Videodrome (1983)
6/10
Its ambiguity saves and kills...
1 September 2001
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.
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed