David Cronenberg - Ranked

A site I occasionally contribute to (Midwest Film Journal) is doing a series on David Cronenberg during March. I typically try to contribute to as many series as I can, but Cronenberg was a bit of a blindspot for me. But I had recently enjoyed Crimes of the Future a lot more than I expected to, so I volunteered to cover that film. As I wrote my article for Crimes, I felt that it lacked the perspective of Cronenberg’s entire career. This was partly intentional, as I wanted to comment on a non-fan’s experience with the film, especially since Cronenberg’s body horror fans had expressed disappointment in the film. 

I’m proud of the article I wrote, and I could have left it at that, but the podcasts I listen to have put me in completionist mode. With Gourley and Rust tend to take on entire franchises (which led me to rewatch every Final Destination last week, so be on the lookout for that ranking, as well) and Blank Check almost exclusively works through a director’s entire filmography (coincidentally, Cronenberg is a possible future subject for them, so fingers crossed on that one so I don’t feel like I’m alone in watching all these movies). So lately I’ve been watching all these franchises and filmographies to keep up with the podcasts I listen to, so it just made sense to me to do that with Cronenberg, especially since he was such a blindspot for me.

Having made it through every film, I realized two things. First, my opinion of Crimes of the Future didn’t change; after all, I try to judge a movie on its own, not as part of a career. Second, I’m a Cronenberg fan. Before I dove into these movies, I thought I just liked his non-body horror Viggo Mortensen stuff. But as it turns out, I like damn near everything he’s made, and his career is much more varied than people give him credit for. 

Finally, I wanted to point out a couple of oddities I came across in the IMDb trivia section of most of Cronenberg’s movies. On his more recent movies, some bitter Canuck has added a trivia entry along the lines that even though Cronenberg has been a champion of Canadian cinema and actors, he chose not to use Canadian actors in the starring roles, etc. They even go so far as to give him shit for not filming certain movies in Canada, like Eastern Promises and A Dangerous Method. Because, you know, Russian gangsters and Sigmund Freud are the first things that come to mind when you think of Canada. On a more positive note, some Cronenberg fan has added a trivia entry for nearly every film about how the studio didn’t have faith in the film and failed to promote it properly causing the film to bomb. Sure, that’s why Crimes of the Future wasn’t a hit. It has nothing to do with the fact that Cronenberg has always been more interested in challenging his audience rather than making money.  

Anyway, enough rambling. I’ll try to keep these entries short since there are 22 of them. As always, this is just my personal ranking, and I imagine no two Croenenberg fans would ever come up with identical lists. Here’s my ranking of every David Cronenberg film.

22. Crimes of the Future

This is the 1970 experimental film, not the recent, mostly unrelated version. The first two movies Cronenberg made are pretty much student films, and I couldn’t get into them at all. And this one features some truly disturbing shit that I found unnecessary.

21. Stereo

This is Cronenberg’s first film, but once again this is basically a silent studio film. It was like watching random scenes with the voiceover of someone reading a research essay. Not a good time.

20. Fast Company

This drag racing movie isn’t bad, but it just feels like a director-for-hire job even though Cronenberg clearly has a love of cars. Aside from that, there’s nothing interesting going on with this one.

19. Cosmopolis

From this point forward, I like every film, so don’t think that this placement is indicative of the quality of the film. It’s just that this one interested me the least. I think if I had read the source material, I would appreciate this one more. As it is, I still enjoy Pattinson’s performance and the general insanity of the film.

18. Shivers

I consider this to be Cronenberg’s first proper film. It’s a fun, low budget sex zombie movie that I mainly enjoyed because of all the Canadian weirdos Cronenberg had to cast. Joe Silver was a standout, mainly because of a scene in which he’s eating a sandwich and matter-of-factly describing some crazy shit about parasites and an inappropriate relationship his colleague was having.

17. Spider

Ralph Fiennes is good in this film about a recently released mental patient working through his personal history and trauma. It’s just that this is such a slog to get through, which is rare for Cronenberg. I still found it compelling at times, but it’s one of the only films on this list that I thought was too long.

16. Maps to the Stars

Not Cronenberg’s most subtle work as it’s not unique to claim that Hollywood is full of fucked up people. Still, the buildup of nihilistic, horrible behavior from nearly every character leads to a satisfying series of fucked up events. But there is a fire effect near the end that is so bad it mars the entire film for me.

15. Rabid

This zombie/armpit vampire exploitation movie is a lot of fun. Joe Silver shows up again, which is nice. You could really see the beginnings of Cronenberg’s thematic future with this one. Oh, and Canada is the place to be if a zombie-ish outbreak occurs because they converted their sanitation department into a zombie kill and dispose squad with frightening speed.

14. The Brood

This is the most disturbing film in Cronenberg’s filmography for me, primarily because he has stated that a lot of this film is in response to a divorce/custody battle he was involved in. And there is a downright horrifying scene that takes place in a kindergarten classroom. I really need a follow up with those child extras to find out if they all turned out all right or if this movie fucked them up for life. 

13. M. Butterfly

I didn’t even know this film existed, much less that Cronenberg directed it, but I was pleasantly surprised by this. Mainly, I enjoyed that it moved so quickly when period pieces such as this can sometimes drag on and on. Here, years fly by in the story. Cronenberg has always been an efficient director, and this film is a great example of that. He’s also capable of getting amazing performances out of high level actors, which is certainly the case here with Jeremy Irons (more on him farther down the list) and John Lone.

12. Dead Ringers

Now I’m getting into territory in which people will emphatically disagree with me, as Dead Ringers is a favorite among many fans. To be clear, I like every movie from 19 on down, so this is not a knock against Ringers, this is just personal preference. Still, this movie is an achievement. First off, Cronenberg does an amazing job of making it seem like there are really two Jeremy Ironses throughout. Of course, that is a bit easier when Irons is giving two completely different, and great, performances. You forget that it’s actually just one actor, and that’s the best possible outcome for a film like this.

11. Crash

Unfortunately, this has to forever be referred to as “the good Crash” after the hated Best Picture winner went with the same title. Anyway, this is a wildly different, and better film. Perhaps at the time, it was shocking. But when you watch this as part of a two-week long marathon of Cronenberg, it seems kind of normal. Still, I got a kick out of this just for how fucking horny every character is. I wish the film would have leaned into the dark comedy of it a bit more, but it’s still enjoyable on that level. It also makes for a good double feature with Shivers as both movies are essentially about sex zombies.

10. A Dangerous Method

I would not have thought this film would crack the top ten when I first set out to rank these films. I watched it when it first came out and had forgotten most of it, which I assumed meant it wasn’t very good. Rewatching it, I found it very compelling, even if it is necessarily talky. Like Dead Ringers and M. Butterfly before it, this is all about the performances, and Fassbender, Mortensen, and (especially) Knightley are all fantastic.

9. Naked Lunch

Weird, even by Cronenberg standards. He found a way to adapt an “unfilmable” novel by also making it a quasi biography of William Burroughs. This is definitely one you either go with or dismiss, and I went with it. 

8. Scanners

I always think I like this movie more than I actually do. In my memory, it’s great (that fucking head explosion!), but when I watch it, I take issue with a lot of it, mainly because I think the story is too ambitious. But when it works, it really works. As I compiled my list, this one kept creeping up more and more even though I found it weaker than films I ranked below it. I guess I just admire what the film tried to be more than what it actually is.

7. The Fly

If I didn’t lose you with Dead Ringers’s ranking, then I have now. Look, I totally get how this could be someone’s favorite Croneneberg, and in many ways, I think it is his best film on a technical level. But this shit truly disgusts me at times, making it much less rewatchable than a lot of his other films, and rewatchability matters to me.

6. The Dead Zone

This is another film elevated by the star performance. Along with the performance, Cronenberg makes you truly feel the cursed nature of Christopher Walken’s “gift.” Usually with a film like this, I find myself annoyed when a character doesn’t want to use their special ability, but with this one, I get why it would suck to have that power. Cronenberg and Walken brought surprising depth and emotion to what could have been a Stephen King cash grab.

5. eXistenZ

Now this is what I think of as typical Cronenberg. There are weird, flesh pod things, guns made out of flesh and bone that shoot teeth, etc. It’s gross and fucked up, and the whole thing is a constant mind fuck in which you never know what’s real and what’s not. In other words, it’s one of Cronenberg’s fun movies.

4. Crimes of the Future

Yet another ranking that will lose people. For my full thoughts, check out the article I wrote for Midwest Film Journal. But I’ll just point out here that this film turned me into a Cronenberg fan and prompted me to watch all 22 of his movies. 

3. Videodrome

This is Cronenberg’s career-defining film even though the majority of his work doesn’t involve body horror. But this isn’t so much about body horror as it is about the dangers technology presents to humanity, which is a common theme in his filmography. The technology (VHS tapes) might date this film, but its themes and warnings are timeless. And it features Cronenberg’s most infectious line: “Long live the new flesh!”

2. Eastern Promises

I like this film more each time I watch it. The naked fight and the vicious throat slashings get a lot of attention, but this is another film anchored by performance. This is arguably Mortensen’s best work with Cronenberg (which is saying a lot). Cronenberg perfectly creates a criminal underworld for Mortensen to inhabit, and it leads to one of his most effective, emotional endings.

1. A History of Violence

This was my favorite before I started this project, and it never changed, but the reasons certainly did. Originally, I just found this to be one of Cronenberg’s most accessible and entertaining films. It is still that, with Mortensen doing great work in his first collaboration with Cronenberg and William Hurt showing up and taking over the movie with just one scene, but now I enjoy it as part of Cronenberg’s varied filmography. Yeah, he’s known as the body horror guy, but that shit is only a small portion of his 22 films. In a way, Cronenberg is like Mortensen’s character; he has a violent, disturbing past/reputation, but he also can live in the “normal” world, too. Looking back, A History of Violence is the best of both of Cronenberg’s worlds, which makes it my favorite of all his films.

Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III - "I Like Liver! And Onions! And Pain!"

Okay, covering this entire franchise one film at a time almost immediately became a mistake. The second one was interesting, but I’m already getting into the ones people don’t even remember existing, yet still have some kind of bullshit, undeserved “cult status.” I know that I can just drop this plan because it’s not like I have any kind of following to hold me accountable to stupid shit like this, but when I claim I’m going to do something, I typically try to follow through, even if I’m the only one who demands it. So with that, here’s Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III.

This one is pretty forgettable, mainly because they decided to mostly abandon the comedic tone of the second film and go for a more straightforward horror movie. The plot is pretty basic: a young couple comes across some weirdo at a gas station, and they end up at the Sawyer house fighting for their lives. That’s fine, but only if there’s at least some great gore or something. But the studio was so adamant about getting an R-rating that the gore is so toned down that the film only offers the empty promise of something truly disturbing. 

That’s the problem with all the sequels and remakes and prequels of this series. It is impossible to recapture the tone and surprise of the first film, so each subsequent film sets out to do something slightly different, but never as good. At least the second film said, “Fuck it, let’s make a comedy.” That film leaned all the way into it, and that’s what makes it memorable. These other films, either due to studio interference or bad filmmaking or both, don’t go all in and just end up in some weird, boring direction. 

Franchises with villains like Freddy, Jason, and Michael Myers are successful because they (mostly) stick to a basic formula, for better or worse. With Massacre, no one knows what to do with Leatherface. It’s a great name and a striking look, but is he a sadistic cannibal with the mind of a child, or is he a superhuman monster that can’t be killed? Too often, like with this film, they try to make him like Jason and the others. But why do that when Leatherface is the only one of the group that doesn’t work alone?

Texas Chainsaw isn’t a series that has to copy the slasher genre. I like watching some of these movies because they can be different. If I want Jason, I’ll watch Jason. The original Leatherface was fucked up enough already to be scary; I don’t need him to to rip cars apart and come back from the dead. I just want him to be part of a fucked up family.

You do get the fucked up family here. The only returning member is Leatherface, making this the first movie to start expanding on the Sawyer family. It’s nice to have a rotating roster of fucked-up weirdos and all, but as the series goes on, it gets less and less plausible that all these other crazies were just hanging out somewhere else during the events of the previous movies, just waiting for their turn to swoop in and take Leatherface to their murder-house.

The crazy family dynamic of the original is here again, but it’s just not disturbing this time around. You can’t recreate that kind of magic, I guess. It’s fun to see a young Viggo Mortensen as part of it, I suppose, but he’s not going all in like Bill Moseley before him or McConaughey after him. The addition of a sweet little girl felt like a weak attempt to be edgy. I didn’t care about anyone, and I didn’t find any of them particularly memorable.

In fact, I was ready to dismiss this one with a one paragraph review just to be done with it, but then I watched the special features (yes, I bought the fucking DVD just so I could write about this one). The silver lining of a lot of these failed franchise sequels is that they develop enough of a misguided cult following to warrant plenty of special features on a DVD. And since so much time has passed, everyone involved is much more honest than usual in these behind the scenes featurettes. 

With Leatherface’s DVD, director Jeff Burr is very open, even talking about being fired from the production and hired back within days when the studio couldn’t get anyone else to take on the movie. He also talks about how the studio limited him at every turn because of the desire for an R-rating (to the point that even the “unrated” cut is surprisingly tame). The most interesting revelation has to be that the ending of the film was written and filmed without Burr’s knowledge. He only learned of the ridiculous ending (in which Ken Foree is revealed to be alive with barely a scratch even though he had been clearly killed by Leatherface, and Leatherface is alive as well even though he was clearly killed, too) at the premiere. Apparently the studio found out Foree was testing well, so they wanted him alive for future sequels, which is also why they revived Leatherface. Though why they suddenly cared about continuity is beyond me.

Behind the scenes stories like that are much more interesting than what ended up on screen. I like this series overall, but the haphazard nature of each sequel makes it difficult for any of them to stand out. Leatherface at least stands out on DVD because all involved are willing to acknowledge it was a failure. And it’s interesting to hear what they intended compared to what we got to see. I might be grasping at straws to find enjoyment out of this one, but as the series goes on, that becomes harder and harder. 

Random Thoughts

The opening narration references a trial. I really wish they showed footage from the courtroom.

“He’s a little touched. Been that way since he lost his job at the slaughterhouse.” I like how losing a job at a fucking slaughterhouse is used as the excuse for this family in multiple films.

This is definitely leaning back into the horror after the comedic second movie.

“It’s Armageddon, bitch-face!”

Leatherface rips off the trunk of a car with his bare hands. This is definitely the beginning of turning him into a superhuman monster like Jason rather than a child-like murdering basket case. I’m glad the fourth movie went the complete other way with it. We have enough giant boogeymen in the horror world; why can’t we let Leatherface be the weirdo of the group? I’ll take him screeching in a wig over him ripping cars apart with his bare hands any day.

“Militant lumberjacks…see ‘em all the time.”

So Ken Foree gets run over because he runs out of bullets? Even if he had gotten a shot off, he still would’ve been run over. He lives, but it’s still stupid.

“I like liver. And onions. And pain!”

Michelle couldn’t bring herself to kill the armadillo with the rock at the beginning of the film. But she’s able to hit Leatherface with a rock at the end of the movie. Character development!

Ken Foree being alive and pretty much unscatched at the end is fucking hilarious. While it was explicitly shown, he was pressed up against a running chainsaw for quite some time, and he stopped screaming at one point. Did he just get used to the pain? Was he playing dead while being attacked with a chainsaw? He must have some zen-like pain control. 

"Appaloosa" - A Buddy Cop Western

As always, I write these articles under the assumption that you’ve seen the movie, so...SPOILERS.

Technically this is the second western I’ve written about this month, but Tombstone was just a late post. So Appaloosa is the official western post for July. It’s been a while since I watched this movie. In fact, I’m pretty sure this is one of those DVDs that I watched when I first bought it and have not seen since. My memories of this film were that it was a traditional western, which I like, but it also had some non-traditional elements to it, as well. This is the best of both worlds for me. I tend to like the weirder westerns more, but I still enjoy a straightforward film. Appaloosa is both, although the non-traditional elements are what make it stand out.

Traditional western, buddy comedy, or love triangle (or square or pentagon)?

When looking at Appaloosa broadly it is very much a classic western. Two lawmen for hire (Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen) are tasked by the town leaders of Appaloosa to deal with a renegade rancher (Jeremy Irons) who murdered the previous peacekeepers of the town. The arrival of a woman (Renee Zellweger) complicates things for all involved. And it’s all presented in a traditional way, with a focus on realism. The locations, costumes, music, etc. all feel very common for the genre. That’s not to say they are generic. It’s all very well done; it’s just what you’d expect. The gun fights are a bit different as they’re presented in a more realistic manner than most typical westerns. 

The characters make Appaloosa a bit different from most westerns. While Ed Harris’s character is considered an honest, straightforward man, he is still quite complex. He just talks about it. Harris and Mortensen talk about how they’re going to handle typical western problems, but they also talk about their feelings. For whatever reason, I love this kind of stuff in a western (hence my love for The Sisters Brothers). I like the gunplay in this movie, but my favorite scenes are of Harris and Mortensen discussing relationships. At one point Mortensen has to tell Harris that Zellweger did kiss him, but he didn’t kiss her back. That’s funny to me not only for the absurdity of such a discussion as they prepare for a shootout, but also because of the matter-of-fact banter the two have. 

The pairing of Harris and Mortensen is the highlight of the film. Many of their scenes are intentionally funny. The film is truly a buddy cop comedy set in the Old West. It’s made that much funnier because of how nonchalant they are about killing people. It’s just part of the job for them, so it’s not something they really think about. Harris is more concerned with what Mortensen told Zellweger about him...or about which curtain fabrics he should choose for his new house...or how to properly use the word “sequester” (which he uses a second time later in the movie for a funny, subtle callback). 

The cause of most their funny conversations is Zellweger, who gives a funny performance, as well. At first, her appearance seems fairly normal in the film. She is a love interest for Harris who is kidnapped later on. It’s typical damsel in distress stuff until Harris and Mortensen see her running around naked with her supposed captor. It turns out Zellweger is a survivor, and she will latch on to the strongest person she can find for her own safety. She gets with Harris immediately when she sees that he’s the leader of the duo, but then makes a movie on Mortensen when she feels Harris is too distracted, then hooks up with her captor since he now has the power, then appears to be getting close to Irons once he’s pardoned and taking over the town. Hence, the “love pentagon” mentioned in the topic title. (Also, Love Pentagon would be a good band or porno name.) To dismiss her as a “whore” would be lazy. It actually makes her a very interesting female character in a western, which is certainly a rarity. She’s using what men want from her to ensure her safety. Now, one could argue about how promptly she moves on to her captor, but desperate times call for desperate measures. 

Her actions lead to some of the funniest moments of the film, as she explains herself to Harris. Zellweger’s tone is perfect in these moments. She infuses every line with a sense of “what did you expect me to do?” that cracks me up. And the anger in her face when she turns on Mortensen in desperation is hilarious, especially when Mortensen calmly denies her claims and Harris believes him over her. 

I’m aware that writing about these conversations and character moments don’t do the film justice, but that’s what makes Appaloosa special. It’s different, but in small ways. Perhaps it’s just my odd taste, but those little quirks are why I own this movie yet I don’t have a single John Wayne movie in my collection. 

Why do I own this?

All of the above, but I had really forgotten how interesting this movie is, so I’m glad it’s in my collection. And I’ll definitely watch it again when I go through another western kick.

Random thoughts

According to IMDb trivia, this was meant to be the first film in a series that followed Mortensen and Harris. I love the idea, but how would that work? The ending seemed pretty definitive. Although it would be funny if there was a sequel in which Harris tracked down Mortensen because Zellweger left him for whoever took Irons’s place. 

This was clearly a passion project of Ed Harris’s since this is only his second directorial effort (after Pollock) and his only writing credit. Westerns tend to bring that out in actors. John C Reilly purchased the rights to The Sisters Brothers in the hopes of one day making it, and Kurt Russell essentially took over production to make sure Tombstone got made. I think these actors grew up with westerns and always dreamed of making a great one and realized they had to make it happen on their own since Hollywood has largely abandoned the genre.

Jeremy Irons is great, but I always have a hard time watching him with an American accent. It's not bad; it's just that his voice doesn't lend itself to an American accent. Does that make sense? Maybe it's just me.

I'm not crazy about that opening narration… I'm not against narration in general, it's just that most of the shit Viggo says could be revealed naturally through dialogue and actions throughout the film. He certainly doesn't need to keep mentioning his 8 gauge. We become well aware of that gun throughout the movie.

"Put your little contraptions away." That has to be the first time a penis had been called a contraption.

The suddenness of the violence early on is great. Definitely makes you realize anything and happen in a moment's notice in the film.

Timothy Spall is the go-to "flustered man in a 1800s setting" with this and The Last Samurai.

Ed Harris's first interaction with Zellweger is so damn strange. I don't like seeing Ed Harris smitten…

"Killing's sometimes a sorta side-thing that happens."

Do NOT ask Ed Harris about his sex life or he will nearly beat to death the nearest bystander.

I definitely don't like seeing "giddy after a night of banging" Ed Harris.

I love the look on Viggo's face when he hands the spyglass to Harris to see Zellweger gallivanting around naked with her supposed kidnapper.

"Chews her food good...but apparently she'll fuck anything that ain't gelded."

You have to appreciate a movie that involves Chester A. Arthur in a plot point.

I like the ending and the sacrifice Viggo makes, but that ending narration almost ruins it. It just spells out things you already know. It would have been much more powerful if it simply ended in silence. I get the desire to end on a poetic note, but there is such a thing as visual poetry too.

I was not expecting (and had completely forgotten) the Tom Petty song over the end credits. It's not bad or anything, but, like a lot of little things with this movie, it was unexpected.

..