Shivers

Rating:
Summary: i just wanted to say...
Review: ...that mr. albert wincoff`s review sucks!! listen, if you are gonna say that someone stole someone's idea, you should compare the dates first: "cities of the red night" was published in 1981, and "shivers" was released in 1976... i haven't seen this movie nor read the book by mr. burroughs, but reading that review in which a judgement is made without a solid argument really made me mad!!!! i didn`t wanted to put any stars up there, but as it is required to do so, i gave it 5 stars... just because i really like cronenberg's work and the plot of this film is great.

Rating:
Summary: Doesn't make you shiver, really ...
Review: Although being an admirer of this Canadian director (who I rank next to Ingmar Bergman as the most important of all movie directors), "Shivers", his commercial debut, is more interesting as an exercise of an upcoming talent. The Acting is TERRIBLE, and the mis-en-scene insecure, to say the least. Except for two or three overwhelming sequences (the murder/suicide opening scene, and the confrontation between Joe Silver and Paul Hampton), it's more interesting to see "Shivers" as a child of its time. The gore sequences are truly disgusting in the style of 70s horror cinema, although hardly as effective as contemporary films of George Romero and Tobe Hooper (whose careers declined later). (It's funny to remember Cronenberg's statement, that he sees no link to Romero's films - just compare "Shivers" with "Night of the Living Dead" and "Rabid" with "The Crazies" for once!) Some European director's left quite an impression on Cronenberg, too, especially Bunuel and Pasolini. This "underground feel" (improvised acting, raw directing, surreal violence in combination) makes "Shivers" look pathetic - as it doesn't quite work - and dated, but one should be forgiving, I suppose, regarding the 15 days of actual filming. Still, there is a profound seriousness behind the images, which finally made it to the screen successfully with "The Brood" (4 years later), Cronenberg's first true masterpiece, and still my favourite of his efforts to this day.

Rating:
Summary: Doesn't make you shiver, really ...
Review: Although being an admirer of this Canadian director (who I rank next to Ingmar Bergman as the most important of all movie directors), "Shivers", his commercial debut, is more interesting as an exercise of an upcoming talent. The Acting is TERRIBLE, and the mis-en-scene insecure, to say the least. Except for two or three overwhelming sequences (the murder/suicide opening scene, and the confrontation between Joe Silver and Paul Hampton), it's more interesting to see "Shivers" as a child of its time. The gore sequences are truly disgusting in the style of 70s horror cinema, although hardly as effective as contemporary films of George Romero and Tobe Hooper (whose careers declined later). (It's funny to remember Cronenberg's statement, that he sees no link to Romero's films - just compare "Shivers" with "Night of the Living Dead" and "Rabid" with "The Crazies" for once!) Some European director's left quite an impression on Cronenberg, too, especially Bunuel and Pasolini. This "underground feel" (improvised acting, raw directing, surreal violence in combination) makes "Shivers" look pathetic - as it doesn't quite work - and dated, but one should be forgiving, I suppose, regarding the 15 days of actual filming. Still, there is a profound seriousness behind the images, which finally made it to the screen successfully with "The Brood" (4 years later), Cronenberg's first true masterpiece, and still my favourite of his efforts to this day.

Rating:
Summary: Definitely not Cronenberg's best...
Review: Although I appreciate the fact that "Shivers" shot David Cronenberg off to become the kingpin auteur of venereal horror, it is, in my opinion, his worst film of the 1970's (if not for all time)! The makeup & mechanical effects did pull off well in some scenes, but the characters were so pathetic that I didn't care if they were all killed by the mutant parasites by the finale. Also lacking in "Shivers" are the talents of his then-future production team of Howard Shore, Ronald Sanders, & Carol Spier (composer, editor, and art director respectively) that could have made this film more appealing (or repulsive for anti-Cronenberg tastes) even for a limited film budget. Ivan Reitman was by no means a terrific choice of someone to arrange cinematic music for this film (he should just stick to producing & directing, something he's proven to excel at). With the exception of "The Brood", I recommend steering away from Cronenberg's pre-1980 pieces! Everything from "Scanners" to "eXistenZ" is a more lurid, visually-stunning, and tumultuous story for everyone to see...

Rating:
Summary: Zombies in Heat
Review: Considering this film was made in the 70's it is pretty well done. One gets a claustrophobic feel due to the constriction of the apartment dwelling in which this movie is set. "Parasites with a Purpose" or "Lust for a Zombie" might have been alternate titles due to the zombie feel and topic of this not so scary horror flic. The sound quality is sub par at best although the picture quality is acceptable. Barbara Steele making out with another cutie was the high point in this rather weak attempt. Not as bad as other 70's drive-in fodder but not as good as it could have been.

Rating:
Summary: long but not forgotten memory
Review: Cronenberg is a thief. Who has he robbed you ask? William S. Burroughs. He told on himself when he raped Ol'Bill's novel Naked Lunch by trying to turn it into a film. Just read Cities of the Red Night and then watch Shivers. You'll get what I mean.

Rating:
Summary: Guess What?
Review: Cronenberg is a thief. Who has he robbed you ask? William S. Burroughs. He told on himself when he raped Ol'Bill's novel Naked Lunch by trying to turn it into a film. Just read Cities of the Red Night and then watch Shivers. You'll get what I mean.

Rating:
Summary: Cronenberg's Shivers better on DVD than video
Review: Cronenberg's first movie ever, 1975, SHIVERS is amazing to watch to see the embryonic stages of where his next 11 films would come from. Recomemded not only for CRONENBERG fans but for obscure horror fands as well.

Rating:
Summary: A hint of whats to come
Review: David Cronenberg's (DC) first comercial film is given a surprisingly clear transfer, though there is some pixelation and glitching in a late scene that I don't recall being on the LD release, it *may* be a problem on my DVD copy.

Really the first film in the resurgence of biological horror movies. In many ways this is one of the inspirations for ALIEN, aparently Dan O'Bannon even cites to it directly.

All of DC's prime issues are here, even the twins and some of the social issues from Dead Zone. In many ways this really feels like the seed from which many of DC's later work will grow. At times the film is clumsy and it's 70's independent budget and style haven't really aged well but a lot of this can be forgiven because of the doors this film opened. In it's way it is as important as Haloween or Eraserhead, of course that also means that it has a small but devoted audience.

Long Live the New Flesh!!!

Rating:
Summary: Cronenberg's grotesque first film
Review: Every once in awhile I like to watch a David Cronenberg film. I have seen several at this point, from his earliest stuff like "Rabid" to his seminal reworking of "The Fly" starring Jeff Goldblum and Geena Davis. One thing you will always get from a Cronenberg film is a serious look at how technology and human beings interact. Like science fiction author J.G. Ballard, Cronenberg's films embrace a synthesis of man and machine that is exceedingly grim, an outlook usually complimented with generous helpings of gore. The overarching theme in his cinematic examinations seems to be that humans simply do not know enough about the technology they develop, or if they do, their arrogance in the ultimate abilities of mankind always leads them charging into experiments despite the risks. That we are just not far seeing enough to predict the outcome of using new drugs or messing around with human genetics may be a good message to take from a Cronenberg film. "Shivers" is Cronenberg's first major motion picture, and it is quite an auspicious beginning for the Canadian director. This film isn't great, not compared to some of Cronenberg's later magnum opuses, but it showed just enough promise to merit attention from Hollywood.

It's the wonderful 1970s in "Shivers," a time when fancy high-rise residences went up offering prospective tenants all the amenities. The Starliner, an apartment building situated on an isolated island somewhere in Canada, is one of these luxurious projects. The building offers everything for modern living--including a parasite that turns people into raving sex maniacs. Yep, you heard right. "Shivers" is about a bunch of poor souls undergoing painful invasions from nasty looking creatures that feed off their host in particularly vicious ways. The problem starts when a quack seeking funding for a radical new medical procedure experiments with the idea of replacing failed organs with an engineered parasite that will take over a particular organ's function. He introduces his repulsive creation into the body of a young girl living in the Starliner with the intention of monitoring how well his idea works, but things quickly go awry. It turns out that this young lady is quite popular with many of the male residents in the building, leading to the rapid spread of the parasite. At first nothing much happens to those people infected with the bug. There might be a fit or two of coughing, a general lethargy might set in, but after a few hours the psychoses set in. When it does, it is already much too late to stop the nightmare from spreading through the Starliner. Women, men, children--no one is immune from the horrific effects of this parasite.

The hero of "Shivers" is the physician at the Starliner, a man with little idea of the horrors he will soon combat as the parasite infects his patients. Aided by his loyal nurse (played by Lynn Lowry), the doctor soon finds himself hunted down by the insane residents as the late stages of the infection set in. The best plan of action is to get out of the building, which isn't as easy as it sounds since the Starliner purposely set out to provide an isolated atmosphere for its tenants. Throw in packs of ravenous loonies prowling the vast corridors of the building looking for fresh meat, and you can see the complications inherent in a run for freedom. The doctor must shoot and bludgeon to death several of his former patients just to stay alive for a few more minutes. As his panic grows, as his movements through the madhouse become increasingly erratic, he witnesses one nightmare after another. His nurse falls prey to the parasite, he sees children panting and crawling about like dogs, and he encounters a father and daughter in a mind-shattering situation. The conclusion to the film is what you would expect from a Cronenberg film--bleak, with little hope for a positive outcome.

You can tell "Shivers" is low budget fare, but Cronenberg uses what he has to great effect. The central idea of the film, that modern people seeking isolation from the larger population will fall flat on their faces, works because it doesn't require big budget set pieces. Heck, the director didn't even need big stars. Joe Silver, who did a turn in the director's next film appears here as a doctor on the outside who learns about the infection and pays a bloody price for his knowledge. Barbara Steele plays a small part as a single woman named Betts. The rest of the cast is unfamiliar but effective. Sure, some of the effects are slightly cheesy, the editing isn't all that great, but this movie stays with you. You can almost hear some Hollywood big shot saying to Cronenberg after watching the film, "Yeah, this part could have been better. Yeah, you should have done this instead of that. But kid, you got promise and we're going to keep an eye on you." Let's be thankful someone gave Cronenberg a chance to follow up on "Shivers."

I thought the DVD edition of the film was good. There's a twenty-one minute interview with Cronenberg where the director talks about his film experiences. I thought he came off as funny and self-effacing, explaining how he knew almost nothing about what a director did on a bigger budget film, how he had to help an actress prepare for crying scenes by slapping her face, and his experiences with Barbara Steele. His recollections concerning his panic over getting shots right should reassure beginning filmmakers that the only way to improve as a director is to dive right in. This interview serves as a sort of mini-commentary for the film and I appreciated its inclusion on the disc. Give "Shivers" a shot if you like horror movies.