Shivers (1975)

Introduction:

David Cronenberg is one of those directors that really seems to polarize viewers His early work can be especially disturbing to folks, especially something like Videodrome. But I really do like what I’ve seen from him. He’s one of those directors who plays with particular themes, has a specific style and tone. So I was interested in seeing his first feature length film and get an idea of how it all started.

Summary:

The film begins with an advertisement a grand new block of luxury apartments with everything a tenant needs right inside the building. Since these apartments are on an island, it is an added convenience for the residents to never have to travel to the mainland for anything. There is even a clinic on hand to help with any issues you may have. Dr. Roger St. Luc (Paul Hampton) is running into a few problems today. He’s seen several patients with strange growths in their abdomens.

But when his mentor Dr. Hobbes (Fred Doederlein) is found dead over the mutilated corpse of a young woman he becomes really disturbed. Some digging reveals that Hobbes and his colleague Linsky (Joe Silver) were working with parasites as an alternative to organ transplant. Hobbes decided to experiment on human… and it all went downhill from there. St. Luc becomes convinced that the parasites are multiplying in the apartments and warping the minds of the residents. Does he have any hope of stopping the infection, or will he fall prey to it? Horror favorite Barbara Steele is on hands to add to the Shivers.

Good Points:

• Creates a disturbing concept and runs with it.
• Has some excellent moments of dread and unease
• Takes straight aim at the free love concept

Bad Points:

• Never quite feels as claustrophobic as it wants to be
• A few moments are more funny than scary
• Feels a bit exploitative and trashy at times

Overall:

Cronenberg’s main concept and themes are ready and raring to go in this film. The concepts of parasites spreading among the population of the apartment building, is creepy enough. But to have them spread like some venereal disease and increase the libido of the host makes it even more disturbing. There’s plenty of gross out moments in the film. But there are a few limitations because of the budget. The setting doesn’t feel as closed off as it could, and sometimes the parasite attacks looks silly. But overall there is enough here to get under your skin and see that Cronenberg was a talent to be watched, even in a movie as exploitative as this one.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 3

Acting: 3

Script: 3

Music: 2

Direction: 4

Entertainment: 3

Total:  3

Curious about a full review, sent me an email and I’ll make additional thoughts to this review.

Enjoying the content? Click and ad before you go and support this blog.

The Brood (1979)

Introduction:

I haven’t seen any of David Cronenberg’s films from the 1970s. In fact I haven’t seen too many of his films in general. So I was pretty stoked to see that Criterion was putting a couple of his better regarded films on Hulu Plus. I didn’t know much about this film, other than it had something to do with creepy kids. That seemed to be a staple of 70s horror, maybe thanks to The Omen. All I knew is that it was probably going to include some disturbing fleshy moments.

Summary:

Nola Carveth (Samantha Eggar) has some serious emotional issues. Her husband Frank (Art Hindle) has her undergoing experimental therapy under the care of Dr. Hal Raglan (Oliver Reed). Raglan is able to work with his patients to expose their pain and anguish in physical manners, such as raised bulges and protuberances that appear instantly. While this is shocking and disturbing, Frank begins to wonder if this is actually helping any of the patients.

His doubts are validated when his daughter Candice (Cindy) returns from a visit with her mother with bruises and scratches on her. Frank tells Dr. Raglan that he wants to stop the visits, but Raglan insists that Nola is at a critical phase in her treatment and stopping the visits will only cause things to get worse. Well, things do get worse, but in a way no one expects. While Candice is staying with her grandmother a strange little “person” attacks and kills the grandmother. Frank fears for his daughter’s life. When more attacks continue he begins to wonder if Dr. Raglan is connected to the fearsome attacks by the murderous Brood.

Good Points:

• A slow building story that gets more disturbing as it goes along
• The finale really packs a punch
• Acting by the three leads helps the story along

Bad Points:

• If you don’t buy into the concept at the heart of the story, the film will not work for you
• Some viewers may find the pint sized horrors to be silly looking
• Some of the supporting cast goes a little over the top

Overall:

I found this film to be a nice slow build to a very disturbing climax. The concept of manifesting your strong emotions into a physical form is an interesting horror idea and Cronenberg uses it well. The main cast does a great job with Oliver Reed providing a cool intensity that makes you immediately distrust him. Beneath the horror is the idea that physical abuse and torment within a family can literally be passed down from generation to generation.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 3

Acting: 4

Script: 4

Music: 3

Direction: 4

Entertainment: 4

Total:  4

Curious about a full review, sent me an email and I’ll make additional thoughts to this review.

A History of Violence (2005)

Introduction:

What’s with the name David and directors? You’ve got David Lynch who makes dark surreal films. You’ve got David Fincher who makes dark dramas. And then there’s David Cronenberg who makes dark surreal dramas. Ok, it’s a stretch, but work with me here.

Summary:

Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) lives in a small town in Indiana with his wife Edie (Maria Bello) and two children. It’s a nice quiet life, and you know that since this is a Cronenberg film that can’t last. As Tom is closing down his diner for the evening, a couple thugs come in and try to hold the place up. As things escalate Tom is forced to act, and boy does he. He takes out both men using only a coffee pot and a dropped gun. Tom becomes a local hero, but word spreads to Philadelphia. When Fogarty (Ed Harris) arrives in town he confronts Tom, saying that he knows who he really is. Tom appears to have never seen Fogarty in his life, but Edie begins to wonder if the man she knows as her husband is everything he appears to be.

Good Points:

• Excellent acting by the cast
• Multiple themes and ideas weave throughout the film
• Howard Shore’s musical score works perfectly

Bad Points:

• Fans of Cronenberg’s visceral horror are going to be disappointed
• The pacing may be too slow for some viewers
• The ending is going to annoy the hell out of some people

Overall:

Cronenberg has crafted an excellent film here with a great cast and crew. The story is simple, but the ideas behind it are intriguing and it offers a lot of food for thought and multiple viewings. Worth checking out if you’re looking for a well-made drama, with a history of violence.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 4

Acting: 5

Script: 4

Music: 4

Direction: 5

Entertainment: 4

Total: 4

In Depth Review

Cronenberg is one of those directors I’ve heard a lot about but haven’t seen much of. I’ve seen his remake of “The Fly” but it’s been years. I’ve been interested in seeing “Videodrome” for years, but never got around to it. So when all the buzz about “A History of Violence” was going around, I decided to check it out. I really liked it. The story pulled me in and kept me guessing right up to where Tom leaves his home for Philadelphia. But at that point, Cronenberg’s shown his hand and you’re along for the ride.

This type of movie doesn’t work without strong acting and Viggo Mortensen really makes it work. He creates two separate characters and fuses them together into one man. Some of it is very subtle, but when the changes kick in you can see a huge difference between “Tom” and “Joey”. But on top of all that Viggo allows you to see that Tom and Joey are the same man, and it’s that extra layer that adds to the performance and makes the final scene of the film resonate.

Maria Bello also does a great job as a loving woman who is really tested. Is the man she knows as Tom really hiding a dark past? And if that’s the case, how can she reconcile this lie with their marriage. She’s attracted and repulsed by Tom, a scene executed with brutality on the staircase proves that. But her character goes a long way during the film and in many cases her reactions provide a greater impact on the viewer.

Cronenberg took the graphic novel and turned it into a solid drama. This movie isn’t attempting to capture the graphic novel feel; instead Cronenberg turned this into a type of Western. There are all kinds of angles, musical cues and story setups that are right out of a traditional Western. But these elements are all slightly warped by other elements more common to a thriller or taking visuals an extra step.

It takes skill to weave all these elements together and Cronenberg makes it look simple. His opening sequence, one long slow take following two men leaving a motel is just a simple example. It does so much, setting up these characters, creating tension, setting mood, and establishing the setting. When we get to see a little more in the next shot – it’s a shock. It’s skilled film making all the way around.

What I found a bit surprising is that my second viewing allowed me to appreciate the acting and direction even more. I thought the movie was solid when I first saw it a couple years ago, but the second viewing really opened my eyes. I also suggest you give the commentary track by Cronenberg a listen. He talks about all kinds of things from adapting the script all the way up to the reception the film got. It’s very interesting as he covers all elements of the production and talks about how they all work together to cement the story and the themes it contains.

“A History of Violence” is an easy recommendation for anyone looking for a dark drama (with some black humor thrown in for good measure). You really can’t go wrong with this movie.