Videodrome

I really wanted to like Videodrome - I'm a Canadian myself and his later work is compelling. I found Videodrome boring, too self-serious, and some of the plot points inconsistent. I can't go into a lot of detail without spoiling some of it, but it involves explaining away one character as a recording when previously in the film, that character was obviously interacting in the real world.

It seems like Videodrome tries hard to make some philosophical point that doesn't really come through ("Long live the new flesh" is catchy but not meaningful). The much touted special effects were also disappointing, though ambitious and unusual. I realize this is all pre-CGI, but when you consider Blade Runner and Star Wars, also pre-CGI, their effects hold up over time while Videodrome's just look a bit silly. The actors do a fine job, but one has the sense that Videodrome's focus is not the actors or the plot but the idea at the center of it about the possibilities of a new technology at the time. Much in the same way that movies about the internet at the beginning of its arrival seem hilarious in their perspectives about what the net could be used for, Videodrome is a consideration of what mysteries lay behind analog video.

Good things? Criterion's print is beautiful and the colors are crisp and clear. Extras are interesting, and the packaging is made to look like an analog tape from the era - perhaps capturing the tongue-in-cheek attitude that the movie would have benefited from.

I recommend Videodrome for people who are compelled to watch ALL the Criterion films, fans of Cronenberg, and special effects junkies. I wouldn't write it off completely, but it's not a strong classic. It's worthwhile primarily because of its position in time and in Cronenberg's career.

There were no problems with the product when i recieved it, i got it right on time, and overall i was very satisfied. If i order any movies or books or whatever it may be, i will get it from this site.

The idea of people being brainwashed into drones just by watching television is a very serious and scary idea. Mostly because I'm in front of it a lot.

After watching this I thought that this was a very Cronenberg film. The ever-returning theme of humans integrating with machinery is very much presented here by James Woods' character blending in with his hallucinations and becoming the new technology everybody must be afraid of. The gun mutating with his arm is the obvious example of this. This is all done with a lot of gore and slime, and this is regrettably what the movie's undoing is.

The acting is very good; James Woods delivers one of his best performances ever. I can not really think of a much better performance from him (maybe Hades in Hercules). Deborah Harry was far better then I expected her to be, her performance gave a very erotic feel to the first two acts, but her character regrettably got lost in the last part. The rest of the cast was fairly unknown to me, but they delivered a good enough effort considering the material they were presenting.

In the third act Cronenberg has to wrap this intriguing premise up in a satisfying way and resorts into gore and violence (expertly executed by Rick Baker) and ultimately fails in conveying his message clearly to the audience. He should have kept the gore in the background and the characters in the foreground. The double ending was well thought of by the way.

The next thing I was worried about is the dating of the movie. The subject of videotaping and watching TV seems to feel less important now in these days of the information age. Computers have taken over the supremacy from the TV when it comes to information-distribution. The internet is omnipresent. A remake should be made of this movie every twenty or so years to keep it fresh.......gosh did I just say that I am so going to hear this later on. On the other hand: there is of course Ghost in the Shell (1995) which tells a very similar story, only in reverse. A virtual entity wants to become one with the original technology, that of the human body. When you look at this in total, I think this can not be counted with the better movies made by Cronenberg, such as The Fly (1986) and the Dead Zone. "Videodrome" is one of Cronenberg's finest films. It's sick, twisted, and superb.

Searching for logic in a Cronenburg movie can sometimes feel like searching for a needle in a haystack. You know there is a message somewhere, but it could possibly take forever to find it.
I think there are two questions this movie is asking it's viewers.
The first being; Why do people subject themselves to watching this kind of cinema and television?
And the second being ; What effect does this kind of cinema and television have on it's viewers?
In those questions themselves lies the answer; Depends on the viewer.

Now that I've gotten all the phsycological stuff out of the way, lets talk about the movie itself.

James Woods might possibly give the best perfomance I've ever seen in a horror movie, along with the rest of the cast. Everything in my opinion is absolutely perfect, from facial expressions, to hand movements, to dioluge, is just perfect in every way possible, and I could not ask for anything more.

The special effects are mind-blowing. We have, pulsating TV screens, torture, a torso that eats (don't ask), multiple gun shot scenes, and one scene of a man literally melting that make Scanners seem like a kids movie. There is a lot more also that I won't go in to, but there is no shortage on gore, I can assure you of that.

This Criteion print is, for lack of a better word, beautiful. There are two audio commentaries, one by the director and one by actors James Woods and Deborah Harry. A 40-page booklet featuring multiple essay's by film critics. Featuretes on the special effects of Videodrome, and my favorite feature, a roundtable discussion with directors John Carpenter, Mick Garris, John Landis, and David Cronenburg from 1982 discussing horror films in general.

This movie is extremely ahead of it's time, and although it was made in 1982, it feels like it could easily been made in the late 90's. This is without a doubt in my top ten horror films ever made.

The fact that I'm sitting here reviewing a film with such passion that was made before I was born speaks for itself.
GO BUY THIS NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

David Cronenberg is a unique filmmaker whose vision of the world is somewhat skewed as compared with the rest of us. In Videodrome he investigates the possible insidious and damaging effects that a continuous stream of torture and death from a TV screen could have upon an individual. Well that is one possible interpretation of this film, in fact he could equally just be pushing the boundaries a bit further himself.

The film was made in 1982 when Video was just beginning to boom all over the world. It stars James Woods as Max Renn, who gives one of his best ever performances, as an executive for a small cable TV station who in searching for something new to air on the station. He discovers Videodrome, or is a duped into discovering it, and from that point on starts to hallucinate. Beyond this point it becomes difficult to know what is real and what isn't. Suffice to say, if you are not familiar with Cronenberg, things turn pretty nasty and although some of the special effects look a little dated now this certainly isn't for the squeamish.

Unless you have read a detailed synopsis by Cronenberg himself, you are likely to get to the end of this movie and wonder what it all means, which is pretty much how I felt. However its done with a style that is largely missing from a lot Hollywood movies, and that is not surprising. Cronenberg is Canadian and this is a Canadian film. It has a different feel to Hollywood movies, perhaps more akin to a European movie. I agree with the previous reviewer that towards the end the typical Cronenberg 'horror' element was overplayed, but overall this is a thought-provoking and strangely entertaining movie that I look forward to watching again.