Videodrome

Una alegoría muy singular de la deformación psicológica y la destrucción gradual de una persona, afectada por ver el tabú más grande. Videodrome se podría haber rodado de muchas maneras. David Cronenberg optó por la más característica de él: sangrienta, repugnante, físicamente literal. Ya sea que acepte o no su lenguaje de dirección, no puede negar una cosa: la película es irritante, misteriosa y extremadamente impredecible. Aunque no tan atractiva como sus mejores obras. (23.05.2003)

A solid wacky ride from the 1980s made by a madman, which plays homage to the VHS. That’s how I’d describe Videodrome in a nutshell. James Woods played his weirdo with so much passion that every time he goggled his eyes on the screen made me fear for my life, and every time some guts were spilled I felt incredible disgust. A solid horror movie in the vein of Carpenter’s The Thing, in comparable quality. (23.07.2019)

Big disappointment. Unlike The Brood, for instance, Videodrome is not intense enough. Cronenberg keeps his feet incredibly close to the ground and we don’t get anything special from all the possibilities offered by the topic of hallucinations, which is utterly unexploited (yeah, the cassette in the belly is interesting, but can’t be called brutal, disgusting or shocking, as other users have written). Unlike David’s other films, this one keeps the viewer at arm’s length and never brings them into the story, which takes place only on screen instead of within the viewer. Totally depersonalised and neutral, this time for also the viewer. (22.04.2008)

With some films, you simply have to be mature enough for them. When I watched Videodrome years ago, I didn't know what to make of it because its sexual aggression provoked me and I rejected it emotionally. In the meantime, I became acquainted with Cronenberg's subsequent work, especially eXistenZ, which excited me and is the logical culmination of Cronenberg's reflections on where society is heading. Returning to Videodrome, I'm giving it 2 additional stars, which is unprecedented for me. The director based the filming primarily on intellectual debates about the negative influence of television on the human psyche. Intellectuals criticized television broadcasting primarily for its lack of democracy, i.e., the fact that television content is only consumed by viewers and they allow themselves to be bothered and manipulated by garbage, when in fact, given the opportunity to choose, they would choose something valuable. If only they knew how things would develop in a few decades and that intellectuals wouldn't be able to help much with it. At the same time, there was a sexual revolution and various forms of fetishism and sexual practices were being discussed from A to Z. And finally, we have Cronenberg's persistent interest in biotechnology and bioethics. Mixed together, this interest created the provocative dark Videodrome. It's a fact that Cronenberg later worked with bigger budgets and his craftsmanship improved, but I still can't resist and I'm giving it 4 stars and an overall impression of 70%. (12.11.2020)

The film is violent and detailed, but also unnecessarily brittle and superficial, applying basic Cronenbergian clichés to its inherently interesting and schematically rich idea. In its time it may have been strongly timeless physical horror thanks to its direct depiction of taboo scenes and their symbolically destructive effects on the human psyche, nowadays, however, it’s a rather outdated presentation of 80’s genre hype with zero effect on the slightly more jaded viewer, whose unreadable plot still doesn't lose its impact, but the untapped potential of the hallucinogenic and severely depressing subject matter is felt more and more noticeably. (14.07.2016)