Videodrome

Videodrome ticks many of the Cronenberg boxes that fans of his films will have come to expect and love. Themes including technology's role in shaping humanity, government conspiracy against its own people, and the cultural value of sex and violence are each delivered up in the film's gray-and-beige, metropolitan '80s setting. Casting was excellent and the plot is moved forward by a spritely James Woods and the provocative Debbie Harry (Blondie), set to a sparing but precise score by Howard Shore. But the most intriguing question posed by the film is the extent to which reality is shaped by personal perception alone. This concept, explored through dream sequences, body horror, and philosophical dialogue between characters, is central to the plot about a television broadcaster bent on finding the most "real" adult content for his niche viewers. Cronenberg appears to ask not only whether our insatiable media consumption has gone too far, but whether humanity ever had a choice in the first place.

Videodrome is a prescient moment in cinema history as our desensitized society moves ever deeper into a world of screens and virtual personalities. It's not a film for everyone, but it's a film anyone could get something out of. I highly recommend it for those approaching it with academic interest and for fans of the genre.

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

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.

Max Renn runs a small cable station that specialises in providing what other, bigger stations don't – softcore pornography and hard violence. Tapping into illegal pirate broadcasts via satellite, Max sees a show that seems to be a hypnotic mix of S&M, torture, murder and other unsavoury acts that look very real. Intrigued and convinced he has seen the future for his network, Max tracks down the signal to be coming from Pittsburgh and does some digging to find out who is responsible for it. However as his fascination becomes an obsession his hallucinations start to get more real and more extreme.

Although it is pretty hard to get inside and to understand (much of it does not make a lot of sense), Videodrome is probably more relevant today than it was in the early eighties if only because the issue of the effects of sexual and/or violent "entertainment" continues to be debated and explored. This theme is explored with a certain amount of graphic disgust from Cronenberg as he takes Max, exposes him to graphic television violence and sees the affect it has on his mind and his body. As a commentary on the social impact of mass media it is hardly the clearest or most accessible of things but it is interesting and engaging nonetheless. As writer he could have made his message clearer and a lot less convoluted but I suppose he should be commended for delivering this in his own unique style but the downside is that the mass audience will feel excluded from the story.

As director though he makes it quite engrossing even if it isn't clear what the message is. The imaginative body horror stuff is very well done and the effects as impressive as the twisted creative forces behind it. The cast also buy into it well, even if the show does mainly belong to Woods. He is totally convincing which is a feat you need to believe is very hard to pull off in this sort of film! The rest of the cast are more in the world of the film (as opposed to drawn into it) and the result is that their performances tend to be more out and out weird – point in case Harry who is disturbingly vapid as the hollow S&M thrill seeker of the piece. Likewise Smits, Carlson, Creley and others are more about the world than giving performances so-called.

Overall though, this is an interesting and imaginative film. It doesn't make a lot of sense but it is enjoyable to try and apply what is happening to work out a meaning within it while watching it. The effects are good, although the horror might have meant more to me if I understand all of it better but regardless it is certainly an experience that is worth having at some point.

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.