Spider Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
720x396 | 893.89 MiB | hidivx | |
|
640x352 | 556.93 MiB | divx | |
|
320x176 | 202.85 MiB | ipod | |
|
320x176 | 206.41 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
The only thing worse than losing your mind... is finding it again.
Watashi no haha wa korosareta [Japan]
Dennis Clegg is in his thirties and lives in a halfway house for the mentally ill in London. Dennis, nicknamed "Spider" by his mother has been institutionalized with acute schizophrenia for some 20 years. He has never truly recovered, however, and as the story progresses we vicariously experience his increasingly fragile grip on reality.
| Ralph Fiennes | Dennis ('Spider') Cleg |
| Miranda Richardson | Yvonne/Mrs. Cleg |
| Gabriel Byrne | Bill Cleg |
| Lynn Redgrave | Mrs. Wilkinson |
| John Neville | Terrence |
| Bradley Hall | Dennis Cleg as a child |
| Gary Reineke | Freddy |
| Philip Craig | John |
| Cliff Saunders | Bob |
| Tara Ellis | Nora |
| Sara Stockbridge | Gladys |
| Arthur Whybrow | Ernie |
| Nicola Duffett | Barmaid |
| Jake Nightingale | Large Man |
| Alison Egan | Flashing Yvonne |
| David Cronenberg |
6.80 out of 10 (8740 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Terrible Movie
posted on 16 Aug 2009This movie was God-awful! Sitting through it was like torture, constantly looking at the clock to see if the 90 minutes was up yet. The story was bland and there was practically no plot for 2/3 of the movie. The acting was weak, the dialogue was horrible, and the only good part of the movie was the last 5 minutes. This movie is definitely not a "thriller", as there were absolutely no scary or tense parts in the film. I almost fell asleep 10+ times and after seeing it all the way through, I wish I had tasted the sweet, sweet release that sleep would have given me.I wouldn't even recommend this movie to my worst enemy. Stay away from this film at all costs! If you want to see a good Ralph Fiennes role, rent Red Dragon.
Hard to turn away from.
posted on 02 Aug 2009I turned this on because I love Ralph Fiennes. You need to be in the right frame of mind for this. It's not a horror film or comedy or drama. It's in it's own category. Just odd. I turned the channel a few times, but couldn't resist knowing what was going on. I was glad I finally kept watching. His acting is awesome in this.Unsuspecting. You almost feel ashamed or sorry for him watching him in such a role. The captain from Ghost Ship is also in this. If you like dark and dreary but very interesting in a can't look away from the car accident sort of way, you will like this. Just remember keep watching and you WILL get it.
A trip inside psychosis
posted on 11 Jul 2009Its a slow moving story and it seems to take ages to build to its climax and denouement but the trip is well worth it. Ralph Fiennes portrayal of the title character is masterful and extraordinarily authentic. I have worked with the mentally ill and Spider could have been one of my clients. The agony he feels when he begins to see characters from the past inhabiting his here-and-now is riveting and gave me a new appreciation for the pain schizophrenics live with every day. The only Cronenberg film I have ever enjoyed - 10 out of 10!
Cronenberg's Web
posted on 20 May 2009A year of anticipation for a movie by one of your favorite directors raises your expectations to a degree that is a recipe for a certain disappointment. I wasn't disappointed. Before watching "Spider (2002)" by David Cronenberg I read few reviews as possible, trying to avoid the usual spoilers. Some of the reviews described the movie as slow-paced and empty. One of them even "warned" that it's "a movie from the same director who made 'Crash'" - it's always amusing to see the reaction of a person who watches a Cronenberg movie without having a clue what he's in for. Having read that and pre-listening to the short clips from Howard Shore's soundtrack, I "prepared" myself for a movie that is similar to "Crash" in the sense that after watching the latter for the first time, I asked myself "is it over already? but nothing has happened...", and since then it has raised to get my vote of 9/10. "Spider" is indeed Cronenberg's most restrained movie to date. It's very low-key and slow-paced, and there are no special-effects at all. Instead of dialog Cronenberg presents us "mood", achieved by the rainy and claustrophobic environment, Peter Suschitzky's dark and still photography, Howard Shore's minimalist and quiet piano music and songs, and the lead actors. Ralph Fiennes is great as the mentally-ill Spider. During most of the movie he mumbles to himself, and the amount of lines in his spoken dialog is in good competition with that of Arnie in the first "Terminator" or Holly Hunter in "The Piano" ;) I was even more impressed by Miranda Richardson, who has the toughest role(s) and plays them in a very believable way, that could have easily gone comic by another actress. Spider's flashbacks reminded me of Woody Allen's technique, best used in "Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989)", in which the lead actor "relives" his memories and confronts the characters in them. Other movies that popped into my mind were Cronenberg's second short, "From the Drain (1967)" - mainly for its minimalism and restraint, I had a cozy feeling that Cronenberg is going "back to the roots" with this one; "Dead Ringers (1988)" for its quietness and claustrophobic environment; "Crash (1996)", which was mentioned above; David Lynch's "Eraserhead (1977)", which shares a lot of similarity: minimal dialog, darkness, illness and surrealism; Atom Egoyan's "Exotica (1994)", mainly for the similar flashback field scenes, which are the only "bright outdoors" in both movies.The weakest point for me was the predictable plot. After the first viewing, I'm still not sure whether Cronenebrg did it on purpose or not. In "M. Butterfly (1993)" he played with the audience: Bearing in mind that they'll come to the movie already knowing its big "secret" - therefore feeling superior to the lead character - Cronenebrg used this "against them" to enhance the sympathy to the character, who feels superior to his loved one. Has Cronenberg tried to act in a similar way with "Spider"? Maybe a second viewing would tell. Talking of audience, I was surprised to see a relatively great amount of viewers. A lot more than I'd expected to come. Cronenberg's movies are always released to cinemas here in an extremely limited manner (which is a shame, of course). That was the case with "Crash" and "eXistenZ". "Spider" was released in 3 theaters only. That suggests that the publishers don't have high expectations in the box-office from Cronenberg movies, and who can blame them? Art movies aren't blockbusters. I appreciate the fact that they took the risk instead of just skipping the release altogether.In a period (and more specifically - a year) that gives the public some of Hollywood's most boring and cliched movies (and nominates them for the biggest awards, totally disregarding any non-blockbuster), it's so encouraging to see that there are still artists you can depend on; who aren't afraid to take risks and make artistic low-budget non-mainstream movies. People like David Cronenberg, one of the best directors living today, who you can rely on year after year. Rating: 8/10 (for the first viewing; Could easily go higher with further views)
Good mechanics, but a familiar story
posted on 28 Apr 2009Final Score: 6.8 (out of 10)At the basic core of the story, `Spider' goes strictly by the favorite conventions of the independent art-house movie genera. It follows a mentally disturbed man (Ralph Feinnes) who takes up residence at a half-way house and begins to recover memories as to how he got there. A reputable actor playing a mentally retarded man (ticks and all), a scandalous extramarital affair resulting in a murder- it's all pretty familiar. Plus, the movie is largely silent; it's the kind of thing that in straining the speakers surrounds the audience with a lot of fuzzy white noise. When it does spread it's wings the musical score is operatically beautiful. There is little dialogue, but when the script is spoken it is often through writer Patrick McGrath's mouthpiece of worldly wisdom – another patient in the halfway house played by John Neville. But those with the patience will find that Cronenberg's sharp, meticulous direction makes `Spider` rewarding at least in it‘s process. The way Cronenberg shifts between the reality and the past, as Fiennes peers in on a family as a kind of impartial narrator, cleverly twists the audience around and slyly dropping hints and clues that come together like the pieces of a shattered puzzle. His clues and suggestions come so few and far between amongst the silence and nothingness they become all to obvious. As the movie proceeds, it becomes like a unbalanced scale in which the more Cronenberg showboats, the less dialogue we hear and the less interesting the movie becomes. It is well acted with Miranda Richardson giving a terrific performance in triple role, visually interesting and a cleverly put together time-bending trip into the mind of the delusional. It's the type of movie that we could be calling a mysterious enigma "open to interpretation" if it didn't come to such a simple, predictable ending. It certainly doesn't have the knockout twist that it spends it's life setting up or compared to many other moves of it's kind. If you can forgive that, it might be worth a viewing.
Disturbingly good
posted on 08 Apr 2009The genius of this movie is emmediatly visible in the opening scene; the way the camera moves beside the train. What actually hgappens is, we get confused at first about what the center should be."which person here coming out of this train will be the main character? ah, i see! but... no, somebody else then... ah see there she is! well not, she slowly walks out of the center..." then you start to feel a little bit dizzy, because of the very subtile changes in the camera movement. This is only 20 seconds of opening and it gets you already. This is pretty rare.Besides the psychological insight in this movie, i think the most stunning work lies in the picture itself(in the visual meaning). The way the colors are used, keeps the movie "cold" the whole way, with only few moments where there is a moment of warmth, with actual sunlight. This superbly dosed contrast determines the atmosphery completely. It might as well have been a completely different story, the heavy feeling to it is complety ruled by the way the light is used all through the movie. If you would compare this impact of it to painters, names as (especially)Edvard Munch, Spilliaert,Lucian Freud , Balthus and similar "dark" painters. In that way the cinematography is a genuine work of art itself. The casting could't have been better as well, and i'm shure there was a lot of studying done in asylums and psychiatric hospitals. And the big secret still, what remains when the movie ends, is how the story really went. Apart from his mental realm, the is some kind of a link between the "central reality". Disturbing. Hope to see some similar quality in the future.
Promising but something is missing
posted on 13 Mar 2009I'm very sorry to say this, but I have seldom been as bored as when I saw this film. The story seems promising, but as the plot is quickly guessed, I expected a twist or change of events. Instead this movie continues practically without any change in pace - it reminds me of a VERY monotonous lecturer. Of course I thought that this was some kind of build up, but if it was it was a build up to nothing.***SPOILER ALERT!!!*** To find out that it was Clegg himself who killed his mother, didn't come as a huge surprise to me. The characters are generally uninteresting (including Clegg - he's just weird & crazy & BORING) and the film is (as already stated by several reviewers) WAY TO LONG & SLOW!!! I liked eXistenZ and though that had a plot that wasn't totally new or surprising it had a certain charm. Spider's plot is - well - pointless. So he killed his mother... and? We see an emotionally stunted boy who's grown up to be a more or less dysfunctional adult, but I don't feel like I'm "inside his head". Because of the extremely slow pace I was constantly reminded that I was in a cinema. I agree with the reviewer who wrote this should have been a short film. As a such I'm certain it would have been excellent. As it is it feels way to overstretched. ***END OF SPOILER ALERT***As to those who claim this is a thriller I have just one question: where is the suspense??? A thriller is supposed to put you on the edge, to tickle your nerves (and if it's really good your intellect). This film just mumbles: "Critics please love me. I'm weird, I'm alone and I'm DEFINITELY not mainstream.' Of course a director don't have to kiss the ass of the mainstream audience, but this - well this seems to me as a movie designed to do some heavy duty film critic ass kissing.I don't know if the film is missing a vital part of the book, but instead of being dark and sinister it's just dark. Didn't move me at all. Sob I had high hopes, when sitting down and left with a feeling like - well nothing to be honest. It was like having seen a mainstream action movie, but you hadn't even been entertained. Personally I had expected to leave with some kind of feeling.Sorry Cronenberg, redo this as a short - 3/10
A Brilliant Study of a Troubled Mind
posted on 05 Mar 2009After the disappointing eXistenZ (1999), David Cronenberg made "Spider", which might be his masterpiece. I was totally blown away by this film, especially on my second viewing (I DO recommend watching it twice, this is one of those films that need - and deserve - a lot of attention). "Spider" is the childhood nickname of Dennis Cleg (Ralph Fiennes, superb), a schizophrenic man who's sent to a halfway house after spending years in a mental institution. Back at his old neighbourhood, Spider remembers how his father (Gabriel Byrne) murdered his mother (Miranda Richardson) when he was a little boy, and brought a prostitute (Richardson, again) to live with them.This is the most complex and compelling study of schizophrenia I've ever seen in a movie. Patrick McGrath wrote the screenplay, based on his own novel. But Cronenberg and McGrath are not like Ron Howard, Akiva Goldsman and their "A Beautiful Mind" (or "how to make a cute movie about a schizophrenic turned genius and win my Oscar"). We see everything from Spider's point of view, and that's both disturbing and fascinating. There's no attempt to fool the watcher, unlike some recent artsy-fartsy crap ("Birth") and then give us a "surprise" ending (we do have a revelation by the end, but it really makes sense here, thank God). Cronenberg's mature direction and McGrath's perfect screenplay, plus the magnificent performances (Miranda Richardson gave a tour-de-force with her multiple roles), Howard Shore's low-key score and the astounding cinematography by Peter Suschitzky (which gives the movie a Dostoievskan look) make "Spider" a memorable experience. I do appreciate the struggle producer Catherine Bailey had to face to make this movie."Spider" is a complex web, a powerful character study. It isn't an Oscar-movie (sadly, the Academy doesn't seem to be ready for this kind of film yet), but it's destined to become a classic. Don't expect easy answers, but if you like an intriguing puzzle, "Spider" will get you. 10 out of 10.
Cronenberg #2.0
posted on 17 Feb 2009"Spider" is probably Cronenberg's most low key film; out have gone the blood, guts and mutation, resulting in his common theme of "body" horror being translated into a completely psychological issue as the titular character's past, present and imagination all dangerously coincide in chilling fashion.Everything is played to perfection here. Cronenberg's direction gives one of the bleakest depictions of London seen in many a year. The locations visited by Spider as a child and a man are so expertly filmed that the two realities also begin to merge in the viewers' mind to the same extent. It is also impossible to overstate Fienne's performance. He barely utters a word, and even in the initially corkscrew depiction of his mind he still manages to create sympathy for his strange plight. He is practically matched by Hall his child counterpart, and Byrne tackles a difficult role (and accent) effortlessly, but Richardson probably gives the most pivotal performance(s). The reason for her duel role may be hard to grasp until the film has been viewed and assessed; yet even on the surface she creates such heavily contrasting characters that it is difficult to comprehend that it is the same person beneath the make up.It is without a doubt a "must watch twice" film, not for some cheap Shyamalan-ism, but because it is so difficult to decipher the first time. Yet, due to the skill of everyone involved, this doesn't hamper how effective it is the first time. The plot being unravelled is merely a bonus; this is pure cinematic art. Visually it is just as effective at showing the collapse and collision of two realities, and when you can get the full message watching the film with the sound off you know you are dealing with a true master of cinema.Without a doubt one of Cronenberg's finest and most unmissable films.
Only similar to Mulholland Dr cuz it doesnt make sense
posted on 11 Feb 2009This movie is not bad -- But I wouldn't recommend it eighter -- I like complex movies -- Some of my favorites include Memento, Usual Suspects, American Beauty, Pulp Fiction etc.) -- Upon first watching Mulholland Drive I was so confused - The movie all made sense up until the last 20 minutes -- I went online to find a step by step guide to that movie and upon viewing it a second time, it made some kind of sense -- I understand the attraction to that movie -- Spider followed the same guidelines -- The movie all made sense until the last 20 minutes -- I was very disappointed in the ending, but it may be because I missed something, which I'm sure is true since so many others LOVE this movie -- If someone would write out a step by step guide to the film or very detailed description of even the final scenes -- I can't recommend this movie to anyone because I didn't like it and the average movie goers won't like (understand) it eighter -- Some movies are hard to follow, yet still interest you into possibly watching it a second, third time to figure it out (ie Memento) -- I don't really want to sit through Spider again, but I would gladly watch Memento for the 10th time -- In other words some people will LOVE this movie -- Simply for the fact that others didn't get it and they did -- I really don't think there is anything special about this movie, other than it makes you think... but about what?!?! I am really confused about this someone please help out -- I have the rental until Friday, I might watch it again if someone explains what the hell I am watchingThanks
Here's a film that crawls up its own backside.
posted on 26 Jan 2009After reading a positive review of "Spider" I decided it sounded like it was deep and interesting enough to warrant a look.
I headed down to the theater and sat down, and first thing what happens is this train pulls up, and after all the normal people go by comes out this codger who is obviously short in the brain department, scratching, and fidgeting, and confused.The movie "Spider" is some kind of investigation into his pathology, from his point of view. The film is masterly and graceful in how it unrolls by following the character though the events in his life. The mood and photography is rich and conveys a depth that I do not think was really there except in image. Since "Clegg", nicknamed "Spider" by his mother, is so out of touch we do not so much experience, or figure out the film as absorb it, or become infected with it.Spider has come back to the town he grew up in after serving a long sentence, most of this life, in a mental hospital. It is so blatantly obvious that this man cannot take care of himself, that one wonders why he is out and about ... and there are lots of angles one considers as you watch this film, after all it is kind of slow, and there is not much else to do.We find out the main characters and some idea of the events in Clegg's life, and why he was locked up, but we don't really get a feeling for it. Nothing seems real, and I asked myself what is the point here. As masterful as the pace and direction of this story were, I could not really care much about the characters, or even what the movie was trying to say, because it did not touch me, or draw me in. In that way it was kind of like "A Beautiful Mind". How valid is this movie. What is the reality. Am I supposed to like this movie because it is daring to do something different, ie. for politically correct reasons?This movie was dry, dark, dirty, depressing, so into itself that it crawled right up its own backside, but it was done masterly and with a lot of thought. What am I supposed to get out of it. How does it relate to me? What is the universal that Clegg in this movie is trying to demonstrate. I think there are a few people who will really relate to this film, but I was not one of them unfortunately.
Cronenberg does it again
posted on 10 Jan 2009After seeing every single Cronenberg film I've been able to find, I've come to one simple conclusion: I've seen entirely too little of his works. I have yet to see one film of his that I found a complete waste of time(though I did not find much point in The Brood). This is quite possibly my favorite film of his yet, and I guess that says something about how few of his films I've seen(as this seems like one of his more unappreciated films). The film is quite dark and bleak. It has a fairly slow pace, but there's plenty of atmosphere and I never really felt like turning it off. The plot is very good, and I liked the way it developed somewhat out of joint, with little continuity other than the main plot-line. The acting is superb. One actress performs two roles, and does so with such talent that I never realized they were being portrayed by one and the same person. I only discovered this after checking out the cast list. Spider is a very unsettling film, but I suppose Cronenberg has done far better in other films. For some reason, I just found this the more easily accessible of his films, the one that requires least afterthought to be understood, to decipher what he wanted to say. All of the other films by him that I've seen, I've required to basically 'be told' what the film was about... with this one, I thought for a while after seeing it, and figured it out, put the pieces together myself, without much difficulty. Maybe that's a problem for the film... it's too simple. It's far more simple than the usual Cronenberg, and that is what makes me like it more, and his more experienced and analyzing fans like it less. I recommend this film to any fan of Cronenberg and/or dark films. Don't expect to be able to figure out the film from just one viewing, and don't take anything you see in it at face value. 8/10
Pulls the viewer in to see how a Spider is born.
posted on 10 Jan 2009Spider is a fantastic film. Although slow moving, it's showcasessome superb acting and Cronenburg's grittiness, while keepingyou filled with anticipation and curiosity. Ralph Fiennes, in hisbest performance to date plays Spider a mumbling schizophrenicwho can be seen picking up random bits of trash or putting hishands down his pants to pull out a sock where he keeps his note. Spider recalls his past, particularly the relationship between hismother (played brilliantly by Miranda Richardson – who playsmultiple roles in the film) and his father (played by Gabriel Byrne)while he was a small boy. Young spider is played by Bradley Halla boy who's trying to deal with the confusing world around him. It'sa remarkable performance for this young actor's film debut. Thefilm's quite thought-provoking and ends up playing out like amystery, to see how a young boy became the Spider he is today.
A Wandering Mind
posted on 31 Dec 2008This film is one of the most under-rated, I have to say. I know it takes awhile to get into and you have to use your mind while you watch it but it's not THAT complicated, is it? Especially if you watch this film more than once you really become to understand what it is it with Spider. I don't want to give away the plot, because you really have to see it for yourself. It's surprising and pleasantly different.I have to highlight the acting in the film, it's that superb. All the actors are just simply amazing, taking the acting to a completely new level. So, if you want to try something that's not so mainstream film-making, watch Spider. I dare you.
Way too simple mobius strip/micro-movie
posted on 05 Dec 2008SpoilersSPIDER is a micro-movie (few characters, claustrophobic setting, etc) that is just too simple for its own good. The really amazing thing about it (positive or negative, you pick) is that nothing happens for one whole hour. I looked at the vcr display and it showed 59 minutes and NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING happened yet. Phew! Ralph basically is basically a mute, so don't expect him to utter any dialogue. Nothing happens in the present. Most of the drama occurs in the flashback scenes, when Spider is a kid. And this is when and where the film fails. The little kid was a good actor but because almost all of the drama occurs in the mind of someone who's a schizophrenic, we don't really know what's real and what's the product of the kid's imagination. The crux of the story is about sex (of course) and it's WAY too simplistic: the kid goes to pub to tell his father that supper is ready. In the pub, the kid meets this scary tarty woman, who shows him one of her breasts. This terrifies him. When later on the boy sees his mother in her slip, he suddenly gets aroused but when his mother catches him staring at her, he's shamed. From this point on, we're dealing with the kid's schizophrenic imagination: Spider is so ashamed that he was caught looking at his mother in a sexual way that he imagines his mother is now the tarty woman. He does this by imagining his father having an affair with the tart (the mom and the tart are both played by Miranda Richardson) and imagines his father killing his mother, only to have her replaced by the scary tart. Spider's burgeoning puberty, mixed with schizophrenia (caused by the fumes from the gas plant?), makes him see his mother as the tart, not the sweet gentle mother he knew before his hormones took over him. So when he eventually decides to kill the tart, in the end, Spider actually killed his mother, because the tart never lived with his father. That's what the adult Spider realizes when he was about to kill Mrs. Wilkinson, who, like his mother, had suddenly turned into the tart and when Spider was about to kill the tarty version of Mrs. Wilkinson in her bed, he found the real Mrs. Wilkinson (played by Lynn Redgrave) there and not the Mrs. Wilkinson played by Richardson. Wow. How simple! Spider goes back to the big house, just like where he was before the start of the movie, before he was released to the halfway house. Because we can't connect with Spider as an adult, and because we can't connect with Spider's past because most of it is imaginary, by the end of the movie, I was pretty much indifferent towards everything.The whole film is still admirable but it is way too simplistic AND predictable. Nothing much happens and it's remarkably slow! The really good thing in SPIDER is the look and production design. I loved it. I was so immersed in it that when I stopped watching the movie, I felt that I was still in it (I watch the film on a very dark and rainy afternoon). But as far as the film's story, well, it was too minimalistic and the mobius strip storyline (you can imagine Spider repeatedly going back to and out of the halfway house over and over again as he goes over the murky details of the death of his mother) that it's just not enough for me to say that it's great or even successful, as a drama or even as a symbolic work of art.
slow start but good
posted on 15 Nov 2008This movie takes a little too long setting things up, a good thirty minutes or so, but once it really starts it's quite good. A good bit has been made of Richardson and Fiennes' performances (deservedly so), but Byrne is also darn good, and you won't realize just how good until you get to the end of the movie. Spider isn't flawless, besides the slow start one can probably pretty well guess what the end will be long before it comes, but the acting is great, Cronenberg creates a perfect dispiriting, diseased aesthetic, and the movie's creepy in the way that sticks with you after you've left the theater, which I'm sure is just what Cronenberg was after. 8/10
Cronenberg finally shows some true directing talent
posted on 05 Nov 2008when first realising that David Croneberg directed this film i was less than enthusiastic about seeing it. He has never been a fan of subtlety and i could just imagine how he would let loose with a storyline centring on a mentally ill man who slowly unravels the horrors of his past.However i was amazed when the film that unfolded was a wonderfully atmospheric portrayal of Spider (Ralph Fiennes) played out so well in this gothic, understated style.The intermixing between the real and imaginary (a popular Cronenberg theme) is handled here deftly, past and present merge effortlessly and it never seems to showcased, too slick. Sure there are a few flaws here. The use of Miranda Otto in the main female roles gave away the shock of the ending - but maybe that was just me - she certainly played all the parts exceedingly well.The end was less of a twist as a carefully layered reveal which personally i liked although the first 10 - 15 minutes were probably a little slow.overall though I was impressed, Cronenberg has proved at last that he is a film maker who can handle adult material.
Delicate and ingenious
posted on 26 Sep 2008SPIDER is David Cronenberg's most low-key film to date, and pretty subtle by anyone else's standards. This story of a mad, confused man piecing together his own past is woven together with the intricacy of, well, a spider's web- individual images and lines and concepts flow together and finally reveal the whole horrid truth. Ralph Fiennes is devastatingly good, as is the rest of the cast, and Patrick McGrath's screenplay (from his own novel) presents a wholly believable story that does not fall prey to easy psychological thriller cliches. It's cold, it's sad, and it's utterly remarkable.
Cronenberg lost it
posted on 26 Aug 2009I've been a huge fan of Cronenberg for several years. I consider Moviedrome as one of the best films ever made. Moviedrome has a dark techno-neuro-logical (sub)text and concerns Max' spiraling decent into hallucinatory madness. As a viewer all you can do is hang on and undergo the twisted plot changes. Dark, complex, subversive: Moviedrome forces you to open your eyes for a whole new way off looking at the world as you knew it.Cronenberg's last 2 films (Crash and eXistenZ)showed Cronenberg again in very good shape and when I heard he was again tackling a story about schizophrenia, i was utterly delighted.But alas, after seeing the movie last night, i can only feel disappointed. Although I must admit that Cronenbergs intentions with Spider where completely different from Moviedrome, the film just didn't manage to suck me into the mind of Spider.It starts great, with desolate cityscapes, but the symbolism is to obvious: blind windows, ugh ! The story unravels the traumatic experiences of Spider and we see the world he created through his own distorted eyes. But only halfway the story, Cronenberg lets you understand what really happened and from then on the fun is over.I guess Cronenberg wanted to dig deep into the way a twisted mind constructs his own image of reality and give the viewer an inside-look. But Cronenberg fails miserably: the character of Spider never succeeded in catching my intention: i never felt compassion, nor fascination. The style is very sober, the shots are dark and the movie as a whole is very slow.It seems like Cronenberg made a film for the masses (Cfr. the obvious symbolism (blind windows, the presence of the watching spider in the flashbacks, ... and a very simple straightforward plot), but won't ever reach them because of the dark subject and uncompromising naturalist style.I hope Cronenberg will soon return to what he's good at: characters who fascinate because of their illness, a twisted plot to show the distorted sense of reality and a slick technological design for speed and kicks.Cronenberg rules in hyperreality, but loses his way in reality. (3/10)