Frissons

I watched this at a drive-in back in the 70s. It was wildly inappropriate for a kid my age (about 6 years old). It scared me but not because of the aliens, but because of how weird the movie was. I only saw people kissing and their throats bulging so the alien infection could go from one to the other. Imagine how I felt when the first Girl wanted to kiss me later in life...

Anyway, I didn't understand what was going on at the time. I was too young to comprehend everything so I re-watched this again a few years later and I have to say, I still don't know what's going on LOL!

It didn't' age well. It's about this guy who infects a teenage girl with alien parasites, who he kills (and shows her bare chest) and allows things to slither about in an apartment complex. Once someone is infected, they want to have sex which is apparently how it's transmitted. I saw one of the first woman on woman kisses of my life when I was six so there's that.

It's kind of dumb, poorly acted and written and a lot of people have given it high marks. It's a predecessor of other movies like Alien, even though they were both made in the same decade, this movie served as sort of a template making it important, even if it's dated.

You should watch it, only if you're an adult who doesn't mind nudity and a very dated 70s movie that's not that great.

I'm a big fan of the director's but had never seen this one until the other day (the VHS re-release "director's cut" or whatever). The other user comments had let me to expect an amateurish curiosity, but I found it polished and feel no need to make any excuses for it (perhaps the new release is a cleaner print).

It's pretty sly, the acting's not bad and I found the film most remarkable for its restraint and subtlety. I'm not sure I buy the idea that the parasites are a metaphor for Americanization - Cronenburg's concerns are, I think, more personal and abstract than such a reading gives him credit for.

The movie is deliberately paced and the shock/gore factor is relatively low. I found it to be a modest footnote in a career that later bore stranger, richer fruit.

For me, the best of Cronenberg's earlier works is an exercise in claustrophobic tension building, wrapped in a concept of pure exploitation, and all further used as an excuse for a wicked Buñuelian-like satire on the woes of contemporary consumer culture and the antiseptic nature of modern living. The way that Cronenberg creates this world of gated purification turned into a beacon for the very best of late twentieth century existence, only to then pull the walls down from within as the characters are turned into dribbling, sex starved deviants is not only an effective horror-film scenario - drawing on the prevalent notions of isolation and paranoia usually found in films of this particular nature - but also as a comment on the vapid, overwhelming sense of boredom that modern life, with all its consumer fads and soulless pursuit of social fulfilment can present.

Like the very best of these retro exploitation films, Shivers (1975) works on at least two distinct levels of enjoyment and interpretation, with the obvious shocker elements suggesting an even more warped take on the territory of Night of the Living Dead (1968) - with sidelines into the same kind of atmosphere created by John Carpenter in his subsequent Assault of Precinct 13 (1976) - while the more personal and psychological aspects of the script complement the more recognisable elements of horror in a way that creates a perfect symbiosis between presentation and form. Admittedly, the look of the film and the obvious limitations of the low budget might disappoint some viewers more accustomed to glossier, 21st century thrillers; whilst the once shocking elements of the film might even seem somewhat quaint, especially in light of the veritable pornography of violence in films such as Saw III (2006), Hostel (2005) and The Hills Have Eyes (2006). Nonetheless, I think many viewers more familiar with horror/thriller/science-fiction cinema of this particular period will still be able to appreciate what Cronenberg was trying to achieve with this depiction of violence and depravity; with the scenes and scenarios - especially in the film's frenzied final act - really going for the jugular in terms of outré shock spectacle and the subversion of traditionally wholesome, all American iconography.

The idea of a small band of survivors coming together in the name of self-preservation as an inexplicable horror affects those closest to them is still a well worn concept in horror cinema, and one that works incredibly well when combined here with Cronenberg's cold, Kubrickian vision of a sterile, social environment as sex and death become distorted amidst moments of stock exploitation, sly wit and a genuinely subversive sense of satirical absurdity. Though it is admittedly rough around the edges and lacking in the obvious prestige of films like The Brood (1979) and Videodrome (1982), I'd still take this over A History of Violence (2005) or Eastern Promises (2007) any day; with Shivers standing out as not only one of Cronenberg's very best films, but one of the most unique, unconventional and completely engrossing exploitations works of this particular cinematic period.

Shivers(1975) is a fascinating first film especially for a person who was learning to direct professionly on the job. An interesting part about this movie is that Cronenberg did Shivers(1975) without having a clue of what people in the film crew does or containing knowledge of film terms. The fact that he made a cult classic is a testament to his potential at the time to be an excellent movie maker. Shivers is basically the first horror film made in Canada as far as I know and David Cronenberg was the first director to open the flood gates for the horror film in Canada.

This motion picture mixes together the erotic with the zombie genre made famous by George Romero in 1968. In fact, there are many references to the zombie classic Night of the Living Dead. The movie is about parasites who enters people's bodies and turn them into sex maniacs. It dares to break many sexual taboos that many film makers would be afraid to explore.

Shivers would provide a starting point for some themes that David Cronenberg would explore in later films like Rabid(1977), The Brood(1979), Scanners(1981), Videodrome(1983), The Fly(1986), Dead Ringers(1988), and Crash(1997). The two themes are disease as the transformation of the body into the next state of evolution for the human being and the other theme of the outsider who does not understand why they are so different from other people. Barbara Stelle provided the movie with many memorable moments especially the infamous "bath tub" scene. It is a groundbreaking movie because it would become a source of many movie directors for the next two decades.

One great scene is the "bath tub" scene which is a classic example of building up suspense until the final moment when the scene ends. Another excellent scene is when the protagonist tries to escape outside and he goes back in as swarms of Sex zombies go chasing after him. I consider this movie the beginning of a trilogy I call the 'sexual evolution' trilogy. The trilogy starts out with Shivers(1975), continues with Videodrome(1983), and finishes with Crash(1997).

Shivers(1975) would be a major influence for the scifi-action thriller The Hidden(1987), especially with the idea of a parasite entering a person's body and changing their entire personal behavior. Also influenced by Shivers were the Alien series(especially Alien(1979) which was made four years after Cronenberg's directioral debut) and there are a couple of examples of this influence. First, the two movies involve parasites who go in and put out of a person's body as well as having acid for blood. Second, They both take place in an isolated and high placed area with Alien(1979) taking place on a spaceship in the middle of nowhere and Shivers(1975) takes place on a apartment complex called the Skyliner Towers on the middle of an island that is isolated from the rest of Canada.

If compiling a list of favourite directors, David Cronenberg if to be honest wouldn't be on it (having only properly started seeing his work fairly recently). If compiling though a list of the most fascinating and unique directors, he would almost certainly be on it and high up the more work seen of his. A vast majority of his films disturb in his use of imagery and make one feel uncomfortable with his tackling of challenging subjects, but as said in some of my other reviews for his films there is much more to his work than just full on horror as seen with him moving away from it in later years.

Cronenberg's feature film debut 'Shivers' is nowhere near among his best work (though nowhere near among his worst either), but for a film debut with limited resources despite flaws 'Shivers' is pretty impressive. The rest of the films that are part of his filmography are far more refined visually, explore their themes/subject much deeper and are far better written and acted. But every good/great director has to start somewhere and this impresses and interests, and even with the low production values it's fairly ambitious in its subject and for low budget. In terms of content, 'Shivers' is one of Cronenberg's more disturbing films.

There are issues with 'Shivers'. If there was an award for the worst-looking Cronenberg film, 'Shivers' in my mind would be an easy win. With the exceptions of the suitably freaky special effects and eerie apartment setting, this does fare pretty badly in the visual department and reminiscent of a very low budget television film. The camera work and editing are both rather slip-shod and like the makers were still experimenting when shooting and editing without having put much thought into what to do and when to do it. The sound is also amateurishly handled.

Another weak point is the acting. There are two exceptions, Joe Silver, who really does give it his best shot without over-compensating, and particularly Barbara Steele, whose experience in Hammer films is obvious. Other than that, 'Shivers' contains some of the worst acting in a Cronenberg film even for mostly non-big names. Paul Hampton is especially awful, who looked like he wasn't interested in the film at all (even Stephen Lack in 'Scanners' wasn't this bad). The script does have some very clunky moments.

However, despite all of this it is difficult to be too hard on 'Shivers'. As said the special effects are freaky, surprising as one does expect for minimal budget for the effects to be the worst part when it comes to production values, the apartment setting has real eeriness and Silver and Steele do well with what they have. Cronenberg gave himself a lot to take on and does so admirably, even if his style had not fully formed yet. Yet his style can still be found all over 'Shivers', with the famous themes and ideas often re-visited in later films present but much deeper and with more subtlety later on. Other parts of the script are darkly humorous and intriguing, like the flesh monologue.

What is particularly good here though in 'Shivers' is the atmosphere and the horror. Even by 2019 standards, 'Shivers' is still genuinely scary and even now is one of Cronenberg's most disturbing, old and new. The starkness evokes genuine chills, something that would be seen in his later films but much more technically advanced in them. There is a real sense of dread, with a lot of tension and suspense. The parasites are not seen a lot but really chill the blood when they do appear. A lot of the imagery is stomach churning, especially the bath scene which is one of the most frightening scenes of any early Cronenberg and overall Cronenberg perhaps for that matter. The claustrophobic climax is also unforgettable.

Summarising, very flawed but did give me the shivers. 7/10