Insaniac

According to the DVD box (on the Brentwood release), Insaniac is about "A deranged woman suffering from amnesia (who) is hypnotized so that she can explore her own mind. While trying to recover lost memories, she finds violent, horrific, nightmarish images. Her recollections of reality begin to mesh with the terrifying images, revealing the mystery of her blood-soaked past".

You have to read the box to figure that out, unfortunately, but we'll get back to that in a minute.

I have to laugh that there are only two reviews of Insaniac so far on IMDb, both of them fairly positive, both from users from Missouri, and neither saying that they have any relation to the studio or filmmakers/cast. Sub Rosa Extreme, the "studio", is located in Missouri. The film was shot in Missouri. I would find it very difficult to believe that the two people leaving mostly positive reviews are not at least relatives of the involved parties, and I think it's unethical to not mention this fact in a review. Reviewers are as a jury to a film. Jurists who are related to defendants or who may have been involved in the crime have a conflict of interest and are dismissed.

Insaniac is a complete mess. It's a typical Sub Rosa film in that it appears to be shot on home video cameras. Sub Rosa's films tend to look only a notch above your average Joe getting really drunk at a party, saying, "Hey, let's make a movie!" and enlisting friends and/or family to improvise some scenes on the spot. That alone doesn't make the films bad, and occasionally, as in the case of The Christmas Season Massacre (2001), Sub Rosa's films can transcend their limitations (I can't remember my exact rating for that film, but I think it "passed" with at least a 5). Heck, some films of this caliber can even be great--Silo Killer (2002) was an 8! But Insaniac doesn't pass. I'm even being generous in giving it a 2.

Robin Garrels, who stars and also wrote the script (assuming script is the right word here; I'm doubtful it is, as most of the film appears to be improvised), director/co-star John Specht and others of the cast and crew may have had admirable enthusiasm and ambition. And at least we can say that unlike Back Woods (2001) for example, some locations were scouted (a couple were quite nice--the location scout may be the only one who deserves a positive review), they may have attempted to build a set or two, and there are a couple makeup effects that at least deserve an "E" for effort. But, I can't give the film overall an "E" for effort, as in many respects, they appear to not be trying.

The first problem is the sound. Seriously, it isn't that difficult to do ADR and attempt to do some foley. You can buy digital multitracks really cheaply now. A few decent mics aren't that expensive. It's easy to hook it all together with modern film editing software on computers (and you can purchase that fairly cheaply, too). You just cannot use location sound from a home video recorder--viewers cannot understand dialogue that way, and it's difficult, to say the least, to get into a film when the bulk of the dialogue is unintelligible. For most of the film, there's that loud ambient "hum" that you get from home video cameras in less than perfect acoustic environments. It also doesn't help that Specht lets takes slide where people mumble and speak too quickly. Subtitles would have been useful, but of course, this relatively simple task wasn't done.

Secondly, lights aren't that expensive now either. Sub Rosa needs to buy some lighting gear, including gels, reflectors and shades. Most of Insaniac appears to not be lit--it looks like it's just shot using ambient light and auto-focus.

Next, Specht (and maybe Sub Rosa directors in general) needs to learn how to shoot coverage, move his camera and do multiple takes. I know that makes for a more difficult task during the editing process, and if only a hand-held home-video camera and a tripod is available, it takes a lot of skill, but the effort is worth it. After all, the aim is to make a good film, right? Right? Far too many scenes are just two people talking in front of a stationary camera. And he often shoots from bad angles, with poor blocking. With more takes and better editing, Specht may also have gotten closer to decent performances.

What about the plot? There isn't much to speak of. The box description can be grafted onto the hodgepodge of scenes to make some sense out of the film. Garrels may have had intentions of complexity and literateness, but this goes to show why such intentions do not work until one has the basics sorted out first. There is no narrative drive, and so really no traditional "story". Scenes appear to come and go randomly. Much of the dialogue is completely ridiculous. To its credit, there was potential here to do a more performance art kind of film (some scenes, such as the bizarre "you were on the phone" argument, strongly suggest this), but again, the basics of film-making need to be tackled first.

What about the putative gore elements? They are few and far between, make no sense in the context of the film, and most are poorly done. This sure as hell isn't an Andreas Schnaas film. And of course, the gore scenes are also badly shot and lit, which doesn't help.

Who should see this film? Well, if you worked on it or know someone who did, it's worth a viewing for a laugh or two. Also, if you're crazy like me and you're trying to watch every horror film ever made, you might have to grin and bear it once, but try to see it for free.

I just bought this movie through Brentwood releases. The description of the movie sounded interesting enough but knowing what kind of movies Brentwood releases I knew it was going to be very low budget. But as a low budget filmmaker myself I am always more than interested in seeing what other people like myself are doing. This movie is about a woman named Autumn and basically how she ended up in this psychiatric ward. She has amnesia and the whole undertone is you know something really horrible happened. This movie is not like most low budget horror cinema in which it contains a lot of random nudity, silly gore effects, etc. This is actually a very well written movie with a very good story. The editing is rather good and the direction is good, although at times it feels like I'm watching a David Lynch, but that's cool. The lead actress actually does a very good job and I hope to see her in other productions (hopefully something higher budget). The thing that really impressed me with this flick was the last few minutes of the movie. I'll just said it's very sad but just very ingenuise at the same time. All in all, very good movie and highly recommend to anyone that is in the industry. This shows that you actually can make a good film out of nothing. 7 stars

It's not every day that you see a movie at this budget level that manages to achieve a great deal of complexity and creativity. It was rather refreshing to see that these filmmakers put their limited funds to good use by actually telling a decent story, rather than just parading a bunch of mediocre effects across the screen that come off as being shoddy, due to lack of funds to do them properly.

The project seemed really focused on every aspect of the production, from Robin Garrels literate screenplay, to John Specht's sure-handed direction, to Eric Stanze's tight editing. I was surprised by the competent actors that were assembled for this project, and with the exception of a couple of the smaller parts, the acting was really solid, especially by Robin Garrels and Chris Grega in the leading roles.

Now, this movie will probably not be for everyone. It might even be to "art-driven" for some people's conversative tastes, but for those who have a little patience, I'm sure you'll be satisfied on how all of the story elements come together near the movie's conclusion.

INSANIAC is a cool, bloody, mind-bending, personal experience! Isn't that what independent film is all about?

I love low-budget movies, as a matter of fact, I love really bad, low-budget movies, but even the most hardened bad movie lover must draw the line somewhere. Personally, I drew my line after witnessing the films of Nathan Schiff. But most recently, after sitting through most of my latest purchase from Subrosa Extreme, I have indeed found something much, much more disappointing than anything Schiff ever attempted. In fact, I wouldn't even show this to some Matrix-loving tool as a mean-spirited prank. God bless Subrosa, but I truly, deeply hated Insaniac. The description sounded totally promising. Insanity, LSD, delusions, gory killings, and yeah, it was shot on video, which isn't necessarily a horrible thing, this day in time, but it sounded like some original, gutsy, low-budget horror which might turn out to be entertaining. Even the few IMDb reviews seemed positive (I should have read the long one), so, thanks for nothing, guys. Look, this isn't your everyday boring b-movie, Insaniac is positively sleep-inducing. Insaniac tries so hard to be deep and to make you think that it forgets to give you any other reasons to stick around, and yeah, I cut out around the 60 minute mark, it's OK, I know enough to know that I loathe Insaniac, although, I recognize this review has been about as informative as the actual movie, but trust me, it's not worth that much thought. For watchable (awsome) shot-on-video trash from Subrosa, check out Shatter Dead and Dirty Cop No Donut. Insaniac is criminally Overrated and if you know what's good for you. you'll avoid it like the plague. 1/10

Lead actress (Robin) did a good job in portraying tormented personalities. David Burnett is very convincing as the bad guy. (would have liked to see more of him being devilish). His character steals a couple of scenes. The gory scenes will gross you out and make your flesh crawl. Love the gritty black and white scenes. The film is not predictable you really can't tell how it's going to end. B+