Memorable, crazy movie

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Shivers is a bad film, lacking in the basic areas required to be of any quality. So Cronenberg went on to do "The Fly," which is brilliant and this is like his first low budget film, but that doesn't affect my opinion. It has a weak story or lack of story, poor characters and is completely devoid of any feeling. The nurse was only thing this flick had going for it, but it really didn't capitalize on that either. The doctor who was aware of the signs, couldn't even tell when his girlfriend was infected right in front of him and yet still had time to avoid it when others didn't, grrr.

David Cronenberg's first 'proper' movie (outside of his student efforts) is a grim and icky slice of visceral horror that's instantly recognisable in spirit from his later 1980s efforts. It's a cold and compelling story of horror that breaks out in an apartment building due to a failed scientific experiment, and it's full of all the nastiness that the director is best known for. Inspired by NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD in parts, it in turn has been hugely influential in the depiction of monstrous slugs parasitising the human body; check out the later likes of NIGHT OF THE CREEPS, THE HIDDEN, and SLITHER, which would offer some very similar creations.Although the low budget is always apparent here and makes the experience sometimes creaky, as a whole SHIVERS works. The gore scenes are look-away nasty, and the characters are well drawn, with a couple of actors standing out thanks to their sheer likability (Joe Silver in particular). The casting of Barbara Steele is a nice touch for horror fans, while Cronenberg builds suspense throughout, leading to some great moments towards the climax. If you like your horror imaginative and rough around the edges, then SHIVERS is the film for you; the director's similar follow-up, RABID, is even better. And if you're in two minds about this film's quality, check out Ben Wheatley's recent HIGH RISE, which has similar horror affecting a tower block, but is by far the inferior picture despite a much bigger budget.

This early David Cronenberg body horror effort is rough around the edges (low budget, some not-so-great acting) but it's an interesting take on "infection" horror. The setting, as detailed in a somewhat unsettling advertisement that kicks off the film, is a new high-rise apartment building full of amenities on an isolated Canadian island. A perfect setting for mass parasitic infection to let loose utter chaos, and the whole film takes place here. Things are kicked off by a scientist (yep, he's a bit mad) who believes that genetically engineered parasites can be placed into bodies for organ transplants, and also to return humanity back to matters of the flesh (i.e., our base sexual instincts). Of course, his experiment all goes wrong and a parasite is set loose in the apartment building, causing residents one-by-one to become infected and spread it through sexual promiscuity.The recent Ben Wheatley film High-Rise (2015) reminded me a bit of this one, as it also uses an upscale, socially isolated high-rise apartment building as a setting for gradual, social devolution leading to moral decay and outright chaos. Interestingly enough, the JG Ballard novel that High-Rise adapts came out in 1975 just like Shivers, and Cronenberg of course has a Ballard connection since he adapted Crash in 1996. Of course, there is some good ol' Cronenberg body horror, with icky crawly parasites being spewed out of people's mouths. It's a solid early effort in what would become a great career. I wouldn't call this a conventionally "scary" horror film, but the sheer psychosexual anxiety is certainly palpable. Greatness lay ahead for this Canadian visionary.

Okay, there are no zombies in this film. My review's title is a little misleading. But it's not far away from a 'zombie movie.' A suburban tower block gets infected by parasitic organisms who turn their hosts into rampant sex-obsessed zombies. Only they're not zombies, just don't let them catch you or you'll become like them. So, in that way, it does conform to the 'zombie principal.' So, what's it like? It's certainly regarded as a 'classic.' And I can see why. It was pretty shocking (for its time). However, times have changed and there's probably more 'shocking' images in a Miley Cyrus pop video. But, if you don't judge it by today's standards, you'll see why it's become a cult classic over the years.The action... well, it's not so hot. The women are only there for eye candy and do little more than scream helplessly or get mercilessly victimised. By today's standards this film would not win any awards for a positive portrayal of women. The men are all pretty weird-looking. Apart from the hero, who is weird-looking in a 'seventies attractive' kind of way only. The special effects aren't that special and the blood is that bright red colour that only seemed to exist in the seventies.However, these 'flaws' can be pretty much overlooked if you're in the mood for something that wasn't made now and was a product of its time, rather than judging it by today's standards.It's different. Even with its zombie-like connotations it's still more of a different beast than most of today's horror offerings. If you're okay with 'period' horror (yes, I know it's only a few decades ago, but horror seems to have come a long way since then – and not always in 'the right' direction) and can put up with the 'odd squad' and their bad haircuts, give it a go before it gets remade with beautiful people and CGI special effects.