Videodrome.

Review #2585: Videodrome.

Cast: 

James Woods (Max Renn), Debbie Harry (Nicki Brand), Sonja Smits (Bianca O'Blivion), Peter Dvorsky (Harlan), Leslie Carlson (Barry Convex), Jack Creley (Dr. Brian O'Blivion), Lynne Gorman (Masha), Julie Khaner (Bridey James), David Bolt (Raphael), and Reiner Schwarz (Moses) Written and Directed by David Cronenberg (#816 - Crimes of the Future, #1127 - eXistenZ, #1220 - A History of Violence, #1239 - Stereo, #1624 - Shivers, #1712 - The Fly [1986], #2132 - Crimes of the Future [2022], #2276 - Rabid [1977])

Review: 

 "I've always been interested in dark things and other people's fascinations with dark things. Plus, the idea of people locking themselves in a room and turning a key on a television set so that they can watch something extremely dark, and by doing that, allowing themselves to explore their fascinations."

We do love our technology, don't we? Now more than ever, the lines between reality and what we actually see for "entertainment" (television, phone, what have you) is blurred. The human body is the battlefield for what is "too far" and it probably goes without saying to consider how far the word "goon" has gone beyond its original meaning. People will believe what they see and hear from their screens, and you could figure that out in the time when people still used tapes (hell, in different future days, there were people who believed what they heard on the phone from alleged cops). One man's reality is another's delusion, and it goes doubly for how far things have moved from TV being reality and therefore reality being less than TV, as they say. Apparently, when David Cronenberg grew up in his native Toronto as a kid, he could tune into American TV signals from Buffalo in the States when the Canadian stations went off the air and the idea of maybe seeing something he shouldn't see lingered in his mind. The ideas gestated in his head (as one does when knowing about Marshall McLuhan, who taught at the University of Toronto when not being the one considered the "father of media studies") before getting a good chance to do the film with his particular growing reputation. With partial financing from Universal Pictures (it should be noted that this was the last film of his made in the Canadian "tax shelter" era) and filming in Toronto, Videodrome actually did get released to hundreds of theaters in February 1983 and promptly died in theaters, with Cronenberg once musing it wasn't an "exploitation sell [or]...an art sell." At any rate, it soon developed a cult following (various videos exist involving the making of the film, as seen here).

You get a shelter that has homeless people gather to watch television, people who communicate through a TV screen, a certain point where the lines between reality and fantasy blur, and, oh yeah, gooey body horror moments within the actual horror of what really does lurk beyond "special names" and manipulation of people's obsessions. It's not what you see that's important in terms of the "videodrome", it's the fact that reality can in fact be shattered by those who live on the screen that really matters in control. It all leads to Woods and his commanding presence in a cynic with no sense of philosophy beyond "there's an outlet somewhere" (wiser minds wondered if it was really the medium that was the message). There is a killer instinct within Woods to just make a role look so intense by the way you see him maneuver with his expressions more than anything that reaches to the heart of all with the perverse rot in one's soul (which, well, is the type that can be alluring to a certain type of stimulated person). His certain type of "soul" does go hand-in-hand with how Harry (the vocalist of Blondie who dabbled in acting such as Union City [1980], this and Hairspray) treats the world of over-stimulation and curiosity. Her awareness of craving pleasures and pain (for whatever you might read when seeing someone stuff a cigarette on their chest) is the type of alluring "question mark" (well, if you go with that from an interview with her); with so much time spent in a box, you almost could call it a virtual performance (compared to the v-tubers of the now, I suppose being told about the flesh is an improvement). In the battlefield of what airwaves are to be seen in the mind to take the bed with you, one sees the dueling sides with Smits & Creley and Carlson & Dvorsky to sobering effect, well, at least when you consider that both want to shape would-be users for a certain type of evolution. Sure, the plot of the movie is loose, particularly when it comes to really figuring just what is hallucination (full-scale, if you will) and what is the horrors of actually seeing a new type of hell (slits in the abdomen and appendages to the arm that might as well be a new type of sex organ). You just have to enjoy the ride of raveling and unravelling in stimulation to see that, yes, the video screen really can be a tool or weapon and you are living in that world right now. With an efficient pace of 89 minutes that rides the wave of grime and bleak nature of what it really means to see beyond the flesh, it's a pretty good way to unsettle oneself in the eyes of stimulation.

 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

It begins. We're going to try and get as many horror movies as we can, which will run the gamut from franchise stuff such as Saw V all the way down to anthology picks to the oldies to beyond while having time for spectacular fun in November. Stay spooked.

Rabid (1977).

Review #2276: Rabid.

Cast:

Marilyn Chambers (Rose Miller), Frank Moore (Hart Read), Joe Silver (Murray Cypher), Howard Ryshpan (Dan Keloid), Patricia Gage (Roxanne Keloid), Susan Roman (Mindy Kent), J. Roger Periard (Lloyd Walsh), Lynne Deragon (Nurse Louise), Terry Schonblum (Judy Glasberg), Victor Désy (Claude LaPointe), Julie Anna (Nurse Rita), and Gary McKeehan (Smooth Eddy) Written and Directed by David Cronenberg (#816 - Crimes of the Future, #1127 - eXistenZ, #1220 - A History of Violence, #1239 - Stereo, #1624 - Shivers, #1712 - The Fly [1986], #2132 - Crimes of the Future [2022])

Review: 

"So, it's inevitable then, if you consider yourself an artist, that you are going to bother people. That you're going to disturb people, and that you're going to knock over a few walls. And I think, even if that's not your main delight-As it is not really with me. I mean, my main delight-I think I am very playful; I think playfulness is the main thing I do. I play with the concepts, with the images, with the connections between things, the metaphors, and so I think I'm playful, not sort of hostile and nasty. But nonetheless, there's an urge to get under the surface of things. Sometimes I do that literally. I mean, I 'm doing scenes in autopsy and dissection and surgery, and yeah, you want to get under the surface to see what's really going on and how things really work. That does upset a lot of people. And to me, then it's an inevitable consequence of being a serious artist."

There seems to be this weird revulsion about movies that happen to have a bit of violence within a good ol' vampire story. Of course, maybe they were the same people that were too wimpy for Shivers (1975). Sure, it had attracted journalists (read: hacks like Robert Fulford) complaining that tax dollars of the Canadian Film Development Corporation had been used to make the movie. Of course, most importantly, it made money that Cinépix (a distributor Cronenberg affectionally described as "sleazy") liked. Older readers would recognize that this is not the most notable performance of Chambers, who had appeared in Behind the Green Door (1972); Ivan Reitman suggested casting her for a certain type of appeal, although Cronenberg hadn't seen the aforementioned Door film (he thought about Sissy Spacek for the lead but was overruled by higher-ups that thought about her accent and freckles). The CFDC did help fund the film, which I would hope made certain people seethe and others rejoice. Cronenberg has stated the movie, when compared to the aforementioned Shivers, was essentially "painted on a bigger canvas" when it came to similar premises involving infection. The movie did relatively well on its $500,000 budget and Cronenberg would continue to make films of varying notice, with his next two films each coming out in 1979 with Fast Company (one of Cronenberg's unique films not involving horror) and The Brood (1979). In 2019, a remake of the film (filmed by the Soska Sisters in Canada) was released.

Imagine if you will, a movie that decides to have a monstrous thing in one's armpit that spreads disease that leads to people getting sick and scared. Now imagine a scene in the film where one attempts to stop an attack by one of the sick in the Christmas season by shooting at the sick man in front of children waiting in line for Santa Claus...and hitting both the sick guy and Santa! The movie may be weird, it may be cyclical, but it sure is never boring in the overall result, that much is for sure. For me, there is plenty of amusement in the very fact that the perversions of the flesh really can be a killer without falling prey to a lack of execution in effects or non-commitment from the person involved. Violent and repulsive to certain tastes, Cronenberg made a solid movie detailing both terror that can arise in watching fear and aggression play out on TV and also the terror of losing one's body and even the soul to the unknown. Chambers doesn't have too much to say in her journey as the source of body terror, but she does an efficient job in basically playing a modern "Typhoid Mary" (that refers to a woman who apparently had typhoid fever and infected dozens of people in the early 1900s before dealing with forced quarantine twice). Her plight (one where she is penetrating people with a thing in her armpit) is a curious one that she approaches with relative calm for such an alluring presence that really does make one wonder how this was her one noted mainstream role. Consider the fact that she first wakes up screaming after the appendage is on her and she quickly finds someone curious to see her skin. The others do relatively fine in carrying terror in the ordinary fading away into churning fear, which mainly involves trying to make sense of it all. This is a clinically drawn-out type of movie, one that comes and goes for 91 minutes in a chilly manner that I appreciate. I particularly like the ending. After a series of wanderings, finally one gets to see the characters figure out just where this all started and get a confrontation not so much filled with gore and bombast but instead one of straight-toned truth: a garbage pile, suffice to say. After a carefully controlled film of chaos within the horrors of flesh that looks and feels like a cheap but ambitious time, one leaves Rabid as they would hope to leave it: satisfactorily unsettled.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Crimes of the Future (2022).

Review #2132: Crimes of the Future.

Cast: 

Viggo Mortensen (Saul Tenser), Léa Seydoux (Caprice), Kristen Stewart (Timlin), Scott Speedman (Lang Dotrice), Welket Bungué (Detective Cope), Don McKellar (Wippet), Yorgos Pirpassopoulos (Dr. Nasatir), and Tanaya Beatty (Berst) Written and Directed by David Cronenberg (#816 - Crimes of the Future, #1127 - eXistenZ, #1220 - A History of Violence, #1239 - Stereo, #1624 - Shivers, #1712 - The Fly [1986])

Review: 

"Crimes of the Future is a meditation on human evolution. Specifically - the ways in which we have had to take control of the process because we have created such powerful environments that did not exist previously."

It was reported that David Cronenberg was considering retirement from filmmaking because of the difficulty in funding his films. Imagine a world where Maps to the Stars (2014) was thought to be his last directorial effort, and it happened that 2014 was also the same year he published his first novel. But here we are anyway with a film done by him that apparently had been in development once upon a time earlier in the 2000s that never got off the ground now and back again. It was reported in 2002 that he would do a film called "Painkillers", which involved a high pain threshold artist that was offered to infiltrate a subversive group. This inspiration came from a fellow student that attended the University of Toronto with him that had wrote a story about a man who cut off his own hand, to the shocked impressment of Cronenberg. Four years of development in script led to ideas of casting (maybe Nicolas Cage for the lead?), but, well, that film never came to be. So yes, to him, the idea of the body being reality could lead to ideas of a changed world because of how one changes that body (with its perceptions coming through said body (he had cited Arthur Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Representation). Producer Robert Lantos asked him to re-consider that old script he had done, which after a couple of years wrangling funds ended up being made as what you see. Now, at 79, here he was with a new film that wasn't exactly an audience hit but it's always good to say one is back (Cronenberg is apparently in development of a new film already), particularly since this is the first film of his involving horror of any kind since eXistenZ (1999); he stated that key references to other scenes and moments from select films of his would be seen here, because it would serve as some sort of "continuity of my understanding of technology as connected to the human body."

To this film, surgery is thought to be the new sex. It makes for a relaxed 107 minutes of weird horror (don't let anyone tell you otherwise, it's horror) that won't be ideal for everyone, but it makes for a curious experience to sit through at least once. It is the kind of film that looks as dreary as the future it likes to depict, right down to an opening that would be unsettling for anyone to think about: a kid depicted eating plastics who is then smothered by their mother in quick fashion. That's just one of the crimes committed by oneself against the body. Anyway, the film involves a duo of performance artists that do live surgery to remove newly grown organs that arise in one of them while they deal with constant pain. Mortensen and Seydoux do make an elegant pair when it comes to that refined showmanship pair one would hope for in a film that engages more in glances at the body rather than straight stabs, especially when it comes to scenes such as looking at a new thing done to the body, such as say, small horns or a zipper on the waist. I guess there is supposed to be something quite interesting about weird bureaucracy with McKellar and Stewart, but all I can focus on is the latter's whispery voice for seemingly 95% of the time she is on screen that makes me wonder if I was meant to be taking it as a joke. I do like Speedman's pathetic desperation when it comes to trying to make a point about the new type of evolution with what the film is presenting (are you ready for this): people wanting to adapt with a digestive system fit to eat toxic waste. There is something fascinating about watching people's eyes look upon this surgery involving tattooed organs that makes you wish the eventual conclusion reached some sort of meaningful point beyond that mild sort of peace that comes about with the final sequence. It just doesn't feel as confrontational or as pulsating bizarreness as it wishes to be (at least with some of these fools of wavering degeneracy, which even shows a man with many ears at one point), but I did find something worth looking into with the overall experience to appreciate in the long run. Cronenberg may not have had a profound return to form here, but it is still a curious one to watch within the long arm of his general interest of the body and horror regardless.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

We did it! Well, I did it, but you readers got to see 40 reviews in a month, a new record of quality and quantity. Oh, but I have a surprise, one more horror film later tonight...with X.

The Fly (1986).

Review #1712: The Fly.

Cast: 

Jeff Goldblum (Seth Brundle), Geena Davis (Veronica "Ronnie" Quaife), John Getz (Stathis Borans), Joy Boushel (Tawny), Leslie Carlson (Dr. Brent Cheevers), George Chuvalo (Marky), and David Cronenberg (Gynecologist) Directed by David Cronenberg (#816 - Crimes of the Future, #1127 - eXistenZ, #1220 - A History of Violence, #1239 - Stereo, and #1624 - Shivers)

Review: 

If you remember correctly, The Fly originally came from a short story, which had been written by George Langelaan in 1957. A film followed a year later that starred David Hedison, Patricia Owens, Vincent Price, and Herbert Marshall. The idea for what became this film started with producer Kip Ohman, who thought of the idea to make a remake and have Charles Edward Pogue write it - Stuart Cornfield (who had served as a producer on The Elephant Man) liked the idea; Pogue elected to take a different path from making a straight remake, going for evolution rather than an instant transformation. 20th Century Fox (the company behind the production and distribution of the original along with distributer of the two subsequent sequels) did not show great favor to the script that came out, but Pogue made an agreement that they would distribute the film if another source of financing was found - enter Mel Brooks and his company Brooksfilms, who if you remember correctly had produced films such as The Elephant Man (of course Brooks would also not have his name credited in this film either, aiming to not lead audiences into thinking it was a comedy). Pogue would go from being removed from the project to brought back when Walon Green's rewrites failed to impress. Robert Bierman was the choice to direct, but a family tragedy put a damper on that plan. Cronenberg (the original director in mind) was brought in to direct after his attempts at making Total Recall came and went. The differences between the scripts by Pogue and Cronenburg are considerable without being completely different: in the original script, it featured a married scientist working on a project with two employers that is on the verge of losing its funding before he uses the teleportation device on himself (the climax involves him killing the greedy employer by vomiting and feeding on him before he destroys the teleporter along with himself). Cronenberg would modify the dialogue alongside morphing the two entrepreneurs into the one ultimately played by Getz while keeping aspects of the transformation intact (with an intent on making the film as an analogy for disease such as cancer or the aging process); both Cronenberg and Pogue would receive credit for the script, as per the insistence of Cronenberg.

It is a grand thing to say that a film is better than the original. And yet, here we are with a movie that readily improves on what was already a fairly watchable sci-fi movie with the 1958 original with something quite spectacular in its great tragedy of romance and folly. It serves as a great achievement for all parties in surpassing what had been done before without becoming a shell of corporate dealing, succeeding from Cronenberg to Goldblum all the way down. It is disturbing yet emotional in a way that reaches beyond the usual expectation from horror. In other words, it is a grand body horror film that has plenty of depth from a director who knows where to go to make it more than just a movie for gross-out ghoulishness. Perhaps it was a coincidence to cast Goldblum, who was already part of a remake that  is perceived to be better than the original with Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978). There were a plethora of actors considered for the role that ranged from Richard Dreyfuss to John Lithgow (who thought it was too grotesque), but Goldblum ended up being the one cast (having slowly become cast as the lead after a bunch of supporting roles). He is exactly the man required for the role, filled with confidence and curiosity that never seems to waver when the makeup starts to show; even when he starts to go around the bar and chase folks around, he still manages to evoke interest that never seems like blatant pity-play. Davis matches well with him in sensibility, having useful chemistry with Goldblum that inspires curiosity for someone who has to act within romance and horror that at one point involves reacting to an ear falling off - she has to match his eccentricity without just coasting along, and that works out well. For a film that really has just three main characters, Getz does well with not falling behind the main group, a welcome coarse contrast that isn't utilized merely as some sort of evil establishment yuppie (especially with the climax, which is masterful). 

Goldblum is the talent needed for the film, but one knows that when the effects come into play, they shine just as well as they should without burying the actor. Chris Walas (and his crew, which is why the credit lists "Chris Walas, Inc") was behind the design while the makeup art was done by Stephan Dupuis. The designs and constructions all had to be done in the span of three months to execute for its various stages. It is a delight for effects, grotesque but perfectly fitting for what is needed in depicting the troubles of aging and disease. Of course, not every effect got into the movie, with one scene involving a baboon and cat being fused together that ended up being on the cutting floor because...yeah, I think you know how that can alter one's perspective (incidentally, that scene was also in Pogue's script, but it didn't have the lead beating it to death). The swift climax does exactly what is needed to make it a worthy horror tragedy without any easy outs, which really could have happened with the discussions about how to end it, since speculation is more interesting than what you need to see sometimes. The film turned out to be a hit, one that Cronenberg could certainly hang his hat on (one doesn't necessarily go for commercial hits, but this ranks as one of Cronenberg's most successful), with Walas and Dupuis winning an Academy Award for their work on the film, the first and only Cronenberg movie have won an award by the Academy; a sequel was constructed in 1989, but it would be Walas that served as director while Getz was the lone actor to return. The popularity of this film even reached into the world of opera, which was done by composer Howard Shore (with libretto by David Henry Hwang) in 2008. As a whole, the film clicks well for 96 minutes on how much it can pull you into with these characters despite what you already know is going to happen, and it does so with resourceful depth that makes for wonderful horror and resounding tragedy from a director who knows where to go with it. As a whole, this is one of the best remakes ever made, and it certainly is one of the more interesting body horror tragedies ever made, one that has certainly lasted for all time in the 35 years that have passed since its release.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Shivers.

Review #1624: Shivers.

Cast: 
Paul Hampton (Roger St. Luc), Joe Silver (Rollo Linsky), Lynn Lowry (Nurse Forsythe), Alan Migicovsky (Nicholas Tudor), Susan Petrie (Janine Tudor), Barbara Steele (Betts), Ronald Mlodzik (Merrick), Barry Boldero (Det. Heller), Camil Ducharme (Mr. Guilbault), Hanka Posnanska (Mrs. Guilbault), Wally Martin (Doorman), Vlasta Vrána (Kresimer Sviben), and Silvie Debois (Benda Sviben) Written and Directed by David Cronenberg (#816 - Crimes of the Future, #1127 - eXistenZ, #1220 - A History of Violence, and #1239 - Stereo)

Review: 
"If you admit to the possibilities of the most horrific things, then maybe they won't happen. It's what I do when I make movies. You're hoping it's going to stay on the screen and not come into your life." 

There have been a variety of important directors in cinema that came from the nation of Canada, but David Cronenberg most certainly is one of the most transgressive to help shape the course of cinema in body horror with films that provoke just as much interpretation as they inspire squeamish feeling. They inspire confrontation as much as they do chills because they involve qualities of life that are not easy to face in clear comfort, as he aspires to take the audience on a journey to ask questions without needing clear answers. The Toronto native had an interest as a child in reading from a young age (owing to his parents, a journalist and a musician in their interests), ranging from science fiction to comic books to EC Comics, and his initial interest was to become a novelist. While he was an avid cinemagoer (ranging from Westerns to Bambi to The Blue Lagoon), it was the screening of Winter Kept Us Warm (1966) by fellow University of Toronto classmate David Secter that sparked him to get into filmmaking, which he started with experimental work in 1966 that led to two shorts and two arthouse features. Cronenberg approached Cinepix with his script first. The company, if one did not know, had been started in 1962 under the leadership of John Dunning and Andre Link, and Cronenberg would note them as crucial influences on him (the former for filmmaking and the latter on the finance side). The Montreal-based company went from distributing films in Canada and the United States to eventually doing their own with Valerie (1969). They had wanted to tap into the independent market with horror (as was the case with Roger Corman and his films at the time) instead of just sensual-tinged work (the company persists on to the day, although you might recognize them under their current name as Lionsgate Films). Cronenberg had just two films to his output at the time (which were basically like underground work), and Cinepix desired to buy his script without having him direct. Cronenberg was not willing to let his script be filmed without him, and he was close to approaching the lower budget-minded studios in Hollywood and doing the film there before funding was found, with the Canadian Film Development Corporation (now known as Telefilm Canada) helping to allocate funds. Ivan Reitman (co-founder of the Toronto Film Co-op with Cronenberg) served as producer for the film (alongside music supervisor), and he would work with Cronenberg and Cinefix again with his next film in Rabid two years later alongside his own breakthrough venture with Meatballs (1979). The film was shot for $185,000 over the course of 15 days. Joe Blasco was the effects man for the film, and it certainly goes to show the state of the Canadian industry to see this as one of the first serious horror films in the nation.

There were numerous titles that came before and after production occurred, with the initial working title being "Orgy of the Blood Parasites", while the title done for filming was "The Parasite Murders", and in America it was released as "They Came from Within". The funny thing is that the uproar over the film nearly overshadowed the fact that the film was a success from the start with audiences. Since it had been funded in part by the government, there was a bit of commotion done about its merits, most notably with an article in Saturday Night magazine, in which it was felt that Canada shouldn't have a film industry if films like this needed to be made to have an industry; reportedly, the article delayed production of Cronenberg's next film with Rabid (1977) in terms of setting up funding. Obviously time has proven Cronenberg infinitely correct in this regard, since Shivers serves as an important shift in the director's career as his first triumph that serves as a creeping gem. I readily enjoyed the film in its low-budget creeping chills, one that that shows a degree of dark humor within a somewhat familiar premise that works over its limitations for interesting entertainment. We are talking about a movie involving hedonistic zombies that desire pleasure while creeping into your body, after all. Cronenberg has noted that some of the elements might seem familiar when compare to Alien (1979). Think about it: we have a creature that go around a location through someone's orifices and lurk within the stomach that happen to burn acid if in contact with someone's face (Cronenberg once noted that if free love really was true, would this not be what it actually looked like?) - interpret it for yourself, since the writer of that film (Dan O'Bannon) noted that he didn't steal the idea from anybody, he stole it "from everybody!" The effects were done through a combination of condoms, tubing, bottles, and coat hangers that helped move the parasite around to simulate being in the body or being outside, and while the wires might be visible at certain times (like the shot involving it going across the grass), I found it fascinating in its gruesomeness, unsettling with its gooey movement, one that will certainly fit for these monsters of lust.

The acting is okay, showing a mix of somewhat familiar faces and voices with more obscure ones. Hampton for example was more known as a singer and composer, although he did spots on film and TV. He does alright here, even if he seems more indifferent that readily concerned with the growing trend of craven creatures desiring each other's flesh. Silver was noted for his deep voice and roughly a thousand appearances on television alongside occasional appearances in film. He certainly makes a useful impression in terms of moving the plot forward, and he even gets in on the parasite action near the end for effect. Lowry is known for her horror appearances (such as The Crazies), and she proves the best performance for the film, one with captivating spirit that seems out of place with the growing weirdness, and it is her scene in the climax that proves quite fascinating about desire and dreams. Migicovsky and Petrie don't have as much lasting effect, with the former being used more for the stomach (with a creature inside) and the latter to react to all that (plus a scene with Betts), which is okay but not as interesting as the others (Petrie apparently needed to have Cronenberg slap her really hard in order for her to cry when the cameras needed her to cry). Steele doesn't have as much to do, but at least the scene spent in the tub is squirmy enough. Mlodzik is the branch from the previous Cronenberg films, with this being the third of four appearances, and he plays the smarmy manager just fine. The 87 minutes go by with some shivers at what we see play out through a film not afraid of limitations or taboos that strikes a chord with its perversions of the flesh that is entertaining without becoming a lynchpin for weirdness without some sort of interest to keep coming back to where it wants to go. For a director that would only hone his craft further with interesting films involving the body and horror, this is certainly a good starting point to go with Cronenberg and his dazzling display of terror within us. It is a nasty one that might not hit everyone's mark, but I got a kick out of where it wanted to go in unsettling nature to make it count.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Stereo (1969).

Review #1239: Stereo.

Cast: 
Ronald Mlodzik, Jack Messinger, Paul Mulholland, Iain Ewing, Arlene Mlodzik, Clara Mayer, and Glenn McCauley. Written and Directed by David Cronenberg (#816 - Crimes of the Future, #1127 - eXistenZ, and #1220 - A History of Violence)

Review: 
One would wonder what would make a film like this, also known as Stereo (Tile 3B of a CAEE Educational Mosaic), stick out from the usual fare of entertainment. This ultimately proves to be a film that seems more ripe for dissection than a complete watch for entertainment's sake, complete with voice over (owing in part due to noise that Cronenberg's camera made during filming) and a few sound effects. If you are into movies of the experimental / art house genre that try to be something really different with a bunch of educational terms (and a few moments of silly jargon) that talk about telepaths, weird personal exploration, personality splits, and other various events. I can't really say that this was something I found to be worth endorsing, since it meanders and lingers a bit too long with itself, making for a weird 65 minute experience - the best thing that stands out really is when there is a voice over, only if because having no sound (or music) and watching things occur is a pretty strange experience. The actors seem to be having a fine time, walking around Scarborough College (University of Toronto, for which Cronenberg is a graduate of) and making a few faces.

At least I can give credit to Cronenberg, who was just 26 when this film came out, having served as director, writer, producer, editor and cinematographer, which he repeated for his next feature (which retained some of the cast from this one, notably in Mlodzik). It isn't so much a boring time as it is just one of those experiences that you'll feel a bit curious about what you saw more than finding it as just a waste. Giving it a bit of thought to what goes on may or may not help with said assessment. Watching either of his two experimental films (or even his short films with Transfer (1966) and From the Drain (1967)) might make for an odd night in terms of looking at quirky material through the eyes of someone developing their directorial senses with relish - they may not prove to be great, but at least it will play well with the crowd it wants to sit with. At least you won't have one of those little voices that will cry out and say "you just don't get it" when you finish assessing what you saw, at least. Take it for what it is worth.

Happy Canada Day folks. It is good to have done a Canada Day Feature after having done it for five previous years from 2013 to 2017. It happened that this is also the 50th anniversary of the directorial debut of noted Canadian director David Cronenberg, so this made perfect sense for today, since the first film I covered of him was the next film that he did after this one.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

A History of Violence.

Review #1220: A History of Violence.

Cast: 
Viggo Mortensen (Tom Stall / Joey Cusack), Maria Bello (Edie Stall), Ed Harris (Carl Fogarty), William Hurt (Richie Cusack), Ashton Holmes (Jack Stall), Peter MacNeill (Sheriff Sam Carney), Stephen McHattie (Leland Jones), Greg Bryk (Billy Orser), and Kyle Schmid (Bobby) Directed by David Cronenberg (#816 - Crimes of the Future and #1127 - eXistenZ)

Review: 
I suppose there is something to be said about violence and how it pervades our lives from time to time, and how people deal with the consequences of said actions in trying to survive and where it can go from there. This is adapted from the 1997 graphic novel of the same name written by John Wagner (writer of works such as Judge Dredd) with art from Vince Locke that Josh Olson turned into a screenplay, which kept parts from the first half mostly intact while re-writing the climax involving Stall and his brother. In any case, this is a nice pulpy tale with plenty of noir elements to go around, having capable performances from its cast that makes this a worthy piece to check out alongside other Cronenberg pieces. In a sense, it feels like a take on the Western genre, with its take on the reluctant gunfighter and his fight to escape the impulses of his dark past. It moves at its own pace for 96 minutes, having its share of violence alongside interesting moments with its characters that allow to seem more than just figures to play around with. Mortensen is wonderful, playing his man with the right sense of balance between trying to toe the line of morals and his true nature, being convincing and selling his paths in two different worlds with plenty of conviction to go around. Bello also shines well, being capable with passion and grace with plenty of chemistry to go around with Mortensen. Harris makes for a worthy adversary when he shows up on screen, showcasing menace with ease and a pair of sunglasses. Hurt shows up right for the climax, but he makes it all worth it with his own degree of threatening nature (with ensuing Irish accent) that makes his time on screen work just as well as any big bad in a noir type of film does. Holmes is decent when needed, as can be said for MacNeill. McHattie and Bryk do well with their moments on screen in the first half, being capable at showing aggression as expected with subtlety. It is a film that makes its violence ugly and shocking without dwelling on going for overkill or distraction. This is a well-done blunt instrument of a film, showing violence and its mingling with identity without becoming just another crime thriller movie. We never find ourselves cheering for when the characters get into a shootout but instead think about the circumstances that drive people to do such things in the first place. This is a effective film that wraps itself in tension and violence without losing its target in all of the ruckus and blood.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

eXistenZ.

Review #1127: eXistenZ.

Cast: 
Jennifer Jason Leigh (Allegra Geller), Jude Law (Ted Pikul), Ian Holm (Kiri Vinokur), Don McKellar (Yevgeny Nourish), Callum Keith Rennie (Hugo Carlaw), Sarah Polley (Merle), Christopher Eccleston (the Seminar Leader), Willem Dafoe (Gas), Robert A. Silverman (D'Arcy Nader), Oscar Hsu (Chinese Waiter), and Kris Lemche (Noel Dichter) Directed by David Cronenberg (#816 - Crimes of the Future)

Review: 
Believe it or not, this review has been delayed quite significantly by roughly a week. It was supposed to be completed before the review of Legacy of Blood. However, I found that it was easier to come up with thoughts for the plethora of reviews that have come out in the past week. I hope that this review is satisfactory to the standards that I try to have for this show. 

What does it mean to live in reality? Particularly in our day and age, where virtual reality seems more than just a pipe dream? For something like this, a science fiction body horror film, eXistenZ likes to throw questions and gooey things at its audience, and it is the ways that it plays games with its viewer that help in seeing if the film actually succeeds in telling its intriguing ideas. It's a mind-game of a movie, filled with gooey imagery and a fairly game cast willing to showcase this weird world and its situations, and it isn't hard to see why this could be considered a cult classic. For me, it borders on the line of average, but there are aspects of the film that are fairly interesting, along with parts that aren't as bright. Undeniably, the best one to shine in this film is Leigh. She has a certain energy to her that has its shares of cynicism and intrigue (such as when talking about the plot) that makes her a person worth following, which makes sense even now with how people treat creators of things that certainly spring creativity of any kind - whether in technology or some other field.

The same can't be said as much for Law. Perhaps it is the nature of the character that makes him a dry one to follow (being a PR guy) that makes him not as interesting to go along with, although Law can prove decent at times at reacting to the weirdness that this film can verge itself into. Holm and McKeller prove okay, providing the kind of support you'd expect in a situation presented like this (if that makes sense, anyway). Dafoe proves a fine highlight for the time he is on screen, being the most interesting person playing off Leigh and Law for most of the film. This is a movie where people put squid-looking things in their lower back. In an age where people like wear big headsets to experience "VR", who can judge? People certainly love the creations that invite creativity and imagination, whether it blurs the line between fantasy and reality or not, much like how a filmmaker creates the world that encompasses a movie. The film moves at a casual pace in its 97 minute run-time, having a look and feel that plays against expectation that feels welcome in a sense. Where one might expect darkness and jargon, one finds a different sort, a weird energy of events and things that has a fine cinematography from Peter Suschitzky (who had done work on films such as The Empire Strikes Back and other previous Cronenberg films such since Dead Ringers in 1988) to go with it. The ending likes to twist itself with a sort of relish for trickery and mystery, and while I'm not the biggest fan of it, I will say it ends the film without turning it into a joke.

The best way to describe the film is to imagine a philosophy lecture with a professor that happens to have goo in its presentation. For a general crowd, it could prove frustrating, particularly if one doesn't have much patience for something that is suited for examination and discussion a bit more different than a usual talk about a general movie. It certainly isn't something like Tron or The Matrix, that's for sure. But if one takes the film and looks under the surface, I think they will find something that is worth the game it wants to play with the mind.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Crimes of the Future.

Review #816: Crimes of the Future.

Cast
Ronald Mlodzik (Adrian Tripod), with Jon Lidolt, Tania Zolty, Jack Messinger, Paul Mulholland, William Haslam, and William Poolman. Directed by David Cronenberg.

Review
The 2nd part of this celebration on Canada Day ends with Crimes of the Future, the first time a David Cronenberg film has been featured on Movie Night. The movie was directed, written, produced, edited and shot by Cronenberg, born in Toronto. I can't say I remember the last time I watched an experimental film, complete with a bunch of unknown actors and Mlodzik as our narrator in a movie that certainly relies on imagery more than anything. But the main question is if the movie is any good? I suppose it all comes down to what you feel about watching something a bit different than the usual sci-fi fare. It lasts just barely over an hour, but to some it may feel much longer, depending on the amount of patience one has for something that is strange in its own right.

I'm not in the camp of going for movies just because they aren't in the mainstream, but I'm also not in the camp of outright rejecting something that doesn't appeal to everyone. I try to go into all the movies I see with at least some sort of open mind, and though I do admittedly differentiate in reviews of certain movies from time to time, there is an attempt to try and understand the effort taken in movies, even ones like this. The cinematography (also by Cronenberg) is decent, sometimes showing the strangeness of a world that may already be doomed. It's a twisted movie, with a mindset that does not skew towards what it wants to be, as strange and sad as it may be. If you are into movies of the experimental / art house genre that try to be something really different, you might be for it. I can't make myself give this a positive review, but it is at least a movie with effort. 

 Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

And with this ends another Movie Night on Canada Day. It is not my native country, but I felt that since it was close to my nation's Independence Day, it only made sense to try and include some Canadian films into the mix of the American celebration three days later. I hope you enjoyed the reviews.

Original image: