Videodrome ★★★

On this addition of massively overrated but still decent enough - Videodrome. Watch Cronenberg make a movie about the oversaturated market for violence and pornography in the media when his films are best known for body horror, maybe it’s a satire after all? Watch as James Woods turns in a decent performance but has only one character trait - he’s a channel owner with some dark hidden desires. Watch as he hallucinates for the majority of the film in mildly confusing segments that you kinda don’t really care enough to think about if they’re real or not. Watch as a few different middle aged white dudes creep in and claim to be the owner of the titular Videodrome after having only a few minutes of screentime each begging the question of why the plot twists are even relevant. In all fairness, though it’s clear I didn’t love this,the body horror was great in the small doses it was used and the more extreme hallucinations were entertaining and well done. The cinematography is also decent and the direction is ponderous but good. The themes it explores are interesting on paper (about hidden desires, giving into them and TV being a reflection of real life) but it never really hit on any of them in a way that made me anymore enlightened or surprised. The ending was almost amazing but then the film ran on for like 30 seconds too long and sort of left me blue balled by a climax I thought I’d get and then didn’t. It’s got some good moments scattered in here and the iconic TV whipping scene is fun to actually see in the context of the film but my expectations weren’t really met with this one (although I enjoyed some parts) and for a physiological horror film this didn’t really tap into any sense of fear in me at all. It’s actually sad that I prefer Cronenberg’s body horror to his movies but I guess that’s something I have to live with.

Danny liked this review