Cuerpos invadidos

This movie was a TRIP. Really had no idea what to expect when I popped it on until I saw that it was a Conenberg film. Of course, by then I knew I'd be in for something strange but I still wasn't prepared for this interesting and disturbingly still relevant tale of how the media we consume effects us as people. How we become exposed to something, an idea, a frequency of thought, a movement and it can grow in us like a cancer until nothing makes sense anymore. In a post-2020 world I think that's more relevant than ever, this notion that what we see can change us and our perceptions. Cronenberg was doing this in '83 though.

Really, only downside is that it does feel pretty sloppy at times. The body horror is sometimes a useful tool and at others feels very unnecessary. It's rough around the edges and while I enjoy the central concept and idea of the film, it could have definitely done with a little more polish.

Would oddly love to see this one revisited and modernized a touch.

David Cronenberg's films are technically very well made and while his films are very disturbing a good deal of his films also have either a dark or subtle wit, poignant emotion or even both. He is for me one of the most interesting and unlike any other out there directors, despite being known for body horror and originating it his films are much more than that. All these are the reasons for my admiration and appreciation for him.

Will be honest in saying that 'Videodrome' is not quite one of my favourites of his, do much prefer the likes of 'Dead Ringers' and 'The Fly' and find that they are more accessible as films. It is still a very intriguing film that hits hard on the disturbance factor. Something of a transition film, with all the distinctive Cronenberg touches and themes but now exploring more ambitious concepts, on top of being one of his most disturbing 'Videodrome' is also one of his most personal and most complex.

'Videodrome's' weak links really are the story and pace in the latter stages. The story starts off very interesting and much of the film is unsettling in atmosphere, but in the latter stages it does start to unravel and the more it does the less sense it makes and more muddled it gets until the viewer is completely lost.

As the story unravels, the pace does too, meandering until it becomes exhausting when things get on the over-the-top side.

However, as always with Cronenberg, 'Videodrome' is a very accomplished looking film. It boasts some of the most startling imagery of any Cronenberg film (in a way that is both disturbing and also oddly beautiful), Cronenberg again showing his visual mastery even if the techniques became even more refined in his later work, as can be seen with 'The Fly' and 'Dead Ringers'. Howard Shore's, a Cronenberg regular, score is deeply haunting while also with a degree of emotion, not just going for full on horror but also the emotional core.

Script may not have as much dark wit or poignancy as other Cronenberg films, but it probes the mind at least and flows well. Much of the film is truly unnerving and makes one think twice about the future of media, the tension there frequently. Cronenberg directs with a typically adept touch. The characters carry 'Videodrome', Max is a sleazeball and is a meaty one at that. The acting is very good, with the driving force being James Woods giving a lead performance of true ferocity.

Overall, good if not one of my favourites of Cronenberg. 7/10

Wow! My favorite actor and my favorite singer in the same movie! Deborah Harry (of Blondie fame) gives a great non-blonde performance as an "emotionally energized" radio show host, and James Woods is a scummy business-minded owner of a seedy TV station.

Like "Brazil" or "Twelve Monkeys" this movie will make you think, and even though there isn't really much violence or horror, your mind will fill in the parts that aren't there. The ability of a movie to do this makes it a must-see alone. You constantly ask yourself "is this real?" just as the main character is asking the same thing.

One thing about this movie is that they never really answer a lot of things. As we watch the main character go in and out of reality, the audience is never quite sure what is really happening either. They never tell us. They never truly explain who is behind Videodrome, or even what happens to James Woods. If you didn't like the ending of Network or Twelve Monkeys, then you won't like the lack of explanation here either.

Lots of underlying messages here too, involving television, pornography, and technology - all of which are more significant today than in 1983. Note common themes such as the head in a box. Excellently made film, the only thing that would have made it better is more story.

It takes the slightest peeks at his career to figure out David Cronenberg ("The Fly," "Dead Ringers," "Naked Lunch," "The Dead Zone," the upcoming "A History of Violence") is a director who is not to be toyed with. I forgot to add in his 1983 horror movie "Videodrome," and there is a reason for that, which I'll talk about later. His works provoke intelligent thought, and terrify those who can't comprehend it. His films stimulate, offend, and move those who care to watch them with an open mind.

Allow me to (try) explain. I won't bother to go into detail about the plot. A sleazy, lowlife TV producer named Max Renn (James Woods) rapidly becomes obsessed with an unusual television signal, which in turn begins to warp his perceptions of reality. Get it? Nah, of course you don't. You're not going to let a one-sentence plot description and, if you own the Criterion Collection DVD, the three essays included deter you from watching it, are you?

You're also not going to let scenes of grisly torture, unspeakable violence, murder, "flesh guns," human VCRs, exploding cancer-deaths (poor Leslie Carlson as Barry Convex), pulsating video cassettes, Deborah Harry in S&M and morphing televisions turn you away, are you? What's more, you're not going to let Woods's effectively "wooden" performance here (his sticking his face into a "living" television) turn you away either?

I won't even try to pretend I understood what was going through Cronenberg's mind when he wrote and directed this picture. I also won't pretend I understood the essays included with the DVD (and I don't think the writers did either). It's warped, it's perverted, it's depraved, and it's insanely intriguing and fascinating. The masses are frightened by "Videodrome" and with good reason. "Videodrome" is Cronenberg's dastardly take on mass-media consumption during a time when television was afraid... afraid to be real. Media violence had not yet become a major issue in America and hypocritical politicians weren't condemning it. But keep in mind this film was made in '83, years before the mind-blowing reality-morphing of "The Matrix" (1999).

There's a little more that I think I can get away with in describing the plot, and Renn eventually traces the signal to Pittsburgh, and is introduced to the station's enigmatic programmer Brian O'Blivion (Jack Creley) and his daughter Bianca (Sonja Smits). He learns of the bizarre nature surrounding Videodrome, and the fate of those of who watch it. As he becomes more and more obsessed, he finds it nearly impossible to turn it off, or turn away. Then those mutations and hallucinations Cronenberg is famous for start happening and when that does, things become nasty and the queasy may want to keep a finger on the fast-forward button. It's no secret Cronenberg loves torturing his protagonists and here, the "new flesh" wants to live long and Woods has the nice warm body perfect for it - he becomes a literal media assassin with a vaginal slit in his stomach that doubles as a programmable VCR and also has a handgun fused to his wrist - he's a virtual slave to Videodrome.

Lastly, the eerie, driving score by Howard Shore swells up during the film's most intense and surreal moments, the most lovely being Woods's lovemaking with his television. I always watch Cronenberg films at least partially for Shore's music. Now I know why Cronenberg selects him for his soundtracks.

"Videodrome," I think, has a lot more relevance today than it did 22 years ago. It's more visceral than gross, is quite brilliant, and doesn't spare us graphic violence and gore. It's alive, it's "Videodrome."

8/10

I first saw 'Videodrome' around '84 or '85 and it impressed the hell out of me. I thought then that it was ahead of its time, and after watching it again a few days ago (and there have been many, many viewings in between) I STILL think it is. In fact it gets more and more contemporary and relevant as each year goes by. Cronenberg went on to adapt difficult cult novels by William Burroughs and J.G. Ballard, which wouldn't have surprised any of his fans, as ideas from both writers, and the late Philip K. Dick have pervaded his work from 'Shivers' to 'eXistenZ'. (Probably even before that going by descriptions of early efforts like 'Crimes Of The Future' which I unfortunately haven't had the opportunity to see.) But Cronenberg, unlike say the Wachowski brothers, isn't just repackaging science fiction ideas for a new generation of movie goers, he is a genuine original.

'Videodrome' still knocks me out every time I watch it. This innovative mix of science fiction, sex, violence, surrealism and horror has lost none of its punch over the years. I have enjoyed most of Cronenberg's movies, and think he is one of the most underrated directors currently working, but 'Videodrome' still seems his purest and least compromised work, and the movie that most successfully and memorably represents his vision. Simply one of the greatest and most important movies ever made.