User Reviews

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's found a brand new channel to explore, where it comes from, whose transmission, he's not too sure, broadcasts torture, hurt and pain, you might be curious but refrain, it's got him hooked and things are getting quite obscure. His hallucinations feel very real, a gaping mouth inside his belly's a big deal, consumes a gun and video, controls his actions, where he goes, there must be awful indigestion that he feels.

It wouldn't be so bad in the digital age fortunately, I'm sure a small USB slot opening up in your midriff wouldn't be anything like as bad as one the size of a VHS cassette - more like keyhole video.

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.

Videodrome is truly a surreal experience. I do not want to include too much information as that would spoil the film for "virgin" viewers. If you are familiar with Cronenberg's work, you may have an inkling of what you're in for. Videodrome can drive one to the brink of madness, and then tell you you've been there for an hour and a half. From scene to scene you can't tell what's real and what is in James Wood's imagination. It's utter insanity, but it's great at the same time. This film is a good companion piece with Cronenberg's Existenze. When you can wrap the audience up in your movie, you have accomplished something few have. And David Cronenberg seems to do that time and again. Cronenberg is not for the faint of heart, definitely.

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.

Well, Mr. Convex, too bad for you... Videodrome, David Cronenberg's first masterpiece, tells the tale of one Max Renn. Played with expert sleaziness by James Woods, Renn oversees a low-rent, exploitative cable network, which specializes in showing increasingly violent and pornographic shows. When he stumbles upon the satellite transmission of "Videodrome" - a realistic S&M/Torture show from Pittsburgh - Renn believes that he's discovered the next wave. Then come the hallucinations... maybe dead bodies, cancer guns, stomach-vulvas, etc. Reality bends and, perhaps, Videodrome has taken over...

In every respect, Videodrome is a great film, managing to repulse and intrigue simultaneously. It is horrific and contains numerous science-fiction motifs, but, unlike the horror and special effects driven pictures of today, Videodrome, to quote the film, has a philosophy. Videodrome is not about mind-controlling cable shows; it is about our un-healthy consumption of visual media. I may not agree with Cronenberg's vision of our relationship with TV, but it is never less than interesting. It's refreshing to see a movie about more than itself; it seems that, since the 1980s, these types of films have become increasingly rare and that's a shame. Maybe it's only nostalgia, but the era when films like Videodrome and Dawn of the Dead were being made by major studios and released to huge audiences seems like a Golden Age to my mind.

Here's to hoping those days will return. What's truly brilliant about Videodrome, beyond its decision to base itself upon an idea, is its seamless blending of the characters' realities and their hallucinations. After the forty-five minute mark, what actually happens becomes lost as we enter deeper and deeper in the the tortured psyche of Max Renn. It is impossible, by the end of the movie, to know what actually happened. Unlike a movie like Donnie Darko, which left me puzzled and irritable, I accept the puzzlement of Videodrome because an explanation would have lessened the film's visceral impact. The open-endedness of the narrative melds perfectly with a film that revels in the hallucination/reality divide. If the characters cannot comprehend what is actually happening, why should we?

As mentioned, every element of this film works. There are amazing set-pieces (throbbing televisions and gurgling video cassettes) and moments of beautiful photography (the shots of Renn approaching the harbor for instance). The acting, even by Debbie Harry in her first starring role, is excellent. James Woods, in particular, excels. He has always been one of my favorite actors and brings to Renn a level of sleaziness that perhaps could have been achieved by only him or Harry Dean Stanton.

This is Cronenberg's first masterpiece (sorry, I'm not too keen on his earlier work, as it doesn't meld his ideas and venereal/technological horror as well) and started a string of absolutely brilliant films. For me, it's also his greatest masterpiece; it's (forgive me for using this word) postmodern vision is spell-binding and the story is, I think, his most imaginative to date. As his career went forward, Cronenberg became more and more respectable and, I think, that hurt his work slightly. In Videodrome, he is at the top of his form and working with his most amazing cast. The movie is an acquired taste and will not appeal to everyone, but I highly recommend it and think you should all watch it with an open mind.

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

David Cronenberg has turned out a lot of films that range from the bizarre to the slightly less bizarre to the stupefying. I used to think that his update of The Fly was his masterwork, as it certainly is an improvement over the original in every sense of the word. Videodrome, however, is entirely his idea, and what an idea it is. Filmed at a time when VHS and Betamax were still at war for market share, and television was still beholden to some standard of public service, it is hard to imagine what the public of 1983 made of Videodrome. Twenty-three years on, it looks so prophetic that it is truly a wonder Sony or Toshiba are not employing Cronenberg to attempt to anticipate consumer reaction to their consumer format ideas. Shot in a Lynchian shoot-first, work-out-story-later manner, it is testament to Cronenberg's skills as a storyteller that the 'drome works as well as it does. It is also testament to the film's accuracy that in this era of so-called reality television, nobody in a remake-crazed system is trying to remake Videodrome.

Of course, in a film with a theme as speculative as Videodrome, one needs to have a reliable performer. Just like you cannot portray someone going mad with fear a la The Fly if your actor is not up to snuff, one cannot portray a weird conspiracy without an actor of James Woods' calibre. Everything that occurs on the screen from about thirty minutes in is utterly unbelievable, but we buy it because James is so good at selling it to us. His disbelief graduating into terror graduating into acceptance is the rock upon which Videodrome rests, and the respect he gained from me in my recent viewing of Once Upon A Time In America went through the atmosphere during Videodrome. So many films are made with a singular star as its entire focus. Sylvester Stallone made a few, but Woods demonstrates he is more than up to the challenge here. The James Woods of the 1980s and the James Woods post 1990 are really two different people, or so one might think after seeing a film from both groups.

The support cast are mostly adequate, with Deborah Harry demonstrating she could have been an actor. Not that she does anything particularly brilliant here, but she also manages to keep her part of the illusion solid. Sonja Smits helps twist the plot beyond its already unrecognisable shape as the daughter of one of the conspirators in the Videodrome experiment. While these two are secondary to Woods, they also add so much to the story that its hard to imagine the film without them. The world was changing in ways none could have imagined at the time, and as Harry's musical career was left in the cold as a result, her image in this film is iconic of an era. Jack Creley is puzzling as a guru tied into the conspiracy who appears only in video. To cut a long story short, Woods is a pinball, while Harry, Smits, and Creley are the bumpers off which he bounces. In that task, they do a brilliant job, and they are far from the only ones. Videodrome contains a literal cavalcade of actors one wishes they could see more of, just based on their moments here.

The summary in a previous comment says it best: "I don't think I could provide spoilers if I wanted to". I could tell you everything that happens in Videodrome, and it still will not even slightly prepare you for the utter bizarreness to be beheld. The imagery is both disgusting and strangely compelling, the story is beyond odd, and the references to the "new flesh" that pop up like skin cancer cells in the final reels are a mantra that will haunt the viewer long after the film is over. The constant images of videotapes and televisions flexing out to either imitate organic material or swallow the hero whole. It is the ultimate contradiction, that I can find this film so utterly compelling yet so utterly repulsive. There is an unofficial motto among defense lawyers: "if you cannot convince them, confuse them". Videodrome, thanks to its surreal imagery and story that could only be inspired by divergent thought, is both convincing and confusing. Such is the ultimate achievement in storytelling.

Fortunately, the question of whether one can separate their perception of reality from the fantasy they see depicted on a video source has been answered already. It isn't really even a question that needs asking here, as it has long been answered by film. No, Videodrome is about something more, although exactly what that is could be anything David Cronenberg desires. I chose to see it as an example of one man getting so wrapped up in his ideas or fantasies that they utterly distort his reality, an idea subtly hinted at when one character describes his hallucinations causing him a brain tumour rather than the other way around. The new flesh is the idea that drives a given machine, always mutating and altering itself. However you choose to interpret the story of Videodrome, I think the consensus we can all come to is that it is just plain odd. Most of us will never really see the things shown in Videodrome if we take a mix of heroin, crack, and LSD then wash it down with drain cleaner.

It is mostly for these reasons that I gave Videodrome a ten out of ten. You have not stretched your imagination far enough if you are completely repulsed by its imagery. Do yourself a favour and see it now. Long live the new flesh.

The president of the Civic TV - channel 83, Max Renn (James Wood), is always looking for new cheap and erotic movies for his cable television. When his employee Harlan (Peter Dvorsky) decodes a pirate video broadcast showing torture, murder and mutilation called Videodrome, Max becomes obsessed to get these movies for his channel. He contacts his supplier Masha (Lynne Gorman) and asks her to find the responsible for the transmission. A couple of days later, Masha tells that Videodrome is real, actually snuff movies. Max's sadomasochist girlfriend Nicki Brand (Deborah Harry) decides to travel to Pittsburgh to have an audition to the show. Max investigates further, and through a video of the expert Professor Brian O'Blivion (Jack Creley), he learns that that TV screen would be the retina of the mind's eye, being part of the brain, and Videodrome transmission creates a brain tumor in the viewer, changing the reality in video hallucination.

"Videodrome", in my point of view, is a prophetic movie of David Cronenberg. The first time I saw this movie was in 1985 or 1986, when video-clubs where novelty in Brazil, and the local price of a videocassette was more than US$ 650.00. In that occasion, I recall that I was visually impressed with this gore, weird and bizarre movie. Twenty-three years later, I have just seen it on DVD and I realize the vision of this great director. He was able to foresee the importance of television for mankind, influencing people with sublimated messages, manipulating audiences and becoming very powerful, and how violence on screen can generate violence. I particularly like the following quotes: "The television screen is the retina of the mind's eye" and "Television is reality, and reality is less than television." Last but not the least, Brazil is not located in Central America, but in South America. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Videodrome – A Síndrome do Vídeo" ("Videodrome – The Syndrome of the Video")

This surreal, mind-bending thriller is quite possibly the strangest and most provocative film that cult director David Cronenberg has ever made.

Manager of a cable television station stumbles across a mysterious, sadistic program that begins to induce horrific visions for our hero. But what does it all mean?

Videodrome is a film that has long divided critics and audiences alike. Andy Worhol declared Videodrome the Clockwork Orange (1971) of the 80's, yet Roger Ebert called it one of the LEAST entertaining movies ever. Well, that's Ebert for ya. I however adore this film and gladly hail it as one of the most unique psychological thrillers ever! Videodrome is a film that was quite ahead of it's time when it came out. Most of Cronenberg's films have some kind of warning to society and with Videodrome the warning is about the power and influence of the media upon the human mind.

The story is both engaging and haunting. Cronenberg's direction is slickly-done as always giving this film an atmosphere of dread and mystery. The special FX, courtesy of makeup master Rick Baker, are stunningly good. Who could ever forget the scene where Max loses his gun... inside his stomach.

The cast is good, James Woods does a dynamic performance, as does attractive supporting stars Sonja Smitts and Deborah Harry.

Videodrome is a film quite unlike any other. For those who enjoy good mind-trip cinema, it is a must-see. One of Cronenberg's finest films.

*** 1/2 out of ****

Media manipulation and mind control are the subjects of shock-master David Cronenberg's bizarre satirical fantasy, and his treatment of the well-worn topic is unorthodox, to say the least. James Woods (in a typically intense performance) stars as a cable TV pornographer who stumbles upon the mysterious transmission of a hardcore S&M program, exposure to which can cause wild hallucinations and horrifying physical mutations. So begins his evolution into 'the new flesh', a creature that can be programmed much like any videocassette recorder, but with far more disgusting visceral detail. Probably the only person to whom any of this makes sense is Cronenberg himself, who shies away from a tidy resolution by letting the plot degenerate into an exhibition of messy special effects. Whatever topical message the film might have had is beside the point: the only real reason to recommend it is for the gratuitous thrill of watching bodies erupt into putrescence.

James Woods plays a scuzzy, low-life TV producer (the kind of character he plays exceptionally well and that you've come to love from prior performances in films like 'Salvador') who gets hooked on watching a pirate snuff film channel, but soon he discovers everything is not as it seems to be and that the transmission wasn't broadcast at all but actually a tape which brainwashes him into acts of self mutilation on his body, soon he is finds that he can hardly even control himself or his body.

A great first half with terrific performances from the three leads, steps up a gear or two in the second half. A highly creepy and original movie that just gets weirder and weirder! Highly recommended. Peter.

I imagine that by the time this film was released, it must have caused quite a stir, since a large part of the popular culture of those years was transmitted and disseminated through television. Planting a dystopia in the minds of the eighties that relates hallucinations from TV to create a new concept of meat could have broken several. And it's that as it is read, the idea is spectacular, but unfortunately the quality of cinema delivered by Cronenberg is very limited by its time. If we extrapolate his ideas to the contemporary world, I'm sure it would be something as big as or bigger than The Matrix, which, by the way, is clearly influenced by Cronenberg in the masterful work of the Wachowski sisters. But if we limit ourselves to this film as such, it's mediocre. The acting, editing and photography are bad. The practical effects are very good for 1983, even quite anecdotal, but far from convincing.

Videodrome, despite being a classic, could have been much better than it was.

David Cronenberg is an acquired taste which I have not quite acquired. That isn't to say I don't admire his films, as movies like NAKED LUNCH, CRASH and SCANNERS have proved memorable and bold. His work, however, is almost frustratingly obtuse, punctuated by grisly, bizarre and perverse imagery that can turn the most hardened of stomachs. VIDEODROME is no exception. Starting as a satire on man's fascination and obsession with television, it evolves rapidly into a hallucinogenic mind-warp that left me scratching my head more often then picking my brain. Cronenberg trademarks, like phallic and vaginal imagery, kinky heroines and sleazy heroes, are all here in graphic display, but their portrayal alternates between oddly beautiful to fetishistic and obscene. Obviously, this is all part of the plan, and like I said before, I admire much of it. It's when the film lowers itself to pseudo-psychobabble and heavy-handed contemporary mysticism that I lose focus, and the entire film just rates as a large question mark.

I saw Videodrome at the 2005 Stockholm film festival and as we were sitting in the audience waiting for the show to begin, director David Cronenberg walks in and starts presenting the film. He tells us that it is about people's reaction to media violence and a look at how media catalyzes violence in society. I'm glad he told me, because none of this is really apparent in the film. In fact, I would probably have found Videdrome totally unwatchable had Cronenberg not clarified its message and thereby given me something--a purpose--to hold onto as I watched it

So while I'm desperately clinging onto this purpose, we get follow likably sleazy TV cable programmer Max Renn (James Woods) as he discovers a frequency on the television transmission that shows a forbidden show, Videodrome. This show appears to be airing from Malaysia and features some pretty messed up torture games that people either find sexual and else gratifying, I don't know, but all the viewers are mesmerized by its content and it ends up changing them. Things start to get real weird for Max as he is turned into some kind of pawn for Videodrome and he is torn between the forces that want to control the show, and the show itself.

The plot outline of Videodrome is every bit as weird on screen as it sounds on page. It's often strangely entertaining, and I believe that is what Cronenberg wants to highlight -- the kind of perverse fascination that people have with television violence and gore. It is also about television broadcasters constantly on the edge, pushing for new daring concepts to shock the audience with. Because it is so ridiculously (I don't want to say 'gratuitously' - as I think it had a point) gory, I sat crouched behind my friend for the main part of the film, burying my head in her shoulder and feeling really woozy when Cronenberg carved out freak-overload in the form of James Woods PIERCING Debbie Harry (That's right, "Blondie") with a rusty needle. Sick.

Ultimately, and no disrespect to Mr. Cronenberg, there is just no way in hell ordinary people could have gotten its message without having read several explanations, reviews and discussions to identify it first. At first viewing, Videodrome appears to be a complete mess of gore, violence and perversions -- a wacky, nonsensical horror flick with low-budget visual effects. It is meant as a dark parable for the media/TV age as well as an allegory for the nature of horror films -- but this is nearly impossible to tell.

6/10

It takes the slightest peeks at his career to figure out David Cronenberg ("The Fly," "Dead Ringers," "Naked Lunch," "The Dead Zone," the upcoming "A History of Violence") is a director who is not to be toyed with. I forgot to add in his 1983 horror movie "Videodrome," and there is a reason for that, which I'll talk about later. His works provoke intelligent thought, and terrify those who can't comprehend it. His films stimulate, offend, and move those who care to watch them with an open mind.

Allow me to (try) explain. I won't bother to go into detail about the plot. A sleazy, lowlife TV producer named Max Renn (James Woods) rapidly becomes obsessed with an unusual television signal, which in turn begins to warp his perceptions of reality. Get it? Nah, of course you don't. You're not going to let a one-sentence plot description and, if you own the Criterion Collection DVD, the three essays included deter you from watching it, are you?

You're also not going to let scenes of grisly torture, unspeakable violence, murder, "flesh guns," human VCRs, exploding cancer-deaths (poor Leslie Carlson as Barry Convex), pulsating video cassettes, Deborah Harry in S&M and morphing televisions turn you away, are you? What's more, you're not going to let Woods's effectively "wooden" performance here (his sticking his face into a "living" television) turn you away either?

I won't even try to pretend I understood what was going through Cronenberg's mind when he wrote and directed this picture. I also won't pretend I understood the essays included with the DVD (and I don't think the writers did either). It's warped, it's perverted, it's depraved, and it's insanely intriguing and fascinating. The masses are frightened by "Videodrome" and with good reason. "Videodrome" is Cronenberg's dastardly take on mass-media consumption during a time when television was afraid... afraid to be real. Media violence had not yet become a major issue in America and hypocritical politicians weren't condemning it. But keep in mind this film was made in '83, years before the mind-blowing reality-morphing of "The Matrix" (1999).

There's a little more that I think I can get away with in describing the plot, and Renn eventually traces the signal to Pittsburgh, and is introduced to the station's enigmatic programmer Brian O'Blivion (Jack Creley) and his daughter Bianca (Sonja Smits). He learns of the bizarre nature surrounding Videodrome, and the fate of those of who watch it. As he becomes more and more obsessed, he finds it nearly impossible to turn it off, or turn away. Then those mutations and hallucinations Cronenberg is famous for start happening and when that does, things become nasty and the queasy may want to keep a finger on the fast-forward button. It's no secret Cronenberg loves torturing his protagonists and here, the "new flesh" wants to live long and Woods has the nice warm body perfect for it - he becomes a literal media assassin with a vaginal slit in his stomach that doubles as a programmable VCR and also has a handgun fused to his wrist - he's a virtual slave to Videodrome.

Lastly, the eerie, driving score by Howard Shore swells up during the film's most intense and surreal moments, the most lovely being Woods's lovemaking with his television. I always watch Cronenberg films at least partially for Shore's music. Now I know why Cronenberg selects him for his soundtracks.

"Videodrome," I think, has a lot more relevance today than it did 22 years ago. It's more visceral than gross, is quite brilliant, and doesn't spare us graphic violence and gore. It's alive, it's "Videodrome."

8/10

Videodrome (1983) was a bizarre film that David Cronenberg made before he become a "director-for-hire" for his next couple of films. He takes a cerebral look at the ever popular fad of pirate satellite feeds and small-time t.v. channels. It was during this time that video tapes and satellite t.v. were becoming popular. Cronenberg decided to uses these and make a very strange and clinically sexually film. As with all of his films the sex seems mechanical, neither stimulating or sensual.

James Woods stars as the part owner of a small t.v. station who pirates satellite feeds and scours the world for erotic film and programming that he could use for his station. That is until one day he stumbles across a video feed that he wished he never had. He slowly becomes addicted to the perverse violence and sex that he witnesses on the tapes. But soon his life and those around him will be changed forever. Debra Harry co-stars as Woods love interest who slowly enjoys the tapes, more so than Woods.

Videodrome is a film that has to be seen to be believed. Yes, it's one of those films that has built up a following over the years and a reputation. This is one of the films that deserves it. However I must warn you that this is a Cronenberg film so thinking will be necessary when viewing it. The effects and visuals are quite the show. Croneneberg keeps his theme from the past films such as Shivers, Rabid and Scanners. We must welcome the new flesh!

Highly recommended.

This film is available in an R-rated and Unrated versions. For full enjoyment please watch the unrated director's cut. If you watch the R-rated version not only will you miss out on all of the cool visuals and effects but you'll be pretty much confused

First off, I write about "Videodrome" with the full acknowledgement that in 1983 David Cronenberg was establishing himself as one of the more original directors of his time. The 1980's was overloaded with drek, and this film reset the bar. "Videodrome" was Cronenberg's follow up to "Scanners". The film held together for 3/4 of its length before it drifted off into unintelligible ambiguity. Yet, it is exactly this fact that kept me from ultimately disliking the film as a hole. While I found the ending and the ultimate uselessness of the James Woods character unsatisfying, Cronenberg's failure to draw a discernable line between the "new flesh" and "Videodrome" led to some stimulating conversation. Concepts surrounding the purification of the flesh permeated many of his follow up efforts from "The Fly" to "Existenz" and over the years, he has improved on his ability to express them. Cronenberg has never made enjoyable films, yet he often makes ambitious ones. He is perhaps the only man crazy enough to make "Naked Lunch" and wrestle with Georges Bataille in "Crash". Love him or hate him, you have to respect the level of cinema he brings to the masses.

Not as grotesque or disgusting (in a good way) as his other ventures, Cronenberg still made a fascinating piece of cinema that raises some questions, or rather, compell the audience to contemplate, about the media and how they with their contents make us act in a certain way.

The narrative was penned almost four decades ago but the subject, the core themes that are explored here are still relevant to this day and age. Just replace the television with our mobile devices and the concept of 'videodrome' with those dodgy, questionable contents that could easily be found on the internet and it's still very much pertinent to our modern day society as well as to the people who live in it.

My biggest gripe is that the story only briefly explore these subjects, without delving deeper into them, as a result, the narration here feels a bit clumsy & unsophisticated, devoid of depth and a long-lasting effect.

Nearly forty years old, the film holds up extremely well for a movie focused on the relationship between people and media (rather than technology directly). The first half of the films does a spectacular job exploring our relationship with the extreme. Imagine the entire film as an email from a friend with a link to a website full of snuff films. Would you click the link? Would you not? It's that curiosity about the dark side of humanity that forms the predicate of this entire film, a movie with a protagonist running a television station premised on the broadcasting the most immoral (amoral?) pixels capable of being sold. That portion of the movie - and its general status as a thought piece - I give a 10/10.

But, as a film, I struggle to give it more than a 6, even if it's a 6 pushing a 7. The final quarter of the film simply comes off the rails. Yes, this is the portion of the film where the hipsters come to love the movie and shout its tagline to the less informed: "Long live the new flesh." But, it's precisely in this final portion of the movie where it fails most at being a coherent piece of art. Veering into incomprehensibility simply isn't a replacement for crafting an ending, though it's apparently a successful formula for achieving cult status.

It had a great concept, a sleazy cable channel operator, Max Renn, always on the prowl for more sleaze, finds this mysterious cable channel full of pointless sex and violence, which turns him and his degenerate girlfriend on. Then throw in some Marshall MacLuhan professor type who communicates to the world via video cassettes and runs a mission where society's outcasts are rehabilitated by letting them watch TV in their own cubicles. There is lots of messaging about bad media addictions and a polluted TV culture, But this Videodrome pirate channel is more than just a new low of non-stop sex and violence, it reprograms the TV addict's body to do things like grow a VCR tape slot in the stomach and have wild violent hallucinations. Here is where it gets the Cronenberg gore special efx touch which eventually undoes the movie.

In one scene, after the changed Max fights back against the Videodrome people with the help of the professor's daughter, his old technical wizard attempts to reprogram him by sticking a new pulsating lifelike VCR tape in his stomach slot. Just like the Thing, his hand goes into Max's stomach but instead of Max's whatever is inside him just chomping the tech's hand off, it turns the tech's hand into some sort of grenade that causes the tech to explode, blowing a few precut cinder blocks loose. Then Max goes on some more gory revenge scenes and it ends up really dumb in the end.

So Cronenberg takes a good concept and theme and essentially does little better than what his fictitious cable channel did, feed us some gore and R light sex under the guise of exploring the dark side of the media. This is why I never regarding the director as anything more than a clever shock jock with little artistic or social vision. But in Canada, he is still a hero, small country I guess.