David Cronenberg was my main reason for seeing 'Spider'. While not one of my all time favourite directors, he is a very unique and truly admirable one and find a good deal to like about all his films. Even the ones that don't do a lot for me overall ('Stereo', 'Crimes of the Future', 'Cosmopolis'). Another main reason is the cast, with Ralph Fiennes and Miranda Richardson being fine actors, particularly Fiennes.
'Spider' also had a fascinating and ambitious concept (one of the most ambitious for a Cronenberg film), which is something that has always drawn me to Cronenberg. His tackling of difficult, challenging subjects and themes and mostly executing them in a way that unsettles. This is especially apparent in his 70s and 80s work. Some of his lesser work tends to be the ones that under-explore their subjects and come over as bland, though with two of his worst it was when he had not yet found his style. Anyway, the cast, Cronenberg and the concept are enough to draw anybody in. Was not sure whether it would be a good film or not, with the reviews here being so polarising although it was critically acclaimed and most Cronenberg enthusiasts at least appreciated it. To me, 'Spider' was a good film, no, a great film.
Can totally see why others won't like it as there are a couple of elements that will turn, and have turned, viewers off and test their patience. In my mind though, 'Spider' is one of Cronenberg's more underrated films and also among his better films (later efforts and overall), if not quite among his very best like 'The Fly', 'Dead Ringers' and 'Eastern Promises'. Perhaps his best since 'Dead Ringers', being the first film of his since that to be above the "respect rather than love" quality of the films between 'Naked Lunch' and up to this in a period where Cronenberg was moving away from the body horror that he pioneered.
It is a deliberate slow burner, and that is something that will, and has, put a fair share of people off. Although the opening sequence was captivating, with such a perfect marriage of beautifully and cleverly designed visuals and music, did think that the pace was too deliberate at first and momentum was really lacking with too much of it almost drawn out. Stuck with 'Spider' though because there was so much talent on board, with some Cronenberg regular collaborators among them, and so much going for it and thought that not giving it a chance by not finishing it was unfair.
That proved to be the right decision, as things did become significantly more interesting and investable. Being a film intended to unsettle and challenge the mind, 'Spider' certainly did both those things.
Visually, as almost always with Cronenberg (with a couple of exceptions, 'Shivers' and 'Rabid'), 'Spider' looks great. Full of audacious atmosphere and the cinematography and especially the editing are so clever, particularly in how they mirror Spider's thought process. Consider the collaboration of Cronenberg and Howard Shore to be one of the best and most consistent regular director-composer collaborations in film, don't think any differently here in 'Spider' judging from his truly haunting work. Cronenberg's direction is very accomplished and he really lets the film get under the skin, which it does do in a very disturbing way, while allowing one to sympathise with Spider.
A good script helps, and moving past the mumbling (an essential part of Spider's personality) having the author himself write the script proved a good move in by far one of the better source material to film Cronenberg films and there is a lesser feeling of over-ambitiousness here. An ambitious concept, executed uniquely and courageously and in a way that unsettled, challenged and moved as the harrowing unravelling and melancholic compulsion increased. What was original was the inner monologue device depicting Spider and past events, the story structure interwoven naturally and cohesively.
Fiennes is nothing short of amazing, chilling and moving so much with such telling body language and expressions that tell a huge amount. Richardson is in a tricky dual role, which she plays with adept ease and differentiates the two characters without overdoing or underplaying. Gabriel Byrne gives one of his better performances in a while up to this point, while Lynn Redgrave and John Neville do a lot with their roles.
Summarising, truly great but won't in any way hold anything against anybody who can't connect with it. 9/10
'Spider' also had a fascinating and ambitious concept (one of the most ambitious for a Cronenberg film), which is something that has always drawn me to Cronenberg. His tackling of difficult, challenging subjects and themes and mostly executing them in a way that unsettles. This is especially apparent in his 70s and 80s work. Some of his lesser work tends to be the ones that under-explore their subjects and come over as bland, though with two of his worst it was when he had not yet found his style. Anyway, the cast, Cronenberg and the concept are enough to draw anybody in. Was not sure whether it would be a good film or not, with the reviews here being so polarising although it was critically acclaimed and most Cronenberg enthusiasts at least appreciated it. To me, 'Spider' was a good film, no, a great film.
Can totally see why others won't like it as there are a couple of elements that will turn, and have turned, viewers off and test their patience. In my mind though, 'Spider' is one of Cronenberg's more underrated films and also among his better films (later efforts and overall), if not quite among his very best like 'The Fly', 'Dead Ringers' and 'Eastern Promises'. Perhaps his best since 'Dead Ringers', being the first film of his since that to be above the "respect rather than love" quality of the films between 'Naked Lunch' and up to this in a period where Cronenberg was moving away from the body horror that he pioneered.
It is a deliberate slow burner, and that is something that will, and has, put a fair share of people off. Although the opening sequence was captivating, with such a perfect marriage of beautifully and cleverly designed visuals and music, did think that the pace was too deliberate at first and momentum was really lacking with too much of it almost drawn out. Stuck with 'Spider' though because there was so much talent on board, with some Cronenberg regular collaborators among them, and so much going for it and thought that not giving it a chance by not finishing it was unfair.
That proved to be the right decision, as things did become significantly more interesting and investable. Being a film intended to unsettle and challenge the mind, 'Spider' certainly did both those things.
Visually, as almost always with Cronenberg (with a couple of exceptions, 'Shivers' and 'Rabid'), 'Spider' looks great. Full of audacious atmosphere and the cinematography and especially the editing are so clever, particularly in how they mirror Spider's thought process. Consider the collaboration of Cronenberg and Howard Shore to be one of the best and most consistent regular director-composer collaborations in film, don't think any differently here in 'Spider' judging from his truly haunting work. Cronenberg's direction is very accomplished and he really lets the film get under the skin, which it does do in a very disturbing way, while allowing one to sympathise with Spider.
A good script helps, and moving past the mumbling (an essential part of Spider's personality) having the author himself write the script proved a good move in by far one of the better source material to film Cronenberg films and there is a lesser feeling of over-ambitiousness here. An ambitious concept, executed uniquely and courageously and in a way that unsettled, challenged and moved as the harrowing unravelling and melancholic compulsion increased. What was original was the inner monologue device depicting Spider and past events, the story structure interwoven naturally and cohesively.
Fiennes is nothing short of amazing, chilling and moving so much with such telling body language and expressions that tell a huge amount. Richardson is in a tricky dual role, which she plays with adept ease and differentiates the two characters without overdoing or underplaying. Gabriel Byrne gives one of his better performances in a while up to this point, while Lynn Redgrave and John Neville do a lot with their roles.
Summarising, truly great but won't in any way hold anything against anybody who can't connect with it. 9/10