Amazon.com

At last--a great American movie available on video for the first time in its original aspect ratio. For all the slasher pictures that have ripped off Psycho (and particularly its classic set piece, the "shower scene"), nothing has ever matched the impact of the real thing. More than just a first-rate shocker full of thrills and suspense, Psycho is also an engrossing character study in which director Alfred Hitchcock skillfully seduces you into identifying with the main characters--then pulls the rug (or the bathmat) out from under you. Anthony Perkins is unforgettable as Norman Bates, the mama's boy proprietor of the Bates Motel; and so is Janet Leigh as Marion Crane, who makes an impulsive decision and becomes a fugitive from the law, hiding out at Norman's roadside inn for one fateful night. Psycho gets the masterpiece treatment it deserves on DVD, with extras including newsreel footage surrounding the making and release of the movie; an archive of production stills; the special trailer in which Hitchcock (acting as one of the original Universal Studio tour guides) himself leads viewers around the Bates place; credit designer Saul Bass's original "shower scene" story boards; posters and advertising materials for the movie's William Castle-like publicity campaign (No One Will Be Seated After the Feature Begins!); and a 90-minute documentary on the making of the film! What more could any movie fan possibly want? --Jim Emerson ... Read more

Reviews (319)

Hitchcock's Finest Film
Its amazing how still to this day, a movie made 40 years ago can continue to still scare you every time you view it. But thats exactly what Psycho does. The film never has a dull moment, and all its infamous scenes are just as startling as they were back in 1960. The story revolves around Marion Crane, searching to leave the big city, and live the american dream, she steals 40,000 dollars and travels to the outskirts of California. Along the way, she starts going a little paranoid after her boss sees her leaving the city, and she is chased by a local police officer. Overwhelmed by these feelings and the weather, she stops at the Bates Motel. The hotel, run by young Norman (Anthony Perkins in his finest role) has 12 open rooms. From here, the story starts to pick up. If you have never seen any scenes from Psycho, than the suprise you have will be amazing. There are plenty of plot twists and edge-of-your-seat moments. Hitchcocks directing is a high note. Just look at the scene between Marion and Norman in his parlor. The dialoug is great, directing is great and the acting is great. A all around great movie, and Hitchcocks best.

Don't Go Psycho after Watching "Psycho"
Director Alfred Hitchcock's movie, "Psycho" kept me at the edge of my seat throughout this classic thriller. Although the movie is in black and white, Hitchcock uses other special effects to add excitement. Not only that, but his wise choice of actors made the film that much more enjoyable. They portrayed the characters just as Hitchcock wanted them to. At the beginning of the movie, the plot is shifted in many directions. Hitchcock did an extraordinary job adding many twists into the story. "Psycho" is a famous, classical horror movie that will be a popular movie for many years to come.
Hitchcock knew what he was doing when he chose the characters that he did. Anthony Perkins, who played Norman Bates, used the perfect facial expressions and tone of voice to keep you guessing his innocence or guilt. When the investigator comes to his tiny, in-the-middle-of-nowhere hotel looking for Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), Perkins is nervous and stutters a lot. This suspicion leads you to believe he might have something to do with the disappearance of Marion, but in your head you're portraying Perkins as this nice, innocent hotel owner with great hospitality. Throughout the movie in many different scenes, Perkins uses very meaningful, evil, and friendly facial expressions that especially play out Bates' character. When Bates' is watching Marion through the window, you get the feeling that Bates' has something evil planned, but murder is not what jumped to my head right away.
Janet Leigh was another great actress for Hitchcock's film. She is a petite, vulnerable character that is marvelous for the role of a devious, suspicious blonde on the run with $40,000. I think Hitchcock knew what he was doing when he asked Leigh to be in his movie. It adds a whole other twist to the storyline.
The special effects make the movie outstanding all by themselves. One thing that really stands out in my mind is the soundtrack. The music adds to the horror and suspense of it all. Hitchcock selected music that terrifies you even if you weren't even looking at the screen. It really draws you into the scene like you're witnessing things firsthand.
Throughout the movie, the lighting and camera angles draw you in even more. Hitchcock uses outstanding shadows on the faces of the characters, and adds a dark, eerie glow to the dark nights at Bates' Motel. I especially liked the camera angles during the shower scene. Hitchcock zooms in really close, once again inviting the audience to be a part of the scene.
At the beginning of the movie, Marion Crane is with her boyfriend Sam, at a cheap motel over their lunch break. Unable to get married because Sam is still paying alimony to his ex-wife, Marion is drawn in to the perfect opportunity: She is trusted with $40,000 in which her boss orders her to take it to the bank at the end of the day. Instead, Marion flees the town to Sam's home in another town.
Tired from driving almost all through the night in a heavy rainstorm, Marion sees a hotel off the main highway and decides to stop. Here, she meets Norman Bates, the owner of the hotel. Being the nice hotel clerk that he appears to be, Norman offers Marion a late supper. She complies, and patiently waits for his return. In the meantime, she overhears Norman in an argument with his mother. This adds yet another twist in Hitchcock's film. After dinner, Marion tells Norman she wants to get cleaned up and get a good night's sleep, so he leaves, only to return later, leaving the audience in total shock after what comes next....
I think "Psycho" is an excellent horror film that will scare many viewers right out of the shower after watching it. Its constant mysteries and plot twists keep you thinking all the time. Although it may be quite gruesome, Hitchcock's film remains on my list for scariest movies of all time!

Not his BEST, but FULL of exciting scenes
I`ve seen this film numerous times and I have always found it a bit cold, made without passion. Sure the shower-scene in particular is a mind-blower, but Hitchcock was much better off in the suspense-genre... This story simply isn`t interesting enough. It reason may be that it always had a GREAT reputation and everyone who ever saw it knew if by heart and thus destroyed the first viewing of others... Another factor is that Janet Leigh is much 2 pretty and ladylike for her role. When I saw Anne Heche in the 1998 movie I realised that H E R Marion was indeed a low-life, tramp - sort of - who jumped at the chance of doing something stupid 2 her employer. Janet Leigh`s Marion is never at any moment stupid... Alas, Anne was much more satisfying, as were Viggo Mortensen and Julianne Moore.

John Gavin and Vera Miles are lifeless - cardboard stereotypes and that leaves us only with Martin Balsam and the great Anthony Perkins. THEY breath life into their characters and are the main reason I like this version. William Macy and Vince Vaughn repeated their roles, but eh..... hehehehe???????? Let there be silence. In 1983, Perkins reprised his role as Norman Bates to even better effect in the splendid PSYCHO II.

Mother says, "Watch this movie, or else!"
I don't know why it took me so long to review this film. Perhaps I've been extremely busy, but this creepy and memorable piece of cinema came into my mind a few days ago, and I haven't seen it in YEARS! Unsurprisingly though, I remember everything about it, as if I saw it yesterday. That's one of the many impacts PSYCHO has, no matter how many times it's viewed. (Just for the record, mine is three so far, which includes a USC screening with Hitchcock's own daughter and granddaughter providing a Q&A afterward.)

The master of suspense, Alfred Hitchcock has outdone himself with this brilliant masterpiece. It's a taut, suspenseful little tale that paved the way for other thrillers and provided many firsts in cinema-

1) It was the first slasher film, EVER! Without PSYCHO, there would be no BLACK CHRISTMAS, no HALLOWEEN, no FRIDAY THE 13th, no SCREAM, etc. That's right folks, PSYCHO is the granddaddy of the slasher pic.

2) It was the first movie to show a woman (Janet Leigh) in just a bra and slip, an aspect used very cleverly by Hitchcock. In the opening scene, Marion Crane is wearing a white bra because Alfred Hitchcock wanted to show her as being "angelic". After she has taken the money, the following scene has her in a black bra because now she has done something wrong and evil. Similarly, before she steals the money, she has a white purse; after she's stolen the money, she carries a black one.

3) It was the first movie to show a flushing toilet on camera. This is a must know for any film buff.

Yup, PSYCHO did all those first. Learn it, live it, love it.

Anyway....Alfred Hitchcock anonymously bought the rights to Robert Bloch's great novel, for just $9,000. He then bought up as many copies of the novel as he could to keep the ending a secret. That's one of many things that made him so great. Hitchcock did take liberties when having the novel (which was more graphic) adapted, but they all work well. In Bloch's novel, Norman Bates is short, fat, older, and very dislikable. It was Hitchcock who decided to have him be young, handsome, and sympathetic. Norman is also more of a main character in the novel. The story opens with him and Mother fighting rather than following Marion from the start. I think that's one of the many reasons PSYCHO works so well. It also shocked audiences when Janet Leigh, who was advertized as the star, bit the dust a mere 50 minutes into the film. (SCREAM used this tactic by offing Drew Barrymore less than 15 minutes into the picture.)

The picture is filmed in black and white because Alfred Hitchcock believed the movie would be too gory for color. That adds to the creepiness and makes the film more effective, as the horrible colored remake proved.

A brilliant and much duplicated score by Hermann Bernard adds to the atmosphere and builds the suspense. Hitchcock originally envisioned the shower sequence as completely silent, but Bernard Herrmann went ahead and scored it anyway and Hitch immediately changed his mind. I couldn't imagine the movie any other way.

However, what makes PSYCHO truly immortal, when so many films are already half-forgotten, is that it connects directly with our innermost fears: Our fears that we might impulsively commit a crime, our fears of the police, our fears of becoming the victim of a madman, and of course our fears of disappointing our mothers.

Speaking of mothers, you wouldn't want to disappoint Norma Bates would you? I thought not, so see the film, before you make mother really angry....

Psycho (1960)
Alfred Hitchcock is definitely the most legendery film director of all time. His work is beyond amazing, without a doubt. Psycho is among the many greats of Alfred Hitchcock and will remain a classic.

Starting off in Phoenix, Arizona on Friday, December 11th, 1960. The beautiful MARION CRANE (played by Janet Leigh) has rented a posh hotel room with her boyfriend, SAM LOOMIS (played by John Gavin), during her lunchbreak. Marion has to get back to work, while Sam has to get back to Fairvelle. Marion gets back to work a little late, but lucks out in knowing that her boss, GEORGE LOWERY (played by Vaughn Taylor) is late himself, for he is in a meeting. In comes George Lowery, following a businessman named, Tom Cassidy (played by Frank Albertson). He walks over to Marion and begins telling her about his 18-year old daughter tying the knot. He hands Marion $40,000, the money Mr. Cassidy will be using to buy his daughter a house as a wedding present. George invites Tom into his office and tells Marion to bank the $40,000 until the following Monday. Marion asks George for permission to take the rest of the day off because of her supposed headache and goes on her way.

While in her bedroom, Marion packs a suitcase and changes clothes. She so temptingly stares at the $40,000 and tries to restrain herself, but not for long, for, in one quick movement, she steals the $40,000 and heads out to her car. Seems as though that Marion is on her way to Fairvelle to see Sam. While at a red light, she notices George crossing in front of her. Unfortunately, he notices Marion, but Marion, as worried as she is about having being noticed, continues on her way. She drives into dusk until pulling over to sleep. The next morning, Marion is awakened by a suspicious cop. She nervously talks to the cop and goes on her way, as the cop follows her. She pulls into a dealership and requests to trade in her car for another. She makes her decision rather quickly and pays for it with her car, plus $700.

She drives on her through the morning, afternoon, and into dusk. Suddenly, it's starts to storm. She gets off a main road and finds The Bates Motel sitting quietly off the highway as if it were hidden from it. She gets out and sees nobody in the office. She looks up and finds a sinister looking house and notices, through a window, an elderly woman walking about. She beeps her car horn until someone comes running out. He finally comes to Marion's aide and takes her inside. The man who took Marion inside the office is NORMAN BATES (played by Anthony Perkins), a seemingly-sweet young man, who owns both the house and motel. He checks Marion in to cabin No. 1 because 'it's closer in case you want anything'. Marion says she wants sleep more than anything, except maybe some food. Norman invites her to the house for some sandwiches. As he goes off to make the sandwiches, Marion hears a woman, viciously yelling at Norman. The woman is the elderly woman Marion saw and it turns out that the woman is Norman's mother. Norman yells back and comes back into Marion's room. The two have supper in Norman's polar, which is located in the back of the office. The polar is decorated with stuffed birds. Turns out that Norman's hobby is taxidermy. They have a brief conversation, leading to Marion wanting to get some sleep. She goes off into her cabin and gets ready to take a shower. She steps in and begins washing herself. While in the middle of her shower, the curtain opens to reveal a dark figure of an elderly woman. Marion turns around and screams in fright as she is murdered in cold blood. The woman disappears and Norman comes in to erase the crime.

A week later, a young woman runs into Sam Loomis' store and demands to talk to Sam. Sam comes out and walks over to the young woman. The young woman is LILA CRANE (played by Vera Miles), Marion's curious sister. She tells Sam what Marion had done the Friday before. As Sam and Lila are talking about it, a private investigator by the name of MILTON ARBOGAST (played by Martin Balsam) comes in and begins talking to Sam and Lila about Marion. He goes off to investigate and comes across Norman and The Bates Motel. He questions Norman, but claims that Marion stayed overnight and left early the next morning. Arbogast then sees Norman's mother and asks to question her, but Norman refuses. Arbogast calls Lila and Sam, gives them the news and goes into the house to question Norman's mother, only to be killed by her.

Lila and Sam have been waiting for Arbogast to return for three hours. Sam drives up there, but finds no Arbogast, but only Norman's mother. He drives back to Lila and they visit SHERIFF AL CHAMBERS (played by John McIntire). Al and his wife, ELIZA CHAMBERS listen to Lila and Sam's story of Marion's disappearance and of Arbogast's disappearance. Sam says that when he went up there, he too noticed Norman's mother. Both Al and Eliza make them aware of the death of Norman's mother that happened ten years earlier. Sam is certain of seeing Norman's mother in the house. The next morning, Lila and Sam drive up to the motel and decide to check in as man and wife, in order to search the motel. They are checked in by Norman. They settle in and begin searching Cabin No.1 and find that it was occupied by Marion. Sam tells Lila to take the job of questioning Mrs. Bates, while he distracts Norman. Lila enters Norman's fruitcellar, only to see that Mrs. Bates is dead, as the real killer is finally revealed. If you're wise, you'll take showers with the curtains open forever. ... Read more

Reviews (17)

The Statue of Liberty Will Never Be the Same Again
Sixty years since it's initial theatrical release, Alfred Hitchcock's Saboteur has unfortunately aged into an obviously dated, formalistically predictable, and slightly uneven innocent man thriller that still entertains only due to luminous directorial touches of the Master of Suspense. Starring Robert Cummings, Priscilla Lane, and Otto Krueger (playing the devilishly unpatriotic Charles Tobin), the film does boast a superior supporting cast, numerous Hitchcock narrative touches, many typically overacted performances, a reliably schmaltzy romance, many instances of incredibly defined suspense, and an undeniably brilliant ending Hitchcock Set piece that definitely rates up their with Vertigo's Church Tower, North By Northwest's Mount Rushmore, Foreign Correspondent's Windmill, or any of the Bird's attack sequences.

Though apparently Hitchcock's first truly American Innocent Man chase picture, Saboteur remains one of Hitchcock's least enduring of his 40's thrillers. Regrettably for the film's appeal, Saboteur showcases American characters, American landscapes, and routinely American clichés that just don't mesh as well as they aught to in a Hitchcock forum. Hitchcock did eventually direct the Ultimate American Chase Picture with North By Northwest (1959) starring Cary Grant, Eve Marie Saint, James Mason, and Martin Landau, but Saboteur ultimately remains as a colorfully memorable side note in the Master's exemplary career as a filmmaker.

Recommended for fans or students of Hitchcock, 40's Cinema, and WW2 propaganda films. Can't wait to see the Saboteur on DVD.

This is GREAT not GOOD!
Saboteur is pure Hitchcock but most people always say that it is uneven but it is just the opposite! The climax and the ball scene are purely magic. Just watch the sweat and stuttering Cummings shows as he and Lane try to convince a group of well to do party goers that a plot is out on their lives and america as we know it! Cummings and Lane are so at ease that their acting seems effortless! The plot is Hitch all the way with turns and twists that you never expect coming! I have to say the opening alone is worth the price Hitchcock was a technical genius and by placing the screen so far from the action it makes this wartime thriller even more vast and apealing ,making the viewer seem miniscule to the plot and the action on the screen larger than life, genius! This film has it all the romance, fast paced action, and nail bitting action we have all grown to love from a Hitchcock movie. The Statue Of Liberty climax, leaves your heart in your mouth! Little by little, Cummings looses his gripe on a suspects sleeve and the threads pop, stitch by stitch until...

Good.
'Saboteur' is yet another fantasic mystery from Alfred Hitchcock. Although I don't remember the storyline too much, I remember liking it enough to give it a four-star review.

Wartime Fear on the Silver Screen...
Amidst World War II Barry Kane (Robert Cummings) gets falsely accused for blowing up an aircraft factory on the west coast, however, he has one clue which he intends to follow up on. This clue takes him to to the deserts of the United States where he finds reluctant help through a blind man and his daughter Patricia (Priscilla Lane). It seems like the clues lead toward the Big Apple where Barry intends to find the saboteur who really blew up the airplane plant. Saboteur is a suspenseful film that was made during World War II when there was an actual fear for saboteurs, traitors, and spies. This fear must have enhanced the suspense that the film provides, and it is still a thrilling cinematic experience that leaves the audience agape from the beginning to the end.

a great and well worth seeing film!
This is a great film. It's vert adventurous, dramatic, and romantic. Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane make a lovely couple. It's a great film. ... Read more

Reviews (31)

BLOW OUT-- another De Palma masterpiece!!
While it may be deriative of other films (Hitchcock's REAR WINDOW and even De Palma's own BODY DOUBLE and DRESSED TO KILL), this still stands as one of his best.

A movie sound man (John Travolta in one of his best performances), inadvertantly records an accident while recording effects for a new film-- one that kills the governor. He saves the other passenger, a hooker (Nancy Allen in another great performance that reminds one of her hooker character in DRESSED TO KILL) who tries to help him solve the case.

Meanwhile, a killer is on the loose, killing off Nancy Allen look-alikes in a most brutal fashion-- strangling them, and then stabbing a picture of the liberty bell on their stomachs. Travolta and Allen try to put the pieces of the puzzle together by putting together a film of the accident, which is purposefully erased to make it look like Travolta is full of crap.

The killer calls Allen to meet her at a subway so she can give him the tapes of the accident, disgusing himself as a TV reporter. Travolta figures out a way to rig a microphone onto Allen so he can hear everything they are saying from his car. When he hears the guys voice, he knows it is not that reporter, and he races to find them before it is too late...

In some ways, this is a very complex, disturbing, suspenseful, and often confusing thriller. But that's that way it was meant to be. And you'll see that, at the end, the pieces of the puzzle all really do fit together (despite a very sad ending, you'll figure it out, through the tears).

MGM does a great job on the presentation on BLOW OUT, giving you a choice of widescreen or fullscreen on a two sided disc. Unfortunately, the only extra is the theatrical trailer, and that is a major disappointment on the issue of the DVD. Both CARRIE and DRESSED TO KILL got documentaries and tons of extras, and one wonders why BLOW OUT couldn't have, but what you have to realize is this: those two films were special editions, while BLOW OUT is not. It was the same thing with the original CARRIE DVD-- the only extra was a trailer-- until they released it in a special edition version.

Frankly, I think all of De Palma's films are worth owning on DVD. These are his horror titles I recommend that are available on DVD: SISTERS, PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE, OBSESSION, CARRIE, THE FURY, DRESSED TO KILL, BLOW OUT, BODY DOUBLE, and RAISING CAIN.

One of DePalma's best films
Brian DePalma has been (sometimes correctly) accused of manufacturing little more than brilliant pastiche (which is another way of damning him with faint praise). I confess to be as guilty as anyone of this practice, finding films like Dressed to Kill slick, fun, but ultimately less works of art than of skillful post-modern artifice.

Blow Out is a haunting exception. Yes, it has clear antecedents in Antonioni's Blowup and Coppola's paranoid classic, The Conversation. But it is unfair to judge Blow Out by its similarities to these films. One need only pay minimal attention to realize DePalma has his own goals in mind. No mere retread of the standard paranoid political thriller, Blow Out is a bravura exercise in nuanced, multi-layered story telling.

Low budget movie soundman Jack Terry (John Travolta) is in the right place at the wrong time - while out recording some nature sounds for a B slasher flick (in which DePalma seems to poke fun at some of his own earlier work), he catches the sounds of an auto accident. In an incident reminiscent of Chappaquiddick, a car driven by a presidential candidate suffers a tire blowout and careens off a nearby bridge. The candidate dies, but Terry manages to rescue his "lady friend", a party girl named Sally (Nancy Allen). Key to the story is his recording, which seems to contain a double-bang - perhaps the blowout preceded by a gunshot? Naturally the story leads Terry into a web of intrigue featuring slimy political operatives, corrupt cops, and nefarious CIA henchmen.

Blow Out's visual style has drawn criticism from some quarters as being too flashy. Ridiculous! The camera movements are precise and deliberate; designed to communicate story points with great efficiency. The visual technique draws no more attention to itself than anything directed by Scorsese. Raging Bull (released about the same time) is far more "flashy" and nobody complains about it.

The DVD itself lacks any special features, but the film transfer is vivid and detailed, with good color fidelity (essential, since the art-direction is a major "star"). It is also double-sided, with a pan-scan presentation on one side, and enhanced widescreen on the other. Don't even bother with the pan-scan; DePalma and cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond's compositions are edge-to-edge, making full use of the Panavision frame.

Blow Out is not perfect. Some of the dialogue is contrived and sophomoric. Assassin Burke's (John Lithgow) golf pants in one scene make him look silly when he should seem sinister. But, on balance, John Travolta's solid performance and Brian DePalma's skilled direction more than make up for such lapses. With Blow Out DePalma reaches deeper than usual - with a disquieting sub-plot about guilt, unrequited love, and the futility of seeking redemption. Its conclusion is the punch line to a bitter, existential joke. Read closely, it's a scathing commentary on the Hollywood film industry itself, and the vampiric way it often feeds on very real, sometimes very sad, lives.

Great, but Annoying at the Same Time
Having heard before hand, that Brian DePalma's "Blow Out" was like a tribute to Antonioni's "Blow Up", i was definately intreagued. "Blow Up" is one of the greatest art films I've ever seen, and knowing that tributes are never as good as the original, i knew not to expect too much.

Basically, "Blow Out" involves a sound man (Travolta) recording sounds in a park at night, when a speeding car has what seems to be a blow out, crashes through a fence and into a lake. Travolta is able to rescue the woman, but the man behind the wheel was dead before he could be helped. Upon listening to the tape he'd made that night, Travolta recovers what he believes to be two sounds. Naturally, he can't help but get involved, and try to solve the case.

I Enjoyed Blow Out for the obvious reasons; good acting, complex script, lots of well-drawn suspense. And, if you've never seen or liked Antonioni's "Blow Up", the review can end here for you. You'll probably enjoy this version. Despite my complaints in the next paragraph, i really liked this movie.

However having seen and enjoyed "Blow Up", it looked to me like Brian De Palma did what everyone was tempted to do, but that no one should have done. Made "Blow Up" a Hollywood movie. "Blow Up" actually has a lot a great suspense and intreague, but the end is sure do disappoint those who need a clean-cut ending, which is to say, most theatre goers. Basically, they smushed the plot of "Blow Up" down about 30 minutes, added some more murders and people skulking around shadowy rooms, and then gave it a conclusive ending.

Needless to say, it's frusterating to see a great piece of art turned into a decent Hollywood movie. But hey, if you like a good suspense thriller, this works.

nice paranoia thriller
John Travolta plays this sound effects guy and then something happens..he is then abyssed into a web of thrills and paranoia....and its Directed by Brian DePalma(Scarface, Femme Fatale, Snake Eyes)..though it gets boring with all the circling of the cameras and all that but its a great thriller...a B effort from Travolta leading him up to Pulp Fiction I'd say.

ONE OF DE PALMA'S FINEST
'Blow Out' is one of my favourite De Palma films, right after 'Dressed To Kill'. John travolta and Nancy Allen are perfect. I adore these two actors and there's something alluring about these two characters they play. De Palma's use of direction he takes the film is superb and the musical score is astounding. A must see for DePalma fans.
By Justine Ryan ... Read more

Amazon.com

Arguably the best and most personal of director David Cronenberg's early films, The Brood is an extremely unsettling horror film about familial disintegration and emotional trauma taken to a monstrous extreme. Art Hindle (Black Christmas) stars as a man embroiled in a bitter custody struggle with his estranged wife (Samantha Eggar), who is undergoing therapy at psychiatrist Oliver Reed's controversial institute. Reed's treatment causes his patients to give form to their inner conflicts, and Eggar--whose psyche is at the boiling point from childhood abuse as well as the custody trial--creates a horde of homicidal humanoid children who enact bloody revenge on anyone who has threatened their "mother." Cronenberg's first feature with name actors and composer Howard Shore has its share of gruesome moments, but the film's subtext--how emotional violence impacts a family--is its most chilling aspect. --Paul Gaita ... Read more

Reviews (20)

The Good Mother
Director David Cronenberg is known for bieng a bit of a maverick behind the camera. His films run the spectrum of either being really good, like the remake of The Fly and Dead Ringers, to the really awful Naked Lunch. Fotrunately, 1979's The Brood, comes in at the upper end of my scale. Unlike most of Cronenberg's other horror flicks, this film has a bit more of an emotional subtext, to go along with its scares.

The stress of a child custody battle between Nola (Samantha Eggar) and Frank Carveth, (Art Hindle) forces Nola to seek treatment from contoversial Dr. Hal Raglan (Oliver Reed). Thanks to regression therapy and other "treatments", his patient soon discovers that a hidden childhood trauma, forces all of her inner conflicts to take the form of a group of murderous child-humanoids. These children will do anything to protect their "Mother".

The film boasts great prefomances by Reed, who's effective at making Raglan-not a typical villian-and Eggar, who really is convincing as Nola-a woman on the edge of insanity. A metaphor for family dynamics, The Brood, has enough psychological and real scares to keep you on edge the entire time. Composer Howard Shore's underscore puts the icing on the cake.

The theatrcal trailer is the only extra on the DVD. Here's hoping that the powers that be release a special edition someday. As one of Cronenberg's best from early on in his career, it deserves it. For now--this version will have to do. Recommended

Rage Made Manifest...
David Cronenberg is one of the most under-rated horror directors of all time. This is one of his forgotten movies. People remember The Fly, Scanners, etc. But THE BROOD gets lost in the terror-shuffle. This is a scary movie! Written and directed by Cronenberg, THE BROOD is a tale of disturbing psychological forces unleashed. Dr. Raglan (Oliver Reed) is using his faddish "psychoplasmics" techniques to "help" a compound full of nuerotics. Among them is Nola (Samantha Eggar), the estranged wife of the skeptical Frank (Art Hindle). When their daughter Candice returns from a visit with mom, Frank finds her back covered in bruises, bite-marks,and scratches. Infuriated by this, he seeks to keep Candice away from Nola and Dr. Raglan. Meanwhile, Raglan's methods of role-playing are bearing strange fruit, as Nola releases her rage toward her mother and father who abused / neglected her as a child. Her rage is somehow made tangible in the form of a "brood" of murderous, mutant children! This results in the bludgeoning deaths of both her mom and pop. Frank and the police are baffled when one of the creatures is autopsied and found to be lacking a navel. The dread mounts when Candice is snatched from her school classroom, leaving her teacher dead on the floor. Where is Candice? What will Frank do to get her back? What is the dark secret of THE BROOD? Highly recommended...

cronenberg; hollywood's challenging pair of brass knuckles
in the midst of a countless crop of directors lacking in personality or vision, there is david cronenberg.
he has, to this day, remained obsessivley true to a relentless, aesthetic vision.
this film and rabid are the two early masterpieces.
brood is gruesome and unsetletting, about as subtle as a pair of brass knuckles, but it is a highly personal film with many layered messages and, like all great art, it challenges you.
rise to the occasion.

An unsettling but thoroughly moving piece from Cronenberg
It is said by the great man himself that this is the closest he has ever got to making a sort of autobiographical film " and I don't want to come any closer " he feels. And in some respects you have to agree with him. The acting all round is superb and unlike in many of Cronenberg's films where the actors are almost wooden in their performance, none of them here are wooden in their performances. There's a sense of realism in this which you won't get from any other Cronenberg film. There's always a creepy sense " of what might happen " than the " wham bam you're dead " sort of horror movie

You don't really need me to tell you the story of the film since many others have commented on it. But I will say this is that Oliver Reed plays his part well. There's always an underlying threat of menace in his voice even when he's trying to convince Frank that he's on his side ( although you probably wouldn't think it at the time )

And as for those side effects that these people have while in his therapy are truly one of the most revolting things you'll ever see. Even though this film is menacingly restrained yet emotional, it'll take a strong stomach to see one of the more gruesome scenes of the film ( although it ain't as gruesome as Scanners or Videodrome )

However this is a film that has to be watched purely being for the reason that this maybe the only time that Cronenberg makes a highly personal movie.

An abused girl's traumatic experiences...
When a man picks up his daughter from a weekend visits with her mother who is institutionalized in a private clinic he notices bruises and bite marks on her back. This is seems to be linked to the psychiatrist at the mother's clinic, who opposes the idea of removing the daughter from the visits. The father then attempts to prevent the mother from seeing the daughter, but finds out that he will most likely lose custody of the daughter if he continues to press the issue into court. Squeezed in between a rock and hard place the father begins to gather evidence that could aid him in a possible custody battle in court. However, this is interrupted by the mysterious murder of the daughter's grandmother. The Brood has an interesting idea, but the story falls flat as the characters make dim and predictable choices. In the end, Cronenberg does not create a story of disturbing suspense as he did in Dead Ringers (1988) and Spider (2002), but he does create a story that equals many other poor horror films. ... Read more

Reviews (75)

One of Carpenters best ¿ a cult horror classic.
I remember seeing this in the theatre when it first came out and there is no mistaking that this is one terrifying horror movie, not because Carpenter can knock up a load of blood on the screen but because it has brains and all the hallmarks of classic Carpenter suspense. If you are a Carpenter fan then you probably know that his earlier shoestring budget works are better than his recent big budget crap fests - The Thing, Assault on Precinct 13, Halloween and The Fog are what makes Carpenter great. Prince of Darkness is no exception to that rule.

The film concerns a secret Christian sect, called the Brotherhood of Sleep, who have kept something evil locked up in one of their churches downstairs in a large glass vessel. When the final brother dies he passes on the secret to Father Loomis (Donald Pleasence) who in turn decided to call in some physics students from the local college to find out what is in the vessel. Soon the students find themselves up against an evil that is waiting to be reborn, and also up against themselves as the evil takes hold of them (sort of turning people in zombies that spray evil water out from their mouths).

The single most amazing thing about the Prince of Darkness is the whole atmosphere. There is very little blood at the start and yet the feelings that are evoked by the wonderful set designs, music and lighting will have the hair on the back on your head sticking up. When the blood does come it is not as shocking, however there is one scene of a dead man outside standing in beetles that gave me sleepless nights for weeks. Imagine that thing standing at the end of your bed at night!

This is not just a horror film either. There is lots of quasi-science going on, including theories on things like tachyon particles that can transmit messages through time (in fact the Brotherhood of Sleep all the have the same dream). So in reality this movie's genre is a horror/sci-fi rather than just horror.

Although the film has certainly dated, it is still leaps and bounds ahead of the horror we put out these days. We like horror films that think a little and Carpenter used to do that for us. Oh how times have changed for this once great author, but let's not be too judgemental because of what he has already given us. Certainly Prince of Darkness ranks up there as one of the tenses and weirdest horror films of all time. Alice Cooper also has a cameo as a possessed wino! Now how can you say no to seeing that!

Bottom line is to let this film take you. Sure it is nearly twenty years old, but it is just so damn original that you have to give the man top marks. A cult classic in every sense of the word and certainly DVD ownership is a must for early Carpenter fans.

As a note Screenwriter "Martin Quatermass" is actually John Carpenter.

Almost Brilliant
This movie nearly proved to be John Carpenter's transcendant masterpiece, but fell terribly short. The premise, concept and storyline could have been triumphant in the history of sci-horror, but it looks like Carpenter rushed through this one. Maybe it was fidgety actors (what the heck was Alice Cooper supposed to be doing, anyway?), low budget, or a series of terrible hangovers that led him from brilliant concept to underdeveloped cinema? I don't know. I'm a huge fan of John Carpenter, from Halloween to The Thing to Big Trouble in Little China. I rushed to the theater to see this one, and sat slack-jawed at the terrible acting, stupid dialogue and poor script. On the other hand, I also realized that if Carpenter or any other decent director decided to go back, rewrite this one and do it right, it could prove to be the best sci-horror film ever. Rent it before you buy it; even the hard-core Carpenter fans may be disappointed.

Excuse me..do you have Satan in a can?
Since the other reviewers have spoiled the plotline (roughly), I will limit my review of this movie to a brief synopsis and try to keep the criticisms on a creative level.

Plot Synopsis: There is an unknown entity contained within a unusual container that has been secretly kept by a Catholic Brotherhood of Monks for several centuries. Understanding that the entity is about to break out of the container, the church is forced to call in a team of physicists to study the container and said entity.

The first hour of the movie blows your mind! Using scientific method to study the container is a a stroke of genius. The viewer is kept on edge as several facts are uncovered through analytic methods such as carbon dating. The plot thickens as the container proves to be of "alien" origin and it's contents produce quantifiable amounts of energy. Furthermore, the researchers even determine that tachyon-based radio transmissions from the future are infuencing thier dreams (don't ask).

All that leads to viewer to the point where you're thinking "damn, this is way cool!". Religious artifacts meet modern science, Very deep and very original. Something like the carbon dating of the shroud of turin maybe. However...

then...then...the movie becomes just another splatterhouse bloodfest. Cliches taken straight out of the Exorcist (ie: pentagrams, demonic possession, 666's, etc.) displace the original "scientific approach" to the problem. People are maimed, massive blood is spilled and all the scientific equipment becomes haywire. Everybody dies and the science vs. the Devil is thoughrougly discarded along with the effect of the first hour of the movie. (Stephen King did the same thing in Rose Red and it disgusts me!)

I have to give the movie only one star for my conviction that John Carpenter took the easy way out and anyone can do that. It was very uncreative of him to do this and it spoiled the movie utterly. It's insulting to anyone with an IQ over 60! Damnit, if I want to see people get thier heads lopped off, I'll go and get Friday the 13th or Nighmare on Elm Street. Why..oh Why this elaborate scientific setup if you're going to turn it into just another slasher movie?

Creative criticism: I understand that this movie was not Ghostbusters. But, oh, would I have loved to seen all that scientific analyisis of that container save the day. Let's see a movie for a change where science meets the Devil and wins! Or at least puts up a good fight.

Overrated baloney
There wasn't an original idea in this film. To hear it referred to as scary, or worse yet, a masterpiece, curdles the yogurt I just ate.

From the nonsense espoused in the physics class, to the priest begging the physics teacher to help him, to students who are "masters" but don't really know their subject matter well (and what that means is that the creators of this film didn't do their research), to the first few pages of a several thousand page book divining all of the secrets we needed to know about what was happening, to (once again) poor homeless beggars being mind controlled...I was literally cringing and laughing through the entire movie.

Not to mention the truly horrific writing. "You will not be saved by the Holy Ghost. You will not be saved by the god Plutonium. In fact, YOU WILL NOT BE SAVED!" *raucous laughter*

Apparently good films about Satan are difficult to make. The Exorcist, The Omen, and Rosemary's Baby are a few on a short list of notable exceptions. Those movies are fresh, they move quickly, they have a purpose, and are actually scary.

What was frightening about this movie? Unless people are frightened merely by the mention of "Old Scratch", I am hard pressed to find anything scary about it. Common sense is tossed out the window within the first twenty minutes, and once common sense disappears, so does fear.

If I were heading up that "expedition", the very first thing I would do would be to look into the creation of a vessel in which to place the container that held the prebiotic fluids, but that would still allow me to study it. That would have been prudent, as Satan was inside, and the only lock on the device was from the inside. I would have preferred to have a bit more control over it.

If this is a masterpiece, then so is You Got Served.

Underrated Masterpiece!
An ancient evil has awakened, and it is in liquid form! Father Loomis (Donald Pleasance) receives a key from another, now deceased, priest, and with this key opens himself up to a whole new realm of knowledge that the Roman Catholic church has kept secret for quite some time now. Father Loomis enlists the aid of a brilliant physicist, Prof. Howard Birack (Victor Wong), and some of his graduate students to help him unravel this archaic mystery. Without knowing exactly what they are getting themselves into, several experts in the fields of chemistry, biology, and ancient texts set out to investigate the undisclosed enigma.

Deep within the sanctuary of a run down church lies a dirty little secret few know about. The Prince of Darkness, son of the devil himself, is being held captive in liquid form, and is guarded by only a few lucky priests and nuns. However, the time has come for the Prince to awaken and bring forth his father to wreak havoc. As the Prince, and thus his father, gains his strength, many of the more weak-minded are turned to do the biding of the dark lord. The zombie and bug counts rise as the plot thickens, and this group of science professors and students are in a race against time to stop the forces of evil from inflicting their ill will on the unsuspecting public.

Unfortunately, this film tends to be hidden in the shadows behind Carpenter's more famous "Halloween" and "The Thing." However, that does make this film all that much more of a gem. This is truly one of his great cinematic accomplishments, complete with his own score, a great cast, and stellar effects for the time. The characters are fairly well developed, yet Carpenter manages to accomplish this without dwelling on this aspect of the film. Instead, he submerges the viewer into the intrigue and story line, which there is plenty of.

The plot is completely original, which is something hard to come by in this particular genre. Though Carpenter enlists certain elements that may be stereotypical, such as the Romero-esque zombies and the notion of all-encompassing evil attempting to over-take good, Carpenter adds his own unique twists. One thing that's absolutely superb with regards to this film is that it never devolves into a gore or suspense filled vacuum, completely devoid of meaning. Hidden within the blatant horror facets are religious undertones as well as a love story. Though it may seem that this would not work well for a film of this genre, Carpenter pulls it off as only a horror master could. Interspersed throughout the film one can also find excellently cheesy comic relief, mostly in the form of poor jokes presented by Walter (Dennis Dun).

All in all this movie happens to be one of my favorite films, by one of my favorite directors. Thought the DVD is completely bereft of extras, I highly recommend this film to any fan of the genre! ... Read more

Amazon.com

More than a few critics hailed Spider-Man 2 as "the best superhero movie ever," and there's no compelling reason to argue--thanks to a bigger budget, better special effects, and a dynamic, character-driven plot, it's a notch above Spider-Man in terms of emotional depth and rich comic-book sensibility. Ordinary People Oscar®-winner Alvin Sargent received screenplay credit, and celebrated author and comic-book expert Michael Chabon worked on the story, but it's director Sam Raimi's affinity for the material that brings Spidey 2 to vivid life. When a fusion experiment goes terribly wrong, a brilliant physicist (Alfred Molina) is turned into Spidey's newest nemesis, the deranged, mechanically tentacled "Doctor Octopus," obsessed with completing his experiment and killing Spider-Man (Tobey Maguire) in the process. Even more compelling is Peter Parker's urgent dilemma: continue his burdensome, lonely life of crime-fighting as Spider-Man, or pursue love and happiness with Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst)? Molina's outstanding as a tragic villain controlled by his own invention, and the action sequences are nothing less than breathtaking, but the real success of Spider-Man 2 is its sense of priorities. With all of Hollywood's biggest and best toys at his disposal, Raimi and his writers stay true to the Marvel mythology, honoring Spider-Man creators Stan Lee and Steve Ditko, and setting the bar impressively high for the challenge of Spider-Man 3. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (251)

Setting the Bar Even Higher
This couldn't possibly have been a better movie than it is. The original Spider-man was an astounding achievement in adapting a comic book super-hero to the screen in a way that could reach both fans and non-fans alike. Spider-man 2 continues that tradition.

Two years after the events of the first movie, Peter Parker is still saving the day as Spider-man, while at the same time shirking his other responsibilities and trying to maintain and ordinary life. As he tries harder and harder, he comes to realize that for Spider-man, there is no ordinary life. He's failing college classes, losing his job, and not keeping up with his friends and family.

Things get rougher when Harry Osborn's new ticket to progress has an accident. Professor Otto Octavius demonstrates the ability of his fusion device that will generate new, reusable power when something goes wrong. His additional limbs that were used to manipulate the fusion environment have been fused to his own spine.

While the ads focus heavily on Doc Oc, the real plot here is Peter Parker's dilemna. Doc Oc might have seemed like an after-thought had not the writers kept Harry closely involved with Peter, reminding him again and again how he wants to kill Spider-man for what he did to his father.

I don't blame the critics who dislike the movie. For most of it, Peter is in misery, as his life spirals down the toilet due to the conflicting sides of Spider-man and Peter Parker. There's humor dispersed evenly throughout to make the experience a little lighter. It's a hard movie to watch because of this, as Peter has to decide between what he wants and the responsibility he has, and even I was a little uncomfortable as his suffering continued.

But Sam Raimi's never been one to leave the audience without a pay-off, either. His love for the material continues to show as it did in the first movie, making Spider-man 2 even more visually dynamic and dramatically endearing than its predecessor. Bruce Campbell also makes a cameo, but people probably guessed that months before it was announced, and that was still months before the movie was released.

The musical score is as spectacular as before, and Danny Elfman wisely maintains the theme he composed for the first movie. Rather than simply supporting the movie or carrying it, the music works with it, something rarely accomplished in film.

I honestly can't think of something negative to say about this movie. I don't think I could have been more pleased. The goal set after Spider-man was a hit was to make the second one even better, and the film-makers succeeded. I can only wonder if they will be able to do the same for the third after such an excellent film as this.

"Isn't it about time someone saved your life?"
I knew it was going to be good, but I had no idea it was going to be THIS good. "Spider-Man 2" is everything a sequel of it's caliber should add up too: better special effects, breath-taking action sequences and a deeper story-line. "Spider-Man 2" succeeds at respecting and building off of the story established in the first movie. Two years later, and Peter Parker is struggling to keep his head above water. His obligations to his alter-ego, Spider-Man, keep him from holding a steady job, making ends meet, keeping in touch with family and friends, and most importantly: being with the love of his life, Mary Jane Watson. As Peter starts to doubt himself, his abilities start waning away, and he finds himself conflicted and forced to make the choice of saving the world, or living a happy life. To make matters worse, a new super-villian is on a the loose by the name of Dr. Octopus, a respected scientist controlled by his own invention. The stakes in this movie are raised really high and the result is a more powerful and gripping film than the first one. So, yes, "Spider-Man 2" is better than the original, which is quite an accomplishment considering the standards it set. Sam Raimi's vision and passion for the material oozes through with each scene. Raimi is easily the most underrated director of the moment. Each scene is played to perfection, and all of the actors have grown into their characters a bit more, especially Rosemary Harris (Aunt May) and James Franco (Harry), both of whom give much more dimension to seemingly peripherral characters. Tobey Maguire shines through in this one, with an improved performance (looking and acting less and less like Keanu Reeves kid-brother) and Kirsten Dunst is fantastic as always. Considering this is a monstrous Hollywood block-buster of the grandest sorts and will no doubt break records throughout the summer, "Spider-Man 2" is intelligent and fun at the same time. Everyone who has interest in it will walk away happy, fully satisfied -- and most importantly -- salivating for what the inevitable "Spider-Man 3" will bring us.

a 13-year-old review
I love this movie i will buy it and i hope you buy it too Tobey Maguire Returns in this awsome action movie. All the same stars return with a new star who is Alfred Molina a great person to do the part in this movie a great action movie that all generations most likely will love i saw it in theaters 2 times and a third time tommarrow so i again this is a great movie just like the first one even better. I think this is an awsome experiance for you i recomened it to anyone!

Spider-Man 2 Pretty Cool Sequel despite it's flaws
Tobey McGuire returns in this special effects loaded sequel however, I unlike some fans was disappointed with this sequel.

Toby McGuire once again stars as Peter Parker/Spiderman, now confronting a new enemy Dr. Octopus (Alfred Molina).

The special effects were awesome, no doubt about that, however unlike the first one, the second half is pure nonsense and I was left unsatisfied.

Alfred Molina as Dr. Octopus is tremendous, just like Willem Dafoe's characters as "Green Goblin" we see his rise to power.

(Spoilers) Yet Raimi's dumb writers in the second half of the film have him playing as a patsy.

Spiderman clashes with Dr. Octopus several times and actually the fights are fair, however Dr. Octopus eventually gets Mary Jane (Dunst, who really doesn't do much as far as acting) and uses that to his advantage while creating a new weapon.

Tobey as Spiderman again like the first film is not a strong presence, yet I know some nerds are trying to hype him up to be like Christopher Reeve but please give me a break. He will never have the same charisma as him.

Alfred Molina is great as Dr. Octopus, but the story seems to go nowhere and we get the same crap from the same movie, like Parker, still being the nerd recluse who is unable to go after what he wants, though this is hilarious in retrospect, but then becomes tiring.

The special effects and action are what saves "Spiderman2" from being a disappointment as far acting and plot go, and that wasn't a surprise was it.

Still though I was left wanting more, and the cheap ending and the way Dr. Octopus out of the thin blue sky has a change of hear for not killing "Spiderman" was pathetic though, that wouldn't have happened really, still I know there will be many nerds seeing the movie 10 times and saying it was the greatest movie ever, but they aint kidding anybody.

"Spiderman 2" is what it is a great special effects bonanza with some great action scenes, but not great character development and predictable plot lines.

Caught in a web of indecision...
It's really hard to say that I did or didn't like this movie; I mean, on the one hand, it surpasses the original in effects, storyline, character development, everything. But as they say, too much of a good thing is bad, and that's part of my feeling about this film.

The story, unlike the original, instead focuses on the negatives of being Spider-Man; Peter Parker is struggling to balance a life of his own, but Spidey always gets in the way. He even forgets his own birthday! And it also shows the effects it has on his family and friends, especially Mary Jane. And to top it all off, Doctor Otto Octavius, a brilliant scientist, is turned into Doctor Octopus, complete with four mechanical arms attached to his body, thanks to a failed fusion experiment.

The battles between Spidey and his foe were terrific, unsurpassed by most action films to date. But I found myself wanting more of these scenes...in the end, you really sympathize with Peter, but I just wish we could've seen our favorite webslinger in action more. But at least the ending was good (left WIDE open for Spider-Man 3.) ... Read more

Description

A brilliant and powerful psychological thriller about a deeply disturbed boy, Spider, who ‘sees’ his father brutally murder his mother and replace her with a prostitute. Convinced they plan to murder him next, Spider hatches an insane plan, which he carries through to tragic effect. Years later, his delusional account of his past begins to unravel and Spider spirals into fresh madness. Starring: Academy Award® Nominee Ralph Fiennes (Red Dragon,Schindler’s List,The English Patient), Golden Globe Winner Miranda Richardson (Enchanted April, Damage), Gabriel Byrne (The Usual Suspects, Enemy of the State), Golden Globe Winner Lynn Redgrave (Shine, Gods and Monsters), Directed by award winning David Cronenberg (eXistenZ, Crash). ... Read more

Reviews (49)

Spider pulls you into it's web.
Spider is a fantastic film. Although slow moving, it's showcases some superb acting and Cronenburg's grittiness, while keeping you filled with anticipation and curiosity. Ralph Fiennes, in his best performance to date plays Spider a mumbling schizophrenic who can be seen picking up random bits of trash or putting his hands down his pants to pull out a sock where he keeps his note. Spider recalls his past, particularly the relationship between his mother (played brilliantly by Miranda Richardson - who plays multiple roles in the film) and his father (played by Gabriel Byrne) while he was a small boy. Young spider is played by Bradley Hall a boy who's trying to deal with the confusing world around him. It's a remarkable performance for this young actor's film debut. The film's quite thought-provoking and ends up playing out like a mystery, to see how a young boy became the Spider he is today.

Realistic representation of madness.
This is a disturbing film because its depiction of madness conveys an astonishing realism. Director, David Cronenberg, (Crash, Naked Lunch and The Fly) has managed to merge the leading character's disquieting mind with the audience. This is no small task considering the subject matter, and the fact that the protagonist is suffering from intense delusions concerning his past. We see through the eyes of Spider - the memories of his childhood, though as the tale unfolds, we begin to distrust his memories and see that they blend with fantasy. The film is a study on the mechanics of repression, and the psychological notion that memory cannot be trusted.

Spider (Ralph Fiennes) arrives at a halfway house somewhere in London. Mrs Wilkinson, (Lynne Redgrave) meets him at the door. This woman is everything you would expect from a proprietor of a house for newly released mental patients. It is here that we begin to learn of Spider's childhood: his relationship with his mother and father, which is the key to the cause of his present condition. Miranda Richardson plays three different roles in the film - Spider's mother, the prostitute and later, the proprietor of the halfway house. The mother and the prostitute are entirely different, but the proprietor is an impressive blending of all three. As we learn more about Spider's childhood, we really don't know what to make of his father (Gabriel Burne)...is he an abusive man, an adulterer and drunk or merely a man doing his best to cope with an unhappy marriage? Gabriel Burne admitted that this was one of the hardest roles he's had to do, because he had to play the character on a fine line, so as not to give anything away to the audience. When you see the end of the film, you'll agree that he succeeded in his intended performance.

David Cronenberg is well known for his fascination with the darker more disturbing aspect of the human mind. He's one of those unique directors that will capture the right atmosphere for the subject under study; in this case, madness is realistically represented and seems to exude that strange feeling of the uncanny. A good example is the scene where Spider lays in the bathtub in the foetus position, blankly gazing into space. This is a disturbing image of a lost soul in the throes of passive insanity.

I would not say that this picture is an enjoyable one, but it is certainly an intriguing journey into a troubled mind, attempting to come to terms with his past and the truth.

Haunting
After sitting on my self for well over a couple of months I decided to give this movie a try. My expectations weren't very high and I expected something on par with Willard.
From the very beginning I was captivated with Ralph Fiennes' performance and he really communicated the feelings of being totally drawn in on himself.
The unfolding of the story was depicted in such a way that we experience the confusion and emotional turmoil of the main character.
While I've never been a big fan of Freud, the movie does make use of Freud's Oedipal Complex theory and models Spider's entire relationship with his parents is based on it. Spider's idealization of his mother made him incapable of seeing her negative qualities. While his mother did make efforts to be a "good mum" she also shared her husbands wrecklessness and drinking problem. In order to displace his mothers undeniable neglect he displaces her, in his mind, with a bar fly who flashes her breast at him at the local pub.
In reality Spider's father isn't too far removed from his mother. A man who makes efforts to be a good father but doesn't do much to eliminate his vices, however, Spider staying true to Oedipal victimhood takes a hostile view of his father and ignores the good qualities and demonizes his father.
While it is clear that Spider's memories are often twisted and others are mere imagination that he uses to make sense of what's going on around him, we can still say with relative certainty that his parents were too selfish in their drinking and partying to have any idea what their actions were having on their son.
The truly sad part of the movie is that Spider is never willing to look the truth straight in the face and the only time he admits to himself that the drunken woman really was his mother is when he kills her. So he selectively chooses to see the truth only when he is at fault. This partial look at the reality of his life is what keeps him locked in his past.

A truly sad movie and one I will not soon forget.

Touching and Disturbing
If Samuel Beckett himself had written and directed this film, I would not have been surprised. I would qualify that statement by saying that Beckett probably would not have considered it one of his best.

While the film is undeniably powerful, and Fiennes' performance deserves an Oscar, there is a certain malaise (perhaps deliberate) about it which reveals a certain laziness in direction. "Spider" the novel is as distant from "Spider" the film as "The Metamorphosis" is from "Kafka" starring Jeremy Irons.

Fiennes' character, Spider, is borderline insane. He has one foot in reality and one foot in his horrific memories of a sordid, miserable, neglected and misunderstood youth. The best parts of the film are the scenes in which Spider stands outside the scenes of his past, reciting verbatim the dialogue between his father, mother, and his repulsive mistress. The ugly reality of insanity is presented here with no romantic embellishment; Spider is deranged, and does not understand the motives behind his own actions. Awash in misery, the mood of each scene is more or less consistent: tragedy and confusion. The only parts which even approach humor consist of Spider's entrance to the madhouse.
We feel sympathy for Spider, but for practically no one else in the film (except at the end, which reveals the somewhat predictable truth behind the murder of his mother.) Cronenberg tried a little to hard to shove the viewer's face in every nasty form of human behavior: alcoholism, degenerate sexual encounters (between his father and his real or unreal mistress), domestic abuse, etc. The mood is almost TOO much Beckett.

Nonetheless, this is a film that deserves to be watched, if only for some scattered scenes and am ambiance of degeneration I have rarely seen in a film. Watch especially for the opening, with Spider stepping off a train. Not a masterpiece, but a worthy curiosity.

Haunting and Captivating
The front cover of the video box really makes it seem like Ralph Fiennes is looking for a killer named spider, making the movie appear not what it actually is. In actuality, it is the tale of a man recently released from the insane asylum to a halfway house to re-enter society. Ironically, it is near where he used to live, where a family murder took place.

Many people may say this movie is slow. I guess it's really to your own opinion - as for me, halfway through I thought to myself, "The pace of this film is rather slow." However, that was regarding the pace. Some films are boring because they present an uneven pace, but this movie takes it's time the whole way through out. It never jumps any where and it never tries to hurry things along - that is a GOOD thing.

I must also say this is perhaps the best performance I've seen Ralph Fiennes give. He barely says any thing in his role except a handful of understandable words - most of the time he is moving about the scene mumbling to himself, constantly lost in thought and with a sad, tortured look on his face. I have to say that through out the whole film I felt absolute PITY for him. Yes, pity. This was a poor man, and I personally wished I could have given him some relief, and I must confess it gave me some compassion for the plight of the mentally insane. Usually entering an insane person's mind is used for murderous psycopaths, but here it is used instead as insight on the mind of the person who wants to be better, but continually finds himself plagued by his own limitations. Here is an actor playing a mentally handicapped character I have absolute pity for when ten years ago he was playing a Nazi I loathed with a passion - if that isn't good acting, I don't know what is.

As others have suggested, this isn't for all tastes. As I've said about other films, this isn't the type of movie you watch with friends over beer and pizza, this is a movie to observe - basically, like a book performing itself in front of you. It was well worth my time, and if you like what you've read, it's well worth yours. ... Read more

Reviews (59)

Try not to think about it
As is the case of most of Cronenberg's work, the plot of Scanners begins in a straight line, becomes murky, and then almost nonsensical, The Fly remake being the exception, but barely. That's not to say that Scanners wasn't enjoyable. The special effects really are what make the movie; the exploding head in the beginning has since become one of horror's greatest movie moments-it's that priceless. The acting, with the exception of Patrick McGoohan, is non-plussed and wooden, oftentimes just downright uninspired. Steven Lack has to be one of the most ironic and appropriate names for an actor that ever existed. At it's heart, Scanners is an action movie, there are plenty of scenes of tension that move the story forward; at no point will you feel very bogged down by exposition until you get to the ending, and then you will have whiplash from having had the whole story laid on you so fast. Many Cronenberg elements can be seen in this film: excessive violence, fatalistic outlooks from many of the characters, and Cronenberg's own patented pessimism, which seems to hover over every one of his films like a specter. Cronenberg is a marginal director, by that I mean that he doesn't take the easy road to get his message across to you. Many of his films are a lesson in hubris coupled with excessive power. Just don't try to take any of this with you when you watch Crash. There just was no excuse for that one. Enjoy.

Effemerol The Scanner Drug of Choice
Movie Summary: Cameron Vale is jerked from his life as a mentally ill homeless man and whisked away to a corporate building. There he is given a drug that stops the voices in his head. He is told that he is not insane but he is one of only a few people with special mental powers. He is a Scanner. The corporation and its head scientist Doctor Paul Ruth clean up and attempt to train Cameron. They then send out an under prepared Cameron into the middle of a scanner war to track down a very powerful scanner who has plans to conquer the world.

My Opinion: Almost all the reviews for Scanners call it a Horror movie. I don't agree. To me Horror suggests movies like "Friday the 13th" and "A Nightmare on Elm Street". Scanners has some gore which more than likely is what gets it the horror label. I found it to be an Action Thriller with major SciFi elements. It's also a detective/spy type mystery film. It's all these elements together that make Scanners interesting and entertaining. The plot gets a little confusing in the middle as Cameron searches for other scanners, but our confusion mirrors Cameron's and is intentional. As things progress everything becomes clear. Stephen Lack is excellent as the weird scanner hero. I liked him enough to go look up what other films he has been in. Patrick McGoohan and Michael Ironside also give great performances. Overall this is a very entertaining movie that I will watch more than once and recommend to others.

DVD Quality: Video: Widescreen anamorphic - 1.85:1 Sound: DD 2.0 Mono. For at least the last quarter of the movie the sound does not sync up with the video. Extras: Trailer only. This is a bare bones DVD with Audio problems, but it is offered at a VHS price.

What You Should Do: Buy the DVD if you are a fan of this movie or of Horror/ScFi movies in general. It's not a high quality DVD release, but the price isn't going to make your head explode.

Related Movies To Check Out: Three Days of the Condor, Reanimator, Bride of Reanimator

"I'm gonna suck your brain dry!"
From writer/director/auteur David Cronenberg comes another intelligent and visceral sci-fi/horror classic in the form of Scanners (1981), a film that takes a disturbing look at potential of the human mind within all of us, but only a few may actually possess. The questions posed are what if there were those out there who had the ability to read minds and control people actions just by thought? And what if those same individuals, scanners, as called within the film, also had not only the ability to read minds and control the actions of others with their mind, but also had the power to kill with the same means? The film stars Jennifer O'Neill (Summer of '42), the eccentric Patrick McGoohan (The Prisoner, Silver Streak), Michael Ironside (Total Recall), and Stephen Lack, who, by the way, is not only an actor, but also a world-renowned artist, having garnered much acclaim for his paintings.

As the film begins, we see a homeless man (Lack) wandering a mall, getting dirty looks from all the people he sees (hey hey we're the Monkees...whatever)...anywho, one woman in particular, in the food court, seems exceptionally offended by his presence, but she soon has other things to worry about as she suffers from some sort of brain freeze, like the kind you get when you drink something cold too fast, brought on by the homeless man...turns out our homeless man (in my day, they were called bums, but whatever), whose name is Cameron Vale, has psychic powers of some sort, and has garnered the attention of CONSEC (whose chairman looks a helleva lot like Ed Asner), a company that specializes in weapons, specifically Dr. Paul Ruth (McGoohan), who describes himself as a 'psycho pharmacist', whatever that means (I bet he's a lot of fun to hang out with on the weekends). Dr. Ruth basically recruits Vale in a effort to track a particularly dangerous and powerful scanner by the name Darryl Revok, who's supposedly head of an underground movement of scanners and who has also basically decimated CONSEC's program of exploring the weapons potential of scanners, as he seems to subscribe to a policy of if you have special mind powers, then you either join up with him or you get your head exploded. Along the way Vale meets with Kim Obrist (O'Neill), a sort of leader of a fringe group of scanners outside of CONSEC and Revok's control (not for long), and they soon find themselves fighting for their lives as conspiracies unfold, traitorous scoundrels exposed, and secrets reveals. What's Revok's ultimate goal? It's not that far-fetched, considering his abilities...

I enjoyed this film...there really wasn't too many lengthy visceral scenes, but what there was contained very graphic gore (s'ploding heads) that imprinted on your mind, and tended to stay with you long after the scene was over. One scene, in particular, when Revok deals with the scanner at CONSEC, the tension was thick as the pressure, on and off the screen, built up quickly, and resulted in the film's most spectacular and memorable sequence. Jennifer O'Neill is good (and very easy on the eyes, shabba doo), but I didn't quite understand her character's connections to the other characters in the film, other than her being a scanner. It almost seemed like a plot contrivance if only to incorporate an attractive female, not that I mind attractive females, but her scenes could have pretty much been removed without much loss to the plot. Patrick McGoohan is one of my more favorite actors and he plays his part very well as the mentor/trainer to Lack's character, sort of a Professor X, if you are familiar with the X-Men comics or movies. Lack provides a sort of disjointed performance, but I felt as if it was intentional, as it seemed to work really well within the movie and fit his character, one who's spent most of his life trying to deal with the problems associated with his special abilities. I thought Michael Ironside's character was great, as he plays the role of the sadistic heavy with a God complex so very well (except, maybe for his role in Highlander II: The Quickening...ugh, what a complete dog that movie was...). He reminds me a lot of Lance Henriksen, both good actors but rarely ever emerging from B-movie limbo. Maybe they need better agents. There was a certain amount of symbolism throughout the movie, the most noticeable being when Lack's character is following up on lead by contacting a reclusive scanner who is an artist living in a barn. One of his pieces is a giant, hollow head, and there's a scene where the two men are actually sitting in the head, talking about Revok. There seems to be some confusion about the ending, after the final confrontation, but I thought it was pretty clear, and provided a nice eerie touch.

MGM presents a nice wide screen anamorphic transfer, but some have commented on the certain parts of the film being out of sync, but I didn't notice. I was a little surprised there was so little in the way of special features given the cult following of the film and that of Cronenberg in general, with only a theatrical trailer available, but I suppose someday they will produce a special edition of sorts. I would have liked to have seen a director's commentary, or some production notes, but I am pleased with what's here.

Cookieman108

David Cronenberg's Scanners
The Scanners are a group of beings who have a power that they can bend,twist,mutilate,and explode other human beings,using the powers of their minds. There are two groups of scanners good and bad.One of the scanners Revok wants the scanners to band together for his evil purposes, he spends his time trying to locate his brother, a good scanner, Cameron and finds him for the ultimate showdown between the good and evil scanners. In between all this we get to see a couple heads explode.Not really among Cronenberg's best, but it's ok.

Let the Scanners scan you....!
This film is one of my personal new 'classics' of horror, although it's also a sci-fi film. The plot centers around a small group of 'mutants,' long before the 'X-Men' made them cool, who have the unique ability to scan the thought patterns of others, thus knowing what people are thinking. However, as always, not all mutants play nice, as actor, Michael Ironside, has a great role as the demented Revok, who likes to scan people's minds just a bit too long, leading one to lose one's head, as in the infamous exploding head scene! Revok leads his bands of rebel mutuants against the establishment, and only another Scanner with equal ability can stand in his way. Even though this film is dated somewhat and campy in parts, it's definitely entriguing and fans of gross-out effects will eat this film up! ... Read more

Amazon.com

Embittered by his experience working with 20th Century Fox on The St. Valentine's Day Massacre (1967), and weary of the Poe films for American International Pictures, Roger Corman was in dire need of inspiration for his next production. He found it in Life magazine, which featured a photo of the funeral of Mother Miles, head of the Sacramento, California, Hell's Angels. From this picture came both The Wild Angels and the biker-movie genre itself. Peter Fonda, who replaced George Chakiris, stars as brooding Angels chieftain Heavenly Blues. When his pal Loser (Bruce Dern) is shot by police, Blues attempts to bury him in a small town, but the locals resist, and a brawl ensues. Audiences and critics were alternately appalled and thrilled by the extensive drug use and violence, but beneath Angels' leathery hide beats the heart of a Western, especially in its ruminations on personal freedom. Charles Griffith's script (cowritten by Peter Bogdanovich, who also cameos in the film) helped make Angels the sole U.S. entry for the 1966 Venice Film Festival, which irked the State Department enough to try and revoke the honor. Corman's direction, freed from AIP's period pieces, is lean and exuberantly active, aided by Monte Hellman's editing. The film helped give Fonda the counterculture clout to later make Easy Rider, and boosted the careers of Dern and then-wife Diane Ladd; Nancy Sinatra, however, renounced the picture, fearful of its effect on her image. Mike Curb's score features Davie Allan and the Arrows' fuzz-tone-soaked hit "Blues' Theme." --Paul Gaita ... Read more

Reviews (15)

Pure Kitsch
It's nice to see that Peter Fonda has redeemed himself in recent years ("Ulee's Gold", "The Limey", "The Passion of Ayn Rand" et al.), and even has a couple of Golden Globes and an Oscar Nomination to show for it. But he certainly wouldn't want to be remembered for this awful piece of drive-in drivel (although "Easy Rider" will probably be marked on his gravestone). I gave it three stars for kitsch value. Otherwise, it doesn't deserve any. This movie is bad, but in a very amusing way.

"The Wild Angels" is "Easy Rider" written by Fred Durst. The plot is pretty weak, juvenile, and has plenty of holes in it. The actions the characters make echo the song "Break Stuff"; at the beginning of the film, when Loser's (Bruce Dern) Boss ask Heavenly Blues (Fonda)if he's "one of those dumb angels", Blues replies snidely and restrains him needlessly. And the dialogue is mediocre and poorly executed.

If you're looking for compelling drama, look elsewhere. If you're looking to amuse yourself, then by all means take the plunge!

The original biker movie
I'm not a movie critic, I'm a motorcyclist. I have this film on video and watch it fairly often, along with Beyond The Law, Hells Angels on Wheels and Angels Hard As They Come (the most underrated of biker flicks). Fonda, Dern, Ladd, Buck Taylor and Norman Alden are great. Nancy Sinatra was terrible and totally miscast, if she' repudiating this movie it's due to her terrible acting. I can't see Micheal J. Pollard as a biker (but he was wonderful in Little Fauss and Big Halsy). The star of this movie is Fonda's chopper, to me, it's more beautiful, and subltly understated, than that ultimate movie chopper in Easy Rider, the Captain America Bike. This movie is really about Heavenly Blue's changing values as his friend Loner dies. Girlfriend Sinatra realizes the change that's come over him, "it's like a piece of you went with him". He reveiws his life and sees it empty, without purpose without his closest compadre The Loser, as in the final line "there's no where to go" as he stays to bury his friend while others flee The Man. They go on to continue the life of carousing and hell raising while Blues follows through on a duty to a friend, and to me symbolically buries himself, his up-to-then life, as well as his only friend.

Not just sexist, but racist.....
as exhibited by the comments and attacks on a group of Mexicans. Fonda is about as animated as a cigar-store Indian, Nancy Sinatra is woefully miscast, Diane Ladd is over the top and predictable. In fact, the best performance may be delivered by Bruce Dern.....as a corpse.

A Must Have for Any Biker Video Collection
"We want to be free to do what we want to do without being hassled by the man! And we want to get loaded!" "YEAH!"

What more can I possibly add?

Oh yeah. Theme music by Davie Allan.

People think Easy Rider was good but this movie defined the bikesploitation genre.

Disturbing, yet interesting
Oddly, though the characters in this movie are all dispicable individuals, in some ways, I could still find myself sympathizing with their rebellion against "the man". This movie definitely has more of a '70's feel to it than the '60's, and holds up well today.

I will admit, I did find the use of the swastikas and iron crosses to be offensive. But, I think such individuals in the '60's used them more to shock those who tried to control them, than as a support of what they truly represented...and to have realism, they had to be included.

One technical aspect to the movie...and two to the DVD on which I need to comment:

1. Did the movie always end so abruptly, with no closing credits or even a "The End" caption? Or is this poor editing?

As for the DVD...

2. The print from which this movie was taken was in terrible condition. At some points the picture is beautiful. But others show dirt, hair, and sprocket marks. Worst of all is a tear in the film, patched with tape, which is readily visible. This occurs in the scene in which Sinatra has just entered the door of the hospital, and the camera is panning over to the nurse's station.

3. There also seem to be some areas of the film which are out of focus. I primarily noticed this when Nancy and Peter are talking alone on the boat before leaving for the funeral.

All in all, this picture can be viewed more as a snapshot of an era than as pure entertainment. If taken as such, it proves somewhat interesting. ... Read more