The perfect mix between psychological and physical horror - which are Cronenberg's main trademarks. Here we have the body consciousness and the mind disturbance in the same measure, very well balanced. The triangle composed by Irons and Bujold is as bizarre as sexy. By the way both are in great shape.
The summit of Cronenberg's sci-fi period is also the kickoff for his ascent to the echelon of the most important movie directors of his time. I must say that The Brood and Scanners were weighty factors in this successful path but the breakthrough is definetly Videodrome.
Daring, unconventional, made with incredible sobriety. Cronenberg definetly has style. Based on the controversial Ballard's book, the filmmaker wrote and directed an amazing urban tale of sex, blood, iron and grease without any trace of ballyhoo. James Spader, Elias Koteas, Holly Hunter, Rosanna Arquette and Deborah Kara Unger are the main cast and they prove to be very correct choices.
As Cronenberg once said in an interview "in order to be faithful to the book, you have to betray the book, 'cause there's no direct translation that you can do of a novel. The two media are very different". And this is how he acheived the arduous task of handing an efficient and brilliant cinematic version of the complex opus by William Burroughs.
Stephen King considers this flick the best adaptation of one of his books to the cinema. No one but him have more authority to state that. Who am I to disagree? I just can say I truly madly deeply like The Dead Zone!
First of all because we're talking 'bout a Cronenberg film. Then, my favorite actor - Mr. Christopher Walken - is in the main role, the hero. Two of my idols in the same movie. How can I be unbiased?!
Brushing aside these personal issues, I honestly think it brings a very powerful story, focusing the sad fate of a lonely man through an interesting approach on the main character's feelings, in a way it doesn't sounds mushy. Concluding, it's a movie worthy of David Cronenberg.
By this movie is possible to see that since the beginning Cronenberg made his point. I think I need more time to elaborate a rightful comment about it. Meanwhile, click on the image and read the text on its right side.
I want to believe that Keira Knightley tried to apply herself. However, the only thing she got was screw up with her character. Those strange gestures supposedly motivated by Sabina's disorder seem far-fetched and were not convincing at all.
Fassbender, Mortensen, Cassel and even Cronenberg were not capable to overshadow her incompetence. If it hadn´t been for her, this movie would be in a higher position.
I comprehend those who dislike this one. It's hard to believe that Gallimard took so long to realize he was dating a man, but let's overlook it for a while. Now what's the problem with this movie? John Lone (unfairly criticized) does a terrific job dealing well with a really tough task. And Jeremy Irons is as great as usual.
Just like in The Fly, here a totally weird and doomed love story is being told. M Butterfly is less conventional than A History of Violence and that's one of the reasons I prefer the first one.
Now many people may get angry with me 'cause as far as I could notice A History of Violence is almost an unanimity, mainly among the novice admirers of Cronenberg's works. They probably became his fans motivated by this movie, due the fact it clearly offers a more accessible kind of story, similar to hollywoodian flicks. Despite the great leading actors and the flawless quality of production, the movie has a dull script - well written, but very similar to the hollywoodian productions and very distant from Cronenberg's universe and trademarks.
Honestly I don't have a precise complain about this motion picture. The casting is O.K., the production is great, the direction too. I consider the script ideas original and interesting, but the way it was put into practice didn't work in some crucial points of the story.