Cor Lumme "Videodrome" has a lot of small elements with potential, but it never develops any of them into a worthwhile payoff. Some viewers might be dazzled if it's their first time ever seeing a movie that isn't 100% Hollywood clichés, but if you want a memorable story, good characters, or a powerful experience, Videodrome will be a waste of time. Even if we set aside characters & story, this film simply fails to be exciting or fun unless you are very easily impressed. Given this flick's overblown reputation, I guess there are a lot of easily-impressed people out there.Many people consider this film shocking and dark, but it simply isn't! All the "gory" or "twisted" scenes are either lightweight or silly- looking. James Woods discovers a secret TV broadcast of torture scenes called Videodrome. The characters never shut up about how twisted & violent these scenes are, but they look like every amateur torture scene from a zero-budget movie. It's just some guy lightly smacking a toy "whip" against a woman's ribs, & then she vaguely flinches in the wrong direction. There are also some incredibly boring "S&M" scenes which had me laughing because they were so dull & tame, yet Cronenberg gave them huge dramatic emphasis like they were totally edgy.People also LOVE to call this film "prescient," but the social commentary just amounts to clichés about how TV controls people & can be a propaganda tool. These ideas had already been around for decades. If anything, the film's themes are downright conservative, especially with its almost 1950s-esque fear of sex & violence!Sure, the film belabors some "creepy" imagery, but all of this is frankly cartoonish & wacky instead of disturbing. You'll find more disturbing imagery in an episode of Ren & Stimpy.Returning to plot and characters: This movie halfway develops LOTS of ideas, then just fails to deliver on anything. The plot starts off as social commentary, then forgets about this completely. James Woods has a friend named Masha who gets just enough screen time to feel tedious, then abruptly disappears from the story. The film heads in a surreal, otherworldly direction, then has a clichéd third act where James Woods just has to kill some paper-thin bad guy who wants to rule the world.James Woods as Max Renn does an OK job in the lead role, but his character never develops; calling him 2-dimensional feels like an overstatement. Max' buddy Harlan is quirky, but the actor fails ridiculously any time he has to emote. The women in the film are HORRIBLY directed: every single one of them is stilted & unnatural. Sonja Smitts and Debbie Harry share the gimmick of talking... really... REALLLLLY... slowly, because Cronenberg thought this sounded dramatic. It doesn't. Neither of them ever emote, unless you count the same exact head-bobbling movement Cronenberg (that creative genius) had them do. This is a huge problem when they both have such important characters with heavy screen time!The film has a villain who is never threatening, compelling, or interesting. He is supposed to be a powerful corporate executive, but he has NONE of the strength or charisma such a man would need. He acts more like a manager at a shoe store or something. This is also a problem, since we're supposed to take him seriously as a threat.And then there are minor characters like Masha, played by Lynne Gorman. Gorman talks and talks for way too long, and she never acts. She just says her lines in a ridiculous vaguely foreign-y accent. This might have sounded cool and dramatic in the '50s, but in the '80s it's just plain stupid and laughable.When I saw all these shoddy details piling up, I only hoped that Videodrome would end on a comedic note, with a self-aware punchline recognizing how stupid it was. Perhaps the whole thing would be a satire on the scifi trends of the '80s! But no, the film ends with no irony, no energy, nothing to make its 90-minute runtime worthwhile to anyone who isn't easily-impressed.

tdrish Videodrome is by far one of the most original, complex, and freakiest movies I have ever seen. Possibly even the goriest. At the time of its release (1983), it was a miserable failure at the box office, and for one clear reason: This movie was incredibly too far ahead of its time. Incredibly far! I think it was so far ahead of its time, that its true audience wasn't even born yet. It's not truly a bad thing, as this has created a cult following over the years, and perhaps this has proved our director David Cronenberg as somewhat a master of something more important then making money, and that is making a great movie. Indeed, we will never see anything even close to a film like this being made again, or even a reboot ( which has been on the back burner for years. Keep delaying it, Krugar, it doesn't need it!) Cronenberg is an insanely talented man, and when it comes to violence in films, fans of his work will know he does not f**k around, so the squeamish can easily be discarded from viewing his stuff. And if you are squeamish, stay away from this movie. We are talking flesh guns, tumor bullets, and outdated video cassettes inserted into giant chest cavities. Think you can handle it? James Woods ( usually taking on roles of the bad ass) plays Max Wrenn, and he runs an independent cable channel that connects his viewers with some unusual programming. He's looking for some new material for Channel 83, and he thinks he's found it, via a show called Videodrome, which is transmitted through an unknown signal from an unknown origin. ( This is why you don't torque with the unknown!) After catching a taste of this show, Max gets in touch with a source that has connections with the porn industry, where he is strongly cautioned to stay away from Videodrome. He is told that this is not a show, that it is real, and what he sees on this show is really happening. What exactly is this show? Disturbing images of torture, women being brutally beaten on, raped, killed...still think you can handle it??? The jaw dropping content just leaves you picking it up off the floor right to the very end, as things just become increasingly worse and worse for Max. He learns, all too late, that he indeed was not watching a show called Videodrome...that there was a hidden signal behind "watching" this show that he has been exposed to, which has altered the way he thinks, acts, and sees things. He is developing a bizarre brain tumor, and it seems to be shutting down his old brain, creating a new brain, and it creating a vertical slit from his chest down to his belly, where video cassettes are inserted, and program his new brain to become an assassin for Videodrome beyond his will. Think you've heard the worst? His life alters, as he was warned that Videodrome has a philosophy. ( The philosophy is this: Television is reality, and reality is less then television. Wrap your thoughts around that!). What is so downright intriguing about this movie, is how much thought, creativity, and time was spent into this. By the time you are done watching it, you are left with the remaining years of your life to interpret what you saw. This movie has left me pondering unanswered questions over the years. Videodrome will not waste a second explaining to you, for example, about how it works, or what exactly it is. We are left to our own devices to figure that out for ourselves. I have watched this movie over and over, know it forward and backward, and I still can't tell you everything about it. What exactly is the war of North America? How will it be fought in the arena of Videodrome? What exactly is the New Flesh? What is that unknown wind that emerges when Max "opens up"? By trial and error, Max learns that he can use his own body as a weapon, and he will do his best to fight Videodrome with his own war...the Death To Videodrome war, after talking to Bianca O'Blivion ( the only likable character in the movie, in my opinion). Biancas father was killed after his creation of Videodrome was hijacked. It's never explained what Brian O'Blivions purposes were with Videodrome, but it does not appear he meant any harm through it, as he and his daughter ran a service that helped the homeless. After Videodrome was stolen from him, he was killed off, and they want to rub out the only remaining connection to Videodrome, and that's through Bianca. Bianca talks Max out of it, and he learns to use his body as weapon against the bad guys once and for all. For its time, Videodrome is rewarded for not relying on a computer graphics for its use of violence. ( And even if you have a strong stomach, NOTHING is going to prepare you for the scene when Barrys head comes apart at the seams. Look closely, you can see the gums!) Beyond all the insanity and graphic violence, there is an underlying message that I believe this film tries to get across. The very unique thing about this movie, is how each person will see it differently, and even how each reviewer will review it from another aspect that someone else wouldn't have thought of. Just remember the two key points to this movie, and that's (1) technology and (2) global mind control. There's a third key point too, but I will leave that to you to figure out what it is.

rdoyle29 This is a transitional film for Cronenberg. It's the last film he made that bears the marks of his early style, and it points to the direction he will eventually (but not immediately) go in. While I have great admiration for the ambition it displays, it doesn't completely succeed for me, and is one of my least favorite of his early films. Only "Scanners" really works even less for me. What he's doing here is very similar to what he does later in a film like "Naked Lunch", or even "Spider" I guess, where an unreliable narrator affects the film in ways that makes everything depicted questionable. My issue with "Videodrome" is that the reality of the film breaks down to the point that I don't think anyone can really say what's really happening in the last 20-40 minutes of the film. Is that a serious problem? No, and I still think it's a remarkable film, but I think Cronenberg demonstrates less control over this film and it's subject matter than he does over earlier and subsequent films.

avik-basu1889 David Cronenberg during the initial part of his career was primarily known for his body horror films. A consistent theme of his earlier films was the individual's loss of control over his/her body which involved bodies exploding, bodies decaying and other visually disgusting effects on a human body. Although 'Videodrome' does belong to Cronenberg's list of films dealing with body horror, but there is so much profundity that can be found in this film that I didn't find in his other early films. This film is a prime example to show how the genres of science fiction and horror can be beautifully and seamlessly linked/blended to make a resoundingly effective film.'Videodrome' was made in 1983. Back then, Television had just started to acquire a stronghold in the day to day lives of the urban masses. The story written by Cronenberg himself conveys a cautionary message about the undesired possible consequences of overexposure to television in the most bizarre and shocking way possible. Cronenberg is of the opinion that television like all other inventions made to improve quality of life, can be used by people for evil means by manipulating and influencing the viewers and shaping their opinions and ideals in the precise way that the T.V. stations and their producers want. Videodrome in the film is a show that is all about showing explicit violence and sexual abuse in the most disturbing and unsettling manner. Once a viewer starts watching this, he/she becomes addicted to it and starts having hallucinations. The whole concept of the real world and the world portrayed on television dissolving into one and the same as depicted in the film is a theme which has not lost any of its relevance even today. The popularity of the internet and reality television has for me made 'Videodrome' barring the exaggerations in the film, very prophetic. Human beings today have become genuinely addicted to cheap entertainment which sometimes can be revoltingly demeaning. This might sound a bit too preachy, but the fact is the general mass has become incapable of going deep into a subject matter and having intellectually stimulating conversations. Their sensibilities are molded by reality TV and the politically biased news channels whose producers heavily influence the views held by the public. There is also that fine line of dilemma in the minds of the viewers regarding whether everything that is happening on screen right till the end of the movie is really taking place,or are they the result of Max's(the main character) hallucinations. The film in a very Cronenberg-esque way has a lot of visual surrealism. Most of the themes and messages conveyed in the film is through at times bizarre and at times beautiful imagery instead of dialogues. Even in 2015, most of the practical effects in the film hold up and are still capable of shocking viewers. The only problem I have with the film is that I thought Max's hallucinations started a little too abruptly and Cronenberg could have taken a bit of time to build them up gradually. Having said that, it is a minor reservation.James Woods nails the character of Max Renn. Woods perfectly portrays the transition of the character of Max from being a confident, suave and insensitively business-minded T.V. executive to a helpless person who becomes addicted to Videodrome and whose life completely falls apart with the subsequent hallucinations. Debbie Harry does a good job of portraying the role of Nicki which is a very interesting and wild character. Leslie Carlson as Barry Convex also impressed me very much.In conclusion, 'Videodrome' is a film which is not for everyone. Some people might get annoyed by the explicit nature of the violence and body horror in the film, but if you have the stomach for those things, it can be a film that you can admire both for its horror elements as well as its sci-fi elements with themes which are profound and still relevant.