Coventry I'd like to consider myself a very tolerant, broad-minded and versatile film fanatic. I've seen and reviewed more than 3.000 titles in the horror, cult and exploitation genre and I'm constantly looking for obscure films that push my boundaries in terms of bad taste, gruesomeness and extremity. With my recent discovery of John Waters' "Multiple Maniacs", I think I found my personal limit. Even though I really liked the director's most notorious accomplishment – "Pink Flamingoes" – I seriously had to struggle myself through this one. I presume it's the combination of amateurish direction, total absence of structure and the non-stop irritating voice-over monologues that didn't work for me. You can tell straight from the opening credits that "Multiple Maniacs" will become an exercise in perseverance. The nearly endless cast list – presumably all of Waters' Dreamland studios pals – simply appears on a white board, without any sort of animation of musical guidance. This definitely sets the tone for the rest of the film: cheap, filthy and largely improvised on the spot. And yet, in spite of being unendurable, "Multiple Maniacs" is also strangely and inexplicable fascinating. I remained glued to the screen although half of the script didn't make any sense to me. If it weren't for the detailed plot summary available here on the website, I confess I might not have been able to follow. Divine and some other cast members (like Cookie Mueller and Edith Massey) are unique performers, that's for sure, and a handful of scenes are insanely perverted, like the rosary job and – of course – the giant lobster rape. The numerous references towards the Manson family and Sharon Tate's grisly murder are excessive and quite shameless, since the news item was still a very hot & shocking topic around the time of release. I honestly can't recommend this, but simultaneously I don't want to discourage potential viewers from "discovering" this semi-legendary trash monument. Whatever you do, proceed with caution

sashank_kini-1 The reason Pink Flamingos has been recognized as John Waters' signature film of the 'exploitation' genre is the uncomplicated script with the sole purpose to titillate with acts of depravity. It is a film that shocks, albeit making no particular reference to any event of the period in which these movies were made. Nearly everyone who watches Pink Flamingos would've heard of transsexualism, cannibalism, foot fetishism, voyeurism, zoophilia, coprophilia etc and therefore the film can be enjoyed by a person who wasn't born in the seventies. The script has been written with devilish acumen, incorporating over-the-top sequences and campy humor to tone down some of the objectionable content. The film was shot in color, and thus could highlight some of the outrageous palette John Waters used for the house and Divine's costumes. All these reasons give Pink Flamingos its noteworthy status in the world of trash, not just the singular coprophagous moment.Multiple Maniacs released about two years before Pink Flamingos and made on a shoestring budget (even though the latter itself was a low-budget film) of about 5000$. Therefore, one actor assumes multiple roles and we are to believe a different hairdo implies a different character (by the way, read an intriguing explanation by a reviewer who elaborates on the religious connotation of the films. It sounds credible at first, but I rather stick to the general belief that Jesus and his followers didn't represent Divine and her vagabonds. Edith who plays both a bar owner and Virgin Mary wasn't a part of the Cavalcade, otherwise the reviewer's explanation would've held more credit) The film is shot entirely in black and white on 16mm and the camera shakes horribly at times and is sometimes so overexposed you can barely see the actors' bodies. The horrible white circle (indicating change of reel) flashes luminously like some extraterrestrial sign. Honestly, this film is dreadful and rather introductory to John Waters' Pink Flamingos, a vastly polished effort compared to this shoddy piece of junk.When I read the plot line, my mind swirled with images of a colorful circus with Divine and her crew treating the audience with their acts only to slaughter them in the end. This does happen in the beginning of the film but it digresses into a completely different act that places massive focus on 'Divine', contradicting the title of the film itself. What happened to the puke-eating guy or the foot-fetish girl or the homosexuals remains unknown with the focus suddenly switching to Divine, her promiscuous daughter, her estranged boyfriend David, her brief lesbian flinger Mink and a nemesis Bonnie. In fact, while it was Divine and Mary Vivian Pierce (who plays Bonnie) taking on the duo of David Lochary and Mink Stole in Pink Flamingos, the characters are simply switched here. This makes the movie seem a rough-cut version of PF, instead of continuing with the circus act to raise the shock value.The movie also makes references to Sharon Tate's mother and a Weatherman Underground organization, but they flew over my head since I wasn't born then (plus I'm not from US). At that time, such a facetious approach towards incidents like these would've caused a storm (I read about Ms. Tate's incident later and found the film's take on the event offensive), but now they seem irrelevant. The blasphemous religious sequence here would've made Lady Gaga blush (at least Gaga puts the rosary beads in her mouth). The final fifteen minutes are just codswallop and bullsh-t. Had the movie developed on the lines of Freaks (a 1932 classic), but edgier, crasser, vulgar and campier, it may have worked. Instead, it succumbs like Rob Zombie's first attempt 'House of 1000 corpses', which was completely overshadowed by the wicked 'The Devil's Rejects'.My Rating: 0.8 out of 10

Joseph P. Ulibas Multiple Maniacs (1970) was Waters' second feature length film. Heavily influenced by the Manson Family murders, Waters creates this film about a band of murdering, sideshow freaks/performers who travel from town to town robbing and murdering their rich,nosy customers. This is a weird film that showcases what Waters likes to do best. Try and repulse the audience as much as he can (mirroring the side show performers themselves).Unfortunately, most of the humor is pretty dated and the very low, low budget might turn off most viewers (if they were not repulsed by the first twenty minutes). Other than that, it's a very enjoyable movie.Waters will finally perfect his film-making a few years later with the back to back to back releases of Pink Flamingos, Female Trouble and Desperate Living. Shot on 16mm, B/W.Recommended

innocuous I've been an IMDB lurker for years, never contributing a comment or questioning the reviews of others. But I just have to step up to the plate on this one.On the one hand, I see that relatively modest but effective films like "Eight-Legged Freaks," "Bug Buster", and "Darkness Falls" are getting ripped on all sides for failing to properly develop the plot, poor CGI effects, lousy acting, short running time, and whatever else is a personal gripe of the reviewer.Then I see that this film is rated much, much higher and I just have to speak out. This film is garbage. Not only that, it is boring garbage. The lobster attack is not amusing, original, or impressive. There is absolutely no actual discernible acting in this film. The story is boring and the nudity is not even up to the standards of "Orgy of the Dead." I actually purchased a sealed VHS copy of this movie based on the reviews at this site. I expected that there would be SOME minimum interest in this film, but I was sadly mistaken.I won't tell you not to rent or view this movie. In fact, there is actually some benefit in watching this movie. You may get a more realistic idea of the reliability of the reviews that are posted to this site.