Seeing Is Believing Movie Reviews: "The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms" (1953)

 

Dear god, I did not like this movie. And the weird thing is, I should like it.

Many film historians and critics say that “The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms” is the biggest inspirations for one of my favorite movies of all time: “Godzilla” (not to be confused with the 1956 American version with Raymond Burr). 

While I certainly see the similarities for plot elements and the (slight) theme of the horrors of atomic bombs, both films go about their presentation and characters in an entirely different manner. Any similarities between the two can be written off as a coincidence as far as I can see.

Not to mention, “The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms” in particular manages to screw up so many things on the side of plot, characters, pacing and even the theme of nuclear weapons. There were several points in the movie where I found myself rolling my eyes and saying how much better “Godzilla” was able to do it.

The movie begins in the arctic, where a group of scientists are setting up the area to test an atomic bomb, while the narrator explains every little detail in jargon that most audiences won’t understand. After the successful test, two researchers go out to look the area over, only to find that the bomb woke up a giant prehistoric dinosaur from its icy slumber.

Only one of these scientists survives the encounter with the monster, Thomas Nesbitt (Paul Christian). He wakes up in New York, convinced that he saw a dinosaur that has been extinct for over 100 million years. Of course, no one believes him. 

Nesbitt is determined to find out the truth. Thus, he spends what feels like the entire remaining run time of the movie, trying to tell everyone that the monster is real, with limited success. 

Here’s the problem with this kind of plot in a movie: When the main character spends what feels like an eternity trying to tell people who won’t believe him about a creature that the audiences knows is real, it really comes off like a waste of time. We already know that this dinosaur exists, so all this is doing is delaying the inevitable reveal. Call it a pet peeve if you want, but this kind of story has never worked for me.

It would be interesting if we didn’t see the monster in the first few minutes of the film, then it could be a mystery. Is this once trusted scientist telling the truth? Or did he suffer a blow to the head and all of this is in his imagination? 

But no, we had to have the monster in the beginning to ruin all the suspense and mystery of that plot point.

Also, something that also distracted me was Paul Christian’s accent and how it reminded me so much of Jean Claude Van Damme. I know that’s really not a fair comparison, but the whole movie I expected Christian to roundhouse kick all the doctors in the face.

Or maybe he would just say this?

Speaking of doctors, let’s talk about the biggest problem with this film: It falls into the same rut as films like “The Killer Shrews” or “Bride Of The Monster,” of too many scenes with scientists making long boring speeches about sciencey stuff. 

I swear, there are no fewer than three scenes in this 80 minute movie with nothing but science lingo. They go no where, they disrupt the pacing and tension of the monster scenes and they just keep going on way longer than they need to. There is more focus on these scenes than there is on monster scenes, and that just frustrates me. 

When you have someone like Ray Harryhausen working on the special effects in your movie, that’s where you should spend the majority of the movie on. Not some scientists with no personality or apparent lives outside of their jobs. 

If there is one great thing about “The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms” though, it is Harryhausen’s fantastic stop-motion special effects on the monster and ensuing destruction. Harryhausen never disappoints. It always felt seamless during big action scenes and the sound helped to compliment the impact of many cars or buildings getting destroyed.

It’s a pity though that there’s so little of these well-done moments in the movie. Apart from the monster’s big rampage on New York City, there are about four scenes that involve the dinosaur and only last long enough to get in one thing getting blown up. 

Rather disappointing, actually.

In all, “The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms” mostly helped to remind me how “Godzilla” (1954) is such a fantastic movie. I know that I said earlier that the two had next to nothing in common, but now I see that this movie serves as the framework for “Godzilla.” They might have some elements in common, but both films go about those elements in entirely different ways. 

Final Grade: D

Movie Expectations

Let’s face it, there’s always one movie every year that everyone gets excited for.

The trailer comes out, we hear about all the big names attached to it, we see some promotional footage for the film that gets us hyped for it and long before the movie is even close to be in theaters, people are talking about how awesome it’s going to be and how it’ll be the biggest film of the year.

I’ve never been that way since I was eight years old. All thanks to the 1998 Roland Emmerich film “Godzilla.”

When I was a child, nothing was more exciting to me than Godzilla. I loved every single one of his movies and would discuss how awesome they were with my friends. I could never get Godzilla off my mind. Hell, I’m still a huge Godzilla fan, though I’ve calmed down with my talk of him.

But in 1998, there came word that a new Godzilla movie was being made, and it would be shot in America. As a little kid who adored Godzilla, you could imagine just how excited I was for this film. I’d stay up late at night just thinking about how amazing this new movie would be.

Then the Memorial Day weekend came of the release. I was the first in line to watch the film and was practically bouncing off the walls of the theater as the film started.

But as the film progressed, my excitement levels disappeared. The film was nothing like the Godzilla that I knew and loved. This creature, who had the name of Godzilla, had no fire breath, hardly ever destroyed any buildings and was taken down my military-grade missiles. 

I was disappointed.

But I’m the kind of guy who looks for a lesson in every bad event in my life. To make sure that nothing like ever happens again and leads me to a better life. 

So what was to be learned from the disappointment of “Godzilla?” Getting too excited about something will always lead to negative thoughts and emotions.

When we get over excited for a summer blockbuster, the film will never live up to the expectations that are assigned. There will always be something in the film that catches your eye or is brought to your attention which will diminish your view of the film.

There is always that chance that the film you invest all your hype and excitement into will not be nearly as good as you think it will be. When that happens, disappointment strikes.

So when you go to watch your big summer blockbuster for the summer, whether its “Pacific Rim,” “The Wolverine,” “Elysium” or anything else, try not to get too excited for the film. A little hype and excitement can go a long way, and at least disappointment doesn’t lurk around every corner.

Seeing Is Believing Movie Reviews: "Despicable Me 2" (2013)

“Despicable Me 2” (2013)

Being fresh off of watching “Despicable Me” for the first time, I thought it’d be appropriate to watch its recent sequel and see how it stacks up. 

Going in, I expected to see more of what made the first one so popular, but also developing the idea of super-villain filled world and it acts. What we got is much of what made the first film so appealing, but not necessarily more of the latter.

Super-villain Gru (Steve Carrel) has decided to give up his villainous life style to support his three new daughters, even though clearly he doesn’t want to leave. But when another baddy steals a top secret and highly dangerous formula, the Anti-Villain League, an organization dedicated to stopping crime, decides to recruit Gru and find this fiend before his plan comes to fruition.

I’ll say that, while typing this review, it has come to my attention that I’m leaving out several major plot points. What I wrote above only takes up a portion of the film. There is also a romantic subplot involving Gru and an agent of the Anti-Villain League (voiced by Kristen Wiig). Then there’s also a subplot involving Gru’s eldest daughter (Miranda Cosgrove) and her own romantic interests.

I think “Despicable Me 2” has a bit of trouble staying focused on its tasks and goals.

While all of this is going on, there is scene after scene with the Minions. I swear, there are at least five scenes in this film that involve only the Minions. In “Despicable Me” the amount of scenes involving them is at a good number and followed the “less is more” approach. Here, many of the scenes involving these little yellow guys don’t add anything to the movie, go nowhere and are forgotten about mere moments after they’re finished. 

I understand that the Minions were by far the most popular characters about the first film. At some point, even too much of a good thing can become irritating. Now that’s not to say these guys don’t have good moments. There are quite a few scenes that are very funny, like when a large group of them are on vacation in a tropical paradise. However, near the end, the Minions have not one, but two musical numbers in their strange language. Not only can you not understand them, but they don’t really add anything to tone or atmosphere of the final scenes.

While I feel that it was a good idea to have more of the Minions in this film, I also feel that their scenes could have been handled better.

In my “Despicable Me” review, I mentioned that what I enjoyed most about the film was the idea of a world filled with only super-villains and no heroes. I also talked about how the film didn’t do much with this idea and could have expounded upon it in more detail, hoping that “Despicable Me 2” would do that job.

It did not.

Oh sure, we’re introduced to one or two new villains and Anti-Villain League (notice how they don’t call themselves “heroes”), but there are still so many things I want to know about this world that are never touched on.

This is a unique world with so many creative and comedic possibilities, but they hardly ever do anything with it. In a film like this, the world and how it reacts to Gru’s antics can be just as much of a character as anybody else in the film. Instead of developing that character and letting the audience see how much their world differs from our own, we get lots of predictable scenes involving Gru trying to get a girlfriend.

Huzzah.

Now, don’t take these harsh words as a way of saying “Despicable Me 2” sucks. Because it doesn’t. It is very similar to the first film in many ways: Rather predictable, doesn’t take many chances, but it’s cute and has good family fun comedy. 

Everything that was cute in “Despicable Me” has been amplified in this film, especially the youngest of Gru’s daughters and her big puppy-dog eyes. There is also quite a few jokes that will appeal to wide range of ages, such as when Gru tranquilizes one of his dates and has to take her home, leading to a lot of wacky slapstick hijinks. 

And I’m a man who loves his slapstick.

Overall though, while I was entertained by “Despicable Me 2” in much the same way I was by the first film, I can’t help but feel that there is so much more that could have been done. Exploration and world-building are forgotten to have more time with the Minions, but I guess that appeals to more people. 

If you liked the first “Despicable Me” then you’ll like “Despicable Me 2.” It’s more of the same, but when was that a bad thing?

Final Grade: C

The Hopper: Episode #1

No, not that Hopper. 

Welcome to a new segment of my blog, where I go see a block of movies all in one day at the theaters and then give my feelings on each one I see. At the end, I’ll go over what stuck out the most to me and what I think people should go out and see. Since this is the first of these, I might change the way I go about doing this, but we’ll see. 

With that said, let’s get started:

“Monsters University” (2013)

I’ll go ahead and admit it: To me, Pixar can do no wrong. Every movie they’ve done has never disappointed me. Though lately their films have decreased in quality, such as “Cars 2” and “Brave,” and they seem only intent on making sequels to their previous work at the moment, with the upcoming “Planes” movie being a sequel to “Cars” and this one, “Monsters University,” a prequel to “Monsters Inc.”

The film follows Mike Wyzowski (Billy Crystal), a one-eyed green monster, as he attends Monsters University to pursue his life-long dream of becoming a scarer. Very quickly, he meets his rival, James Sullivan (John Goodman), and the two set out to prove who is the better monster.

While going in, I didn’t know what to expect, once again Pixar delivers the goods where they need it and gives a solid entertainment from start to finish. One thing that Pixar has always managed to do incredibly well is adding in adult themes and messages about how difficult or strange life can be into a children’s film...and actually making it work.

If you’ve seen “Monsters Inc.” then you know from the start that Mike does not become a scarer. Though he spends most of the film going after a goal that he ultimately doesn’t reach, Mike has a revelation that I don’t think I’ve ever seen in a kid’s film before. That even if you spend your entire life working towards something, try your hardest and sacrifice everything you’ve got, that doesn’t mean you’ll reach your goal. Sometimes, certain people just aren’t cut out to make it.

To see themes of failure, regret and acceptance of the bad being address, and in a children’s film no less, “Monsters University” immediately has my attention and admiration. 

Grade: B+

“Now You See Me” (2013)

Oh, the joys of taking a critical thinking philosophy class that talked about how mentalism and cold reading is nothing but bullshit.

The reason I saw this movie was because of all the big named actors attached to it that I enjoyed. Jesse Eissenberg, Woody Harrelson, Morgan Freeman, Mark Ruffalo and Michael Caine are all some of my favorite actors, so this was a must see for me. It would be like a combination of “Zombieland” and “The Dark Knight” only with magic thrown in there as well. Too bad this film didn’t have any zombies in it, as that would have made things so much better.

“Now You See Me” follows The Four Horsemen, who are all aspiring magicians, con-mans or escape artists, as they attempt to pull of some of the greatest magic tricks the world has ever seen. It’s too bad that all of these magic tricks involve bank robbery, putting innocent lives in danger and getting the police involved. Darren Rose (Mark Ruffalo) is the cop assigned to their case and always seems to be three steps behind the Horsemen, as they seem to have a greater plan than it seems, which involves an ancient club of magicians, known as The Eye.

If that plot description sounds confusing, it’s only because it is. I didn’t even get into a third of all the crazy and non-sensical events that happen in this film. While they try to explain most of what’s going on, they leave so much up in the air that it’s hard to know exactly what’s going on without bringing a flowchart to explain everything.

Something interesting to note about this film is that every single character is rather unlikable. Everyone has committed a terrible act in their past or just does douchey things to other people. By the end of the film, you really want to slap every single one of these characters for being such assholes. 

But then again, maybe that’s just the thing about this film. The world of magicians and illusions has become so tainted and hateful that being a dick is the best way to get around. As such, I think the best thing about the film is how it builds up the world with only a few characters and their actions towards one another. 

Still, no amount of good world building is any substitute for a coherent and understandable story. As such, “Now You See Me” has some good things going for it, but overall it felt rather forgettable.

Grade: C

“This Is The End”

You know, I think the most difficult kind of movie to review is a comedy that isn’t funny. For one, comedy is entirely subjective. True that film itself is rather subjective art form, but there are a lot of things in movies that everyone can agree on. Not so when it comes to comedy. 

Either something is funny to someone, or it isn’t funny. And while I’m sure that lots of people found “This Is The End” to be hysterical, I’m not one of those people. I may have chuckled a couple times at a few celebrity cameos or jabs at some stars for their previous roles, like Seth Rogan in “The Green Hornet,” but that was about it. Everything else was just kinda awkward or insulting.

Jay Bruchel decides to take a vacation and visit his best buddy, Seth Rogan, in Los Angeles. After an day of getting high and listening to the Backstreet Boys, they decide to visit James Franco’s house party, much to Jay’s irritation. But as the party progresses, the earth opens up and it seems that the apocalypse has begun. Now the few remaining celebrities in Franco’s house must hold out until the apocalypse has settled down.

This lead me into my next reason why comedies that aren’t funny are hard to review. When the comedy doesn’t do it’s job, there’s really just one kind of comment you make: That joke didn’t work. That wasn’t funny. But let’s try to figure out why some of the comedy in “This Is The End” doesn’t work for me.

Most of the comedy in this film is rather crude and rude to the actors in this movie. If they aren’t cracking a joke about one of the actors smoking marijuana or drinking, then they’re talking about their junk or getting off on something. To me, that kind of humor has never been funny, only gross and disturbing.

There’s a scene where the remaining celebrities are kicking around a severed head, and I could hear people in the audience laughing. In my head, I was thinking, “Is this funny because severed heads are hilarious? If so, these people would be on the floor laughing if Vlad the Impaler was still around.”

Another thing about many of the scenes in this film is that they’re rather pointless. Some scenes will come up out of no where, add nothing to the film or the plot, then leave and never be mentioned again. And example of this is when James Franco and Danny McBride spend what feels like three minutes arguing over a Playboy magazine and getting their jollies off on it. Is the scene funny? To some, maybe. What does it add to the film? Nothing.

If you enjoy rude and crude humor, or just want to watch a movie with lots of famous comedian actors in one movie, then give this one a try. If you’re not a fan of that kind of humor, like I am, skip this one.

Grade: D+

Final Thoughts: 

The highlight of this block of movie hopping was certainly “Monsters University” with its smart and clever outlook on pursuing one’s life long dreams and goals. Not to mention, the animation was beautiful and the voice acting hit all of the notes that it needed to. The humor was a little wonky at times, but it consistently made me smile. I would even go as far to say that “Monsters University” is a better movie than it’s predecessor. Then again, both films go for an entirely different approach, but I believe that the newer film did much better job at building up this world of monsters and how it connects to our own world.

This just goes to show you the power of animation nowadays. We are now at a point in movies where a Disney/Pixar film is a better source of quality filmmaking than from movies featuring actors like Morgan Freeman, Jesse Eissenberg, Seth Rogan and James Franco. 

And with other recent animated films, like “Wreck-It Ralph,” “Paranorman,” “Rango” and just about any Pixar film, I think it’s safe to say that animation has become one of the most powerful forces in movies.

Seeing Is Believing Movie Reviews: "The Lady From Shanghai" (1947)

Poor, poor Orson Welles.

When Welles first started making movies in the 1940s, the studios gave him total creative control over his work. The result was “Citizen Kane,” often regarded as the greatest movie ever made.

The problem was that Welles couldn’t get enough of this creative freedom, and demanded it for nearly every movie he would make after it. Studios never gave Welles that kind of freedom again, and many would argue that his work suffered because of it. For example, RKO Studios demanded that Welles do an entirely new ending to the film he made after Kane, “The Magnificent Ambersons.” Another would be Universal Studios reediting what Welles thought was his masterpiece, “Touch Of Evil.”

I bring this up because his 1947 film, “The Lady From Shanghai” is another example of that lack of creative control. Unfortunately, in Hollywood, directors and producers don’t get nearly as much freedom as we like to think. The heads of the studios will ultimately have the final word on a film, even if it’s nothing like what the director wants.

In the case of “The Lady from Shanghai,” producer Harry Cohn was desperate to make a movie with Orson Welles. So much so that he was willing to give Welles anything he wanted, including near total control over the movie, including directing, writing, producing and even starring. The result is a mess of a movie with an incoherent story, lousy pacing and terrible editing.

“I’ll pay a thousand dollars to anyone who can explain the story to me,” said Cohn.

The film follows Irish sailor Michael O’Hara (Welles), who has become smitten with the lovely Rosalie Bannister (Rita Hayworth). The only problem is that she’s married to the best criminal lawyer in the land, Arthur Bannister (Everett Sloane). After Michael saves Rosalie from being attacked, Arthur takes a liking to the Irishman and decides to hire him as a boat-hand on his yacht.

As tension develops between Rosalie and Michael, Arthur’s coworker George Grisby (Glenn Anders) joins them on their voyage from New York to San Francisco. Grisby takes a liking to Michael after he learns that O’Hara killed a man many years ago. It’s at this point that Grisby decides to recruit Michael into his plan to fake his own death and disappear. As the plan progresses, it’s revealed that there’s more people in on this than Michael originally thought.

If there’s one thing wrong with this film, it’s the story and the lack of focus or goal. It meanders from plot point to plot point with no regard to human life. There are certainly big events going on, but most people won’t know how one event ties into another. Some events seem to even happen at random, leaving the audience confused as to what the hell just happened.

Probably the biggest indication of this is when Michael thinks he has figured out everything about what’s going on, and we get this big exposition dump through Michael’s narration about the plans of the villain. This narration falls victim to the classic problem with movies: Show, don’t tell. Film is a visual medium, and anything that can be done visually should be done in that manner. Never tell how something happens, show it instead. Not to mention, most of the narration seems like guess work by Michael. 

If that narration had been removed from the film, it probably wouldn’t have effected the story and events of the film at all. That way, at least the audience would be less confused.

That’s how convoluted this story is, people. The exposition that explains everything about the motivation of our characters is entirely irrelevant.

Though if I did have to give the movie credit for anything, it would be the cinematography and would nightmarishly beautiful the film looks. The camera angles, the lighting and use of shadow throughout is classic Welles and is used to great effect in this film. It really does help to set the mood of the piece and build atmosphere where nothing else does. There’s a scene in an aquarium where that shows just how small and insignificant these characters look next these giant fish and sea creatures, especially when their faces are cast in shadow.

It’s hard to describe some of the main performances, since in the case of Welles and Hayworth, they’re so far removed from the traditional roles they play. Welles has an Irish accent the entire movie (playing a little more into the whole nightmare setting) while playing this tough confident guy and feels at ends with Charles Foster Kane. Rita Hayworth, on the other hand, has had her hair cut short and dyed blonde (supposedly done by Welles himself) and is playing the femme fatale that every film noir must have. To be fair, she does a convincing job at that role, as does Welles, so I guess there’s nothing to complain about in that regard.

Also, Everett Sloane and Glenn Anders both do a fantastic job at the roles they’ve been given. With Sloane coming off as both powerful in his lawyer role, but helpless by being on crutches. Anders was creepy, but was still goal-oriented and intent on having some fun with his character.

Overall though, I felt like “The Lady From Shanghai” was a rather forgettable film, in that with no focus or traction from scene to scene, events just go by without seeming to have any significance. There’s much to be admired in the cinematography, performances and the ambition of Orson Welles, but that lack of solid story takes away from that.

If “The Lady From Shanghai” is an example of giving the filmmakers near total creative control, then maybe it’s a good thing that studios don’t allow that very often.

Final Grade: C

Seeing Is Believing Movie Reviews: "Despicable Me" (2010)

Believe it or not, this is my first time viewing “Despicable Me,” even after so many people I know telling me how good it was. I’ll admit, when I first saw the trailer, I felt like I could predict exactly what would happen. And really, when you know what’s going to occur, why watch it?

Yet, much to my surprise, there were several things that kept me on my toes, mostly done through some of the clever ideas and additions that come out of nowhere. I will admit right off the bat, that I do not regret watching this movie.

Upon someone stealing the great pyramid, super-villain Gru (Steve Carell) is now more motivated than ever to perform the greatest heist by stealing the moon. In order to get funding to achieve such a task, Gru must steal a shrink ray from another villain, Victor (Jason Segal).

After witnessing three little orphaned girls entering Victor’s fortress, Gru decides to recruit these three by adopting them.

As you can imagine, hijinks ensue and Gru must figure out how to balance his plan to steal the moon while learning to be a father for these girls.

Right away, the story isn’t immediately pulling me in. As I mentioned, the trailer tells you every major event of the film. As such, the plot is rather predictable and doesn’t try to do anything too risky. It’s your basic “family vs. work” personal story.

What pushes this film past that calculable story are many of the ideas that it has within the world that it sets up. In particular, the idea of villains and the role that they serve. In this world, “Villain” is apparently a chosen profession. They don’t rule the world, presumably because there are so many of them competing against one another. They just want power and recognition, and really who doesn’t want that?

Not only that, but it goes against the traditional “hero vs. villain” ideology by removing the hero. This world is full of super-villains, but no sign of super-heroes. There is hardly anything stopping these villains from their schemes besides other villains and their own incompetence. This is something that I’ve never quite seen before and it’s an interesting idea to think about: How would the world be different if there was only Lex Luthor or the Joker, but no Superman or Batman?

Also, like so many others, I think the idea of the Minions is both cute and interesting. Each one of those little yellow guys feels wholly unique and they lead to some of the best comedy in the entire film. As a collective, they’re probably the most interesting character in the film in how they will do anything their master tells them, but still find ways to screw it up in the most adorable way.

If I had a complaint about these ideas in “Despicable Me” it would be that they really aren’t explored enough. Things like the super-villain filled world and the Minions really are the driving force of the film, and it comes off like they don’t do nearly enough with them. 

We only get to see about three or four super-villains in the film, when the world is supposedly full of them. What are some other villains like? What do ordinary people think of them? How is the government handling the villains? Is there even a government, or have the villains taken that over? What are some of the other big events villains have pulled off?

These are just some of the questions that the film could have explored in more detail and would have led to an even greater world and understanding of how it works. Yet, the film doesn’t really address any of them. It’s a little disappointing, given that the idea of villain-ruled world is a great concept.

Maybe “Despicable Me 2” and the upcoming “Minions” film will address these ideas in more detail and give us a better idea of the world that Gru inhabits. As it stands though, what “Despicable Me” does with these unique ideas can be a bit underwhelming.

As for the comedy, it’s pretty standard. They play it safe with comedy and try to not do anything too out of the ordinary, which is fine. I wouldn’t expect them to pull a “Ren & Stimpy” with it and do something too far-fetched. There were moments that I giggled at, but nothing too up-roaring. 

If I had to describe “Despicable Me” in one word, it would be “cute.” The minions, the animation style, the three little girls, Gru’s childhood dream of being an astronaut and several moments where Gru develops attachments to his children all scream of cuteness. Moments to make the audience let out a collective “awww.” To be fair, the film does a great job at doing that multiple times. If you’re looking for the cutest group of tiny creatures with big doughy eyes and huge grins, look no further.

All in all, “Despicable Me” kept my attention with its cuteness and unique ideas of super-villains, even if there was so much more that could have been done with it. It has good comedy, good characters and even if the story was predictable it was still effective. Certainly worth checking out at least once.

Final Grade: C+

Seeing Is Believing Movie Reviews: "Videodrome" (1983)

“It seems today that all you see is violence in movies and sex on TV.” - Family Guy

As much as this line is used for comedic effect in “Family Guy” and considering how I have an extreme distaste for the approach the show as taken lately, that one particular line said in the opening theme song does have a point.

Many movies and television shows in the last few years have become more about sex and violence, something that was once taboo and is still rather uncomfortable to discuss in public conversation. The reason movies and television are able to get away with it is because the audience (hopefully) knows that what they’re watching isn’t real and can tell the difference between reality and fiction. That it’s merely fantasy that can’t hurt others.

What if the line between reality and fiction was so blurred that it was impossible to tell them apart? That is the main point of David Cronenberg’s 1983 film “Videodrome,” a film that exploits the hell out of sex and violence, but does so to convey a message about where society is going.

Max Renn (James Woods) is the president of CIVIC-TV, a television station that plays material that is looked down upon by most, from soft-core porn to violent torture. Max is looking for a new program to air which will bring in new audience members, and he believes that can come from a show called “Videodrome,” a plotless show is merely torture and murder of a different person every episode.

Max believes this is the future of television and immediately wants to air it on his channel. But as Max begins to watch more of “Videodrome” he begins to get strange hallucinations about torturing a woman he met and an odd hole appearing in his stomach. As Max begins to investigate further, he finds out that there may be more to “Videodrome” than he initially thought.

I should hate this movie. It’s merely gory and seemingly unnecessary violence mixed with disturbing imagery. But I can’t bring myself to say it’s a bad film, because “Videodrome” is a rare example where gore, violence, sex and disturbing images are necessary to the story and world of the film.

There’s a scene early on in the film where Max is on a talk show, discussing what he believes is point of his station. He starts off by saying that his station provides an outlet for many people who can’t find porn or torture any other way (this movie came out in the 1980s, so the internet didn’t exist yet). Max also says that what he does is a positive benefit to society, because he allows his viewers to live out their harmless fantasies or frustrations.

To me, this scene justifies the need for violence and sex and why I’m okay with it’s presence in this movie. That Max is helping society by letting them vent their sexual feelings without it getting in the way during their normal lives. He doesn’t do it for the money or because he just really loves porn and torture, but because this something that everyone experiences and he wants to make it easier for people.

As the film progresses, it becomes more of a cautionary tale about blurring the line between reality and fiction. That it’s easy to confuse the two with the abundance of television and media in our daily lives. Those with a strong moral constitution would be the ones to withstand in society, and the weaker ones would eventually die out.

What I really enjoy about this is how much more effective this message seems in today’s world. Television and social media sites putting out fiction every minute of every day, and often passing it off as the truth. This only blurs that line even more. As television and other media outlets attempt a more realistic approach, we are often left wondering what to really believe in.

If there’s one thing I don’t like about the movie, it would be the ending and how forced it felt. Until the last few confrontations, it was moving at a brisk pace and had a solid yet eerie tone about the uncertainty of events to come. The last few minutes just seem to be there to give some resolution to events that Max goes through. In this particular case, I don’t think resolution of these events needed to be there. With all the hallucinations, I think the ending would have worked better if it was a bit more ambiguous. 

I should also say that this is not a film for everyone. There is much gore, violence and (well crafted) deaths that many people will find disturbing. This film was made by David Cronenberg, who you might know as the director of the 1986 film “The Fly” which still gives me nightmares about some of its images. 

So if you’re not into that at all, then this movie is not for you. But if you enjoy a film that’s more of an interesting sci-fi commentary about sex and violence in our society, as well as a unique but well made narrative (for the most part), then I would suggest checking out “Videodrome.”

Final Grade: B+