I thought it was a terrific film, as are all of Cronenberg's, but this was by far and wide the most uncomfortable movie I have ever experienced. We should all be thankful for David Cronenberg's work. Its a welcome change of pace to have a director/writer so savage and uncompromising. I was really blown away by this film. Not for the faint.
shareI just watched this little creepy masterpiece last night and will have to agree with you. There is just something about movies made in the 70's, Cronenberg certainly does deliver. They just get into your thoughts and are quite disturbing.
shareI don't understand how he wasn't arrested. Those sex scenes involving a minor. Revolting.
share
I thought it was hot !
-Outahand-
Cultural Design
Do you like having someone crap in your mouth? Because that what this perverse film appears to be about. Someone's copraphilia fantasy. That, and the little girl, makes this the most unsavory experience since the Micheal Jackson trial.
Like the ending, though.
For one, I don't even remember there being any sex with a minor in the film, and two, I don't think the goal was to make the parasites look like poop. I'm sure they just kind of ended up that way. I think you need to lighten up, buddy. Cronenberg is a serious director, I don't think he was trying to pull any offensive strings - you are looking at things the wrong way. This movie is a creative masterpiece in it's own right.
shareI, for one, was absolutely delighted by the lack of self-censorship. I also think that if this film was made today, it probably wouldn't have minors in it, purely because of what the story implies (everyone is doing it with everyone). That suggestion alone, sadly, would probably cause an outrage in today's overly politically correct, overly sensitive world. This film is like a breath of fresh air to me.
share"I don't understand how he wasn't arrested. Those sex scenes involving a minor. Revolting."
There are no sex scenes involving a minor!
I believe he is simply referring to the guy rapes the mother off camara when the little girl is present... Also later the same little girl kisses a guy after he is took down by to other adults.
I honestly find nothing offensive because it is all implyed and off screen. Its only ur imagnation that suggests something more offensive w/ children.
Evenfiel is right no sex scenes w/ children.... its just implyed..
theres also that part when the doctor is trying to get away from those 2 guys, he opens the door then he later sees a man and his sexy daughter start kissing that was sick.its funny how the doctor just gives him a nod and takes off.
Self Improvement Is Masterbation, Now Self Destruction...
I watched the movie last night and can say I have no idea what you are talking about. Probably just a misinterpretation you made.
shareHe is talking about the scene where the guy attacks the mother and daughter in the elevator. It is strongly implied that the little girl is infected and joining in the sex frenzy.
sharea man could get arrested (pet shop boys)
shareI bought this movie yesterday i thought it was brilliant.
Cronenberg provides something which is widely missing from cinema nowadays. He challenges you to continue watching.
Im slowly making my way through all of cronenbergs movies (having ordered videodrome and history of violence today)and i found both this and Rabid to be fantastically subtle as well as blatantly gory.
The idea of "infection" isn't pleasing to anyone and this continued theme thoughout Shivers (as well as Rabid) added to viewing pleasure.
It creeped my girlfriend out, which was great, because i want her to appreciate great cinema, and Cronenberg is truly great cinema.
Martin
"I'm Ready, Ready for the big ride baby"
Cronenberg is an over rated hack. All his movies are the same faux intellectual fetishist trash.
"Idle hands spend time at the genitals. And we all know how much god hates that."
What are you talking about? Cronenberg is one of the best directors of our time. His characters are so disturbing in his movies and the story lines are so twisted. As a fan of horror or drama I don't see how you couldn't like Cronenberg and to call him a hack! That is just disgraceful. Cronenberg has done so much for cinema and it is important (especially now a days) that there is a director that is willing to take such risks in film making and actually have it work.
shareIt's not disgraceful but just an opinion that is different than yours.
shareYou know, I understand that it is an opinion but there is a way of putting things that will offend people. I found what he said to be offense and in bad taste. If you are going to write nasty things on a message board that is clearly raiving about this movie and the director than you should expect some nasty remarks back.
shareFair enough but I feel that the difference was that the other user stated his opinion about the director but your post stated an opinion about the other poster. You may have found his opinion offensive but his attack was on the director, not you, and I feel that was the difference and made your post unfair. He may have a different opinion than you, but that does not make his opinion "disgraceful".
shareA quick dash to the little "feud" regarding "disgraceful" that took place over three years ago, between PCyst and The_Memorial_Storm. The latter nobly defended CallmeLightning (CML), writing that CML's criticism of Director Cronenberg was based on the director, but the fact that PCyst found this opinion "disgraceful" was unfair, because it merited to be along the lines of a personal attack on poor CML.
That is ridiculous. CML thought of Cronenberg as "an over rated hack." While CML was entitled to this opinion, the opinion about a director renowned for fearlessly pushing/breaking boundaries, for using originality and imagination, and for refusing to rehash the tired and the old in the course of getting something done quickly, and simply for the cash (which is what "hack" means; basically, a hireling) was simply so unjustified, and so out of step with reality (as was CML's reducing Cronenberg's daring ways to the status of being a mere "fetishist"), that such a stupid opinion deserved to be put in its place. Besides, it was not as though PCyst personally found CML "disgraceful," as The_Memorial_Storm inferred, but CML's opinion -- and as opinions go, it was pretty worthless, and so unjust, there was nothing wrong with calling it "disgraceful."
Agree. I would go as far as saying he's one of the greatest ever filmmakers, and I'm familiar with the works of most others who are considered in the that league. He consistently pushes boundaries and his films are extremely deep. Pure art. He's just very under-rated and not often gets mentioned among the best filmmakers.
shareStrangely enough, it wasn't the movie that disturbed me but myself. By the end of the movie there was a part of me that liked the idea of being infected. Becoming completely uninhibited and having a disease as an excuse for it. When the cars start driving off the island I wasn't afraid - I was almost hopeful. That was what disturbed me the most. Cronenburg made the disease appealing to me.
Of course I might just be a perv :)
Very true, he has got a way of making you sympathise with the strangest of characters - watching Naked Luch right now... not only a crazy movie, but i find myself making excuses for a guy who's addicted to roach repelent!
Strangely enough, it wasn't the movie that disturbed me but myself. By the end of the movie there was a part of me that liked the idea of being infected. Becoming completely uninhibited and having a disease as an excuse for it. When the cars start driving off the island I wasn't afraid - I was almost hopeful. That was what disturbed me the most. Cronenburg made the disease appealing to me.I was actually the exact opposite while watching. At some point, I made a comment about how this movie is a social commentary on the need to have restrictions and rationalizations involving our most basic instincts. I think I made that comment right after the incest scene and the scene with the two red-haired youngons on leashes. And even if incest/pedophilia didn't change your mind, everyone knows old people shouldn't have sex, because friction between old people has been known to be the cause of all of the most disastrous forest fires. That's just a known fact. share
Of course I might just be a perv :)
[deleted]
I'm so bored of this post being on every extreme movie on this whole fcking site
shareThe only scene I remember of this movie was when these two characters were kissing and one's throat bulges out as the slug climbs up it's neck and then goes into the other's mouth and their throat bulges out as it goes down their throat and into their stomach or whatever. One of the creepiest movies I can remember growing up, next to the Exorcist, or course.
shareUm, I think the parasites going up and down and from one mouth to another is just symbolic of an idea, and how ideas are communicated and you are influenced by another to accept them, etc. etc.
There's nothing "objectively" ugly about the parasites just like there is nothing objectively ugly about a lot of sex that is found "disgusting" by boring people. So it's a very powerful and lucid metaphor.
While reading this thread a question occured to me -- is sex the only activity that is seen as both "beautiful" and "disgusting, sick, horrible" without the fundamental action and motivations changing? Kissing, touching, giving pleasure, getting off etc. I notice that if I write a song with a peer, or with an old Arab man, or a very young person, I don't go from being OK to being a disgusting criminal.
Is Shivers really a "horror" movie or are we all just horrified of our bodies?
It is extremely uncomfortable. A goood film, but not my personal taste. My husband has a toy slug that sticks to walls and I hate it because it looks like the parasites in this film! Lol.
"Hey! Ladies! That was fun!"
Its horrible creepiness is balanced by Cronenbergs black humour which is evident through the whole film and in all his earlier films. I think the thought of disease is frightening, as we are "possessed" by a parasite that starts to control our bodies! Making us breaking the most sacred taboos! Also, I think Cronenberg, who obviously is a very warm and extremely intelligent person (according to interviews and biographies!) wanted to make a sort of irony in the true sense of early 70´s satire. The film is in its own unique way, both a horror splatter, and a satiric comedy. The creatures look both like penis and poo! Remember, the early 70´s are unique in two ways: Vietnam war and the legalisation of porn! Denmark was first 1969, Sweden second 1970, and USA 1972! But when was porn legalised in Canada?
Can you grasp what the Film Board of Canada thought, when they watched Shivers, as the first Canadian film for export on festivals world around? They supported making this film, and it ended up being the bloodiest film ever in the 70´s. Talk about shock!?