Leofwine_draca
It's easy to mix up Andy Milligan's THE MAN WITH TWO HEADS with THE THING WITH TWO HEADS, a cult movie that came out the same year about a two-headed monster. This film's two-headed creature is a metaphorical one; the film is actually Milligan's version of the Jekyll and Hyde story, and like most of his work from the era (e.g. BLOODTHIRSTY BUTCHERS) it's a period piece that was shot in London. It's also very dull. Although the film is more coherent than most of Milligan's fare, the truth is that it's not very good. It's not a long film but the pacing drags out endlessly nonetheless. There's the usual combination of slow and talky moments, amateur theatrics-level acting from the unknown cast members, and a few moments of high ham and cheesiness. Milligan can't resist throwing some bloodshed into the mix, which I'm all for, but his films are just too obviously hampered by their low budgets to make much of an impact except in the lowest of cult circles. You can go ahead and watch just about any other version of the Robert Louis Stevenson story and find it more entertaining than this one.
Michael_Elliott
The Man With Two Heads (1972) ** (out of 4)Dr. William Jekyll (Denis DeMarne) believes he has come up with a formula that will take the evil out of man. Without any animals or patients to try the formula on the doctor takes it himself and turns into a violent madman.This film was released the same year as THE THING WITH TWO HEADS so the producer changed the title to THE MAN WITH TWO HEADS but rest assured there's no one here with two heads. This here is obviously Andy Milligan's take on the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde story and for the most part it's a half-way decent movie. Milligan has gained a fairly good cult following over the years, although most people consider him one of the worst director's of all time. His ultra-cheap movies are hard to sit through at times because of how awful and boring they are but this here is better than I expected.Once again this film is a period piece, which is something I don't think really helped too many of the director's movies. For the most part the performances are decent for this type of movie and DeMarne is perfectly capable of pulling off the lead role. The most shocking thing is that Milligan is able to tell a coherent story and it actually makes sense! With that said, even at just 80 minutes the film drags and feels twice as long, which is what keeps it from being more entertaining.
jrd_73
Let's get this out in the open: I don't get the cult of Andy Milligan. I can certainly respect a guy determined to make a film no matter how low the budgets, no matter how cheap the film stock, no matter how limited his means. That does not mean that I have to like the end results. Most of Andy Milligan's films are nearly unwatchable for anyone who demands a minimal level of quality. Static shots that run on forever, unconvincing (to say the least) period designs, and bad acting, that is what one gets with Andy Milligan.Having said all that, The Man with Two Heads is a marked improvement. Oh, it's still bad; let's not delude ourselves on that point. However, this film features a far better leading actor, Denis DeMarne, than normal and a better story (taken from Robert Louis Stevenson of course). There is still the lousy cinematography and the cheap sets (a medical school that consists of four students meeting in someone's basement). Still, compared to Monstrosity? Compared to Carnage? Compared to The Rats Are Coming, The Werewolves Are Here? Compared to them, The Man with Two Heads is a (small) step above.
Fly-10
A funny thing happened to me as I was browsing around the other day that couldn't be overlooked. Many years ago I saw this awful film. At the time I was kind of spooked by it. It had this kind of quality that will scare a four year old. All in all this is truly bad movie making at its finest. A must see for the experiece.
AD
