosphere, and I thought Tibor Takács' film was very much in the Argento vein...a grotesque killer wielding a blade, slicing and dicing, with a baffled police force working all hours to catch him and a female character everyone believes is nuts caught in the whirlwind of a surreal nightmare helplessly finding all those she knows being killed, skillfully photographed(..while his credits aren't eye-popping, Bryan England's sophisticated camera-work and vibrant color, I felt hearken back to Argento films like "Suspiria" and "Inferno", and there are several stunning shots of the killer from afar using shadow and light)with a visual flair and intoxicating energy. Not to mention, there's some dark humor to spare, including a hilarious interrogation scene where Virginia attempts to tell the police about the one responsible for the murders and their priceless reactions to what she's saying. I think the premise might have viewers scratching their heads, it is indeed quite an outrageous story, but I ate it up. I loved the use of Los Angeles and I found the way Tibor Takács edits the novel sequences(..based in the 50s)into the modern story, strikingly integrated. It was great seeing the lovely Jenny Wright get a rare lead role, and she ably fills it nicely, projecting a frightened woman who knows that the truth about her killer is as far-fetched as they come, doggedly pursuing his capture, and often finding him one step ahead of both her and the police. The creature which makes a grand entrance at the end will remind fans of Tibor Takács' kiddie horror outing, "The Gate", for it resembles the demon minions from the hole in the backyard of that film.The library scene(..where the police stake out the WRONG library) is a doozy which only makes life harder for Virginia, who must somehow, someway, convince her boyfriend that the psychopath is indeed from some horror book she reads. Love the book store Virginia works in..books are stacked and scattered in clusters all throughout the building and the climax works wonders in this setting.