Badmovies.org Forum

Last night's movie was "Videodrome."  Katie stayed up for it, as she usually likes quirky 80's films, but she was not impressed by the movie.  I still found it disturbing, but not nearly as crazy an experience as my younger self had categorized it.  Exposure to movies like "Killer Tongue," "Society," and other Cronenberg works have probably deadened my reaction.

Still, quite strange and you can feel Max's horrible attraction to the Videodrome content - it is akin to watching an insect being pulled toward a bug zapper.  He is revolted by (and attempts to discredit) the thought that Videodrome is real and knows the people who are behind it could be dangerous.  However, he cannot bring himself to stop craving more.

*SPOILERS COMING*


I think that the revelation that Dr. Oblivion is not a person (any longer), but thousands of tapes that he made and are now replayed and distributed by his daughter, is a very cool plot twist.  It definitely catches the viewer off guard.  Another thing that is so staggering about the tapes is that his daughter knows so much about their content.  She must spend all day, watching her dead father's video confessions and dissertations.  That is another scary thought.

Deborah Harry's character is rather twisted.  She (Deborah) is usually attractive to me, but she comes across as too much of a freaky disturbed girl here for my tastes.  Not unsafe for Max, like Videodrome, but rather unhealthy for him.  She is like clay, taking whatever impression is forced upon her.

Many of Max's hallucinations are well done, in that you know he cannot possibly be experiencing what he thinks he is, but nor can you figure out exactly what the reality must be that is covered by the delusion.  The end makes good use of that warped feeling that has been placed between the viewer and the movie.

This is one of those movies that, in the end, I still wasn't certain if I liked it or not. At face value it comes across as a patiche of special effects and, for the time, the current trend in technology. As usual for Cronenberg though, he has much more up his sleeve and his message of social conditioning comes across, well, even more bluntly than in previous efforts.

I had seen this when it first came out at the theatre. I had seen it with some friends who loved the special effects, even if they did not understand the movie. I, of course, was the overanalytical a***ole of the group (never would have guessed that, huh :tongueout:) who, at the time, felt let down by the film.

One of my problems with the film was that I was in a 'realist' mode when seeing the film and could not appreciate it for its metaphorical approach. One of the problems with the film, I felt later, was that it relied too heavily on its metaphor, at times just simply treating something as metaphor to get from point A to point C, but there was no point B; it just looked like there was.

Both the characters and the special effects are a distraction, at times, from the central story. The Deborah Harry character, as you mentioned, is freakish; though, at times, like a car wreck, you just have to look. Perhaps that was Cronenberg's intent; to provide something unpleasant which still demanded one's attention.

Despite any flaws I feel the movie had, it, like most of Cronenberg's work, is something I would just tell someone to watch if they asked me about it. Cronenberg has to be experienced, not told about, and Videodrome is definitely an experience.

All I will say about the film is this:

It should be in the "Good Movies" section. 

 :smile:

Long Live The New Flesh!  

I remember well the TV ads for this one when it was new. I didn't see it until it was on HBO and even that was 22 to 23 years ago. I really need to see this one again.

Sounds like you were suffering from Wyrewizard's Syndrome.   :teddyr:

I have listened to friends rave about Videodrome but have never actually seen it.
What's it about?

I didn't care for Videodrome ... just couldn't get into it.  There wasn't anything specifically wrong with it, it just didn't do a thing for me.  If not for James Woods at his sleazily charming best, I probably wouldn't even have finished watching it.

Videodrome is pretty much right up there as my favourite Cronenberg film [though it has very stiff competition].

Luckily we got to study it in my first year of uni for it's psychoanalytical purposes.

Ash, basically the film is about James Woods' character who is a guy who searches for new programs for the TV station he works for.  He comes across the sado-masochistic 'Videodrome' underground broadcast, which he obsessivly searches for.

The rest I'll leave up to a viewing, because it's always best to leave as a slight surprise, but it can get a little mind-bending.

I can really understand why there are those who couldn't get into it, since it's not exactly palatable I suppose [not easy to take in etc] so I figure if you're not in the mood you probably wouldn't like it, but it's a definite cult classic and well worth a looksee.

Organic cancer weapons are a bit mind-bending.   :teddyr:

I said I was in realist mode, not flaming a***ole mode. :teddyr:

Something that struck me as odd is that the movie never "takes off" like such movies are wont to do.  By that, I mean the pacing.  The film continues to be weird and present strange images and situations, but it does so at the same deliberate pace the entire time.

Videotape in the stomach.  Ew.   :buggedout:

Makes me wonder if he had a tapeworm. (http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Laughing/lol-049.gif)

Speaking of things that could give you cancer:  really bad puns.

(If they don't, they should.)

I enjoyed this, and it is probably my favorite Cronenberg film and I really dig Debbie Harry.  But it is disturbing and after a couple watches I decided I "got it".   This barely falls into the "Too disturbing" category".   A few years ago I decided I watched films to escape life, not to make me feel worse and disturbed. I'm glad I saw it a few times, and now I probably won't see it again.  But I do dig Debbie Harry, did I mention that?
-Ed

It does seem to be the favourite Cronenberg film for most fans. I actually like NAKED LUNCH, THE DEAD ZONE and THE FLY (1986) better myself.

She was most definitely quite the babe back in the day.  Hell of a singer as well.

I bought this movie on a whim last year.  There's a Fear Factory song where the chorus is "Long Live the New Flesh" which I thought was cryptic and cool.  After a little bit of research, I found out it was a line from "Videodrome".  I'm a hard person to creep out.  "In the Mouth of Madness" and "Clockwork Orange" (the first couple of times I saw it) fall into that category.  I watched "Videodrome" for the first time in an empty house with the lights off.  The imagery is indeed disturbing but what really got to me was the overall atmosphere of the movie.  There was a sense of insanity lurking below the surface of the movie and it would show itself too you via Prof. O'blivion, the chest slit, and videotapes.

Plus the acting is top-notch.  The pride of Warwick, RI, James Woods, starts off cocksure and sleazy.  Then ends up a slave to his hallucinations.  Debbie Harry's character reminds me of a girl I used to know.  Always looking for the next extreme kick and then being consumed by it.

It is a wonderfully strange and surreal movie.  This should be in the "Good Movies" section!

I thought that James Woods was out of his depth in a few of the scenes, he almost seemed like an amateur.  Deborah Harry was strange, because she also came off as trying to act beyond her talent, but it seemed to just make her character more believable.


It fits the sort of b-movies, cult films, and bad movies that I started the site about, hence it goes here.  Another person might start a topic about "Videodrome" and choose to put it in the Good Movies section.

EDIT:  Fixed a spelling mistake.

I thought this was one of Woods' better, if not best performance (the other one would be in "Once Upon a Time in America").  Most characters he plays are slime-balls.  In "Videodrome" his character goes on a surreal journey.  I think a lot of people think Woods is overmatched with the material is because you only see him in those slime-ball roles with very little character development. 

Or maybe I'm biased since he and I are from RI and, let's face it, not too many actors come out of the Ocean State.  :wink:

Watched it, but was not impressed. Maybe it was that because its reputation I was expecting something more extreme... or more funny to watch. As Andrew said there, the pace is very slow throughout the whole movie, and I kept expecting the movie to pick up some steam.

Still, I enjoyed certain things. The imagery, for sure. Can't imagine any other movie where you can see James Woods f**king a color TV. Or James Woods' performance. That man should get better work, or at least work that doesn't require him to go over the top, even if he's good at that.

I'll have to see this one again, but I found other Cronemberg's films, such as "eXistenZ" far more accesible. And fun.

I think that while "Videodrome" is interesting- not to mention very fetishistic- it's a bit too weird to be placed among the "good movie" category. Not that I'm knocking it- I liked Naked Lunch and Altered States a bit better- it's just not a movie one tends to think of among the greats made by Hitchcock, Kubrick and the like. That said, see you in Pittsburg.

I'm always up for watching a Cronenberg movie even though I really only enjoy a couple that I've seen, those being eXistenZ, The Fly.  I haven't seen Videodrome, though (and  many others), but I really want to.  I watched Naked Lunch recently, and while it was weird and interesting, I felt that it would mainly appeal to William S. Burroughs fans.  Although *SPOILER!* it's worth seeing to watch Roy Scheider tear out of a butch lookin' woman costume and to hear him say "Mugwump jism can't be beat!"  Wow!

I've been wanting to watch this movie since i've heard of it a short while ago, but one quick thing I was wondering is, does this movie have any/a lot of nude/sex scenes in it? Kind of a weird qquestion,but ive read a couple reviews on websites and it sort of talks about it a bit. Thanks, just want to make sure (cause I wont be allowed to watch it if it is, ugh parents..)

There's one scene in which you see James Woods and Debbie Harry nude while he's piercing her ear, but I don't think you actually see any humping (though it's been a while since I watched it).

But there's some really disturbing sexual violence during the parts in which James Woods is watching the Videodrome transmissions that are really in your face.

There is a fairly soft-core sex scene between Deborah and Woods.  If I remember correctly, she also has some nudity and there is some S&M sex stuff in the Videodrome stuff.

hands down the worst movie I have ever seen. 
Found this web page via google. after 20+ years I wanted to see what others thought of it.

FACTS: Videodrome is:

Still David Cronenberg's best movie.

One of the best horror films of the 1980s.

One of the best horror films of all time, period.

James Wood's best performance.

This is the truth.

This movie does elicit a visceral reaction from people.  Either you love it (or were scared) by it or you hated it.

When I saw this film it seriously wierded me out, and assuming that that's the intended effect I would almost certainly say that it's a good film.
Is it just me, or do three-quaters of Cronenberg's films involve some grotesque body mutilation? Existenz, Crash, Scanners and Videodrome to say the least.
I mean he's definitely toned it down in recent years, but come on. That scene with the soup in Existenz is just gross.

Cronenberg has always been fascinated with the idea of body mutation, don't ask me why. You can see that from his very early films. I'm not that sure if he has toned it down deliberately or simply the idea has evolved somehow during the years. You could say that some of the characters in his latest film are mutants / monsters but in a more subtle way. Take the gangsters from "Eastern Promises", they have somehow evolved from normal people, but one could argue their behaviour and social rules are so extreme that they are no longer human.

As for the Chinese restaurant scene in "Existenz", my guess is that he was poking fun at his own obsession with weirdness.

This is an absolute favorite of mine.  The idea of media saturation, where does reality end and fantasy begin and so on is still relevant today, maybe even now more than ever.  A couple of years back I was tapped by a t-shirt company to make a shirt for the movie.  We did two and printed one.  My favorite was the one they didn't use.

(http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j50/rapscallion_jones/videodrome_web.gif)

This is the one they used:

(http://www.horrorshirts.com/images/VIDEODROME/pic_videodromelogo.jpg)

Thank you for describing what I couldn't put my finger on when trying to review this film myself. I'm suprised with myself that it's taken me this long to recognize the director's talent, specifically for making movies that strike with more than their content. Frankly, Eastern Promises wasn't a big deal as a script, but the presentation gave it more depth and umpf* than it deserved.

I watched the trailer for this one on youtube and I ALMOST wanted to go out and buy it, but it seemed kinda like a movie that looks cool from a few screenshots, but ends up being really boring. Kinda like "The Stuff". Maybe i get it offa nexflix or something.

The pace is deliberate and it adds the f'ed up feeling the whole movie has.

The last time I watched this movie I watched it while semi-drunk with a friend who'd never seen it before.  To say the least, it makes it a lot harder to follow.  I can't really suggest anyone else try it, heh.

But yeah, interesting film.  Great effects work.  It does reward a bit on multiple viewings too, I think.

I have this on DVD, probably because I like Debbie Harry, but I think it's got some great ideas. I agree about the pacing but I think it's always enjoyable, especially if you think about it a bit afterwards. I read a book about some of the imagery which suggested the lips on the TV screen and the slot in his stomach were supposed to represent vaginas, I never thought about that before. Kind of makes it even sleazier.

(spoilers for Videodrome and Existenz)




Ever notice the endings to BOTH of these movies are rather similar?  We've got the whole someone getting shot, and the "Death to this, long live that!" chant?

Just thought that was kind of interesting...

I haven't seen this in awhile but from my reaction I did like it. I mean even if you hate it at least you get to see Debbie Harry nude. :wink: