David Cronenberg and his films intrigue me, with their challenging themes and the unique way of leaving the viewer unsettled. Most of them are good to brilliant ('The Fly' and 'Dead Ringers' being my favourites), while not considering any of his films terrible or irredeemable. Yes, have found good things in his lesser work like 'Cosmopolis', and there are films of his like 'Crash' and 'Naked Lunch' (the film that saw him start to move away from body horror) that fit in the appreciate and admire category than the properly enjoy one.
'Stereo' really isn't one of his best, if anything for me, having literally just seen it, it replaces 'Cosmopolis' as his worst. It is interesting for it being so early on in his career, the first of two short-length feature films ('Crimes of the Future' being the other). Before he introduced and pioneered body horror, starting with 'Shivers', that featured in pretty much all his 1970s films and most of his 1980s ones. It is also interesting for introducing one major theme in six of his twenty one films (different kinds of consciousness of minds through sexual exploration), except all six of those films explored that theme much better, even the weakest two of the six 'Crash' and 'M Butterfly'.
Other than the interest value, the best things about 'Stereo' are the eerie location and the black and white photography, which is not amazing and shows inexperience it did look less amateurish than expected and had atmosphere. Despite being made before 'Shivers' and 'Rabid' (his two worst-looking films from personal view), being on just as low a budget and the rest of his films being much more technically refined for me it looks better than those two.
Not much to recommend about 'Stereo' otherwise, and do regret saying that. Found it to be very dull, going at too slow a pace for a story so slight, making a very short length feel longer. Do think that the comparison to it being like trying to stay awake during a university lecture very apt, because to me it did feel like that having fairly recently finished being a student so the feeling is still fresh. Am really trying not to be mean, if it is coming across that way and apologies if it does. It is an interesting subject and the main theme likewise, but they are badly under-explored.
Also felt that it was too clinical and emotionally distant, usually do feel something watching Cronenberg whether it's being disturbed, being amused at some dark wit or being moved. This is a not so common case of feeling nothing in a Cronenberg film. Cronenberg's inexperience does show, he directs it too coldly and it just feels bland. Sadly, that is not it with the faults. 'Stereo' felt confused and muddled, with it being difficult to follow what was going on. And the over-used and over-complicated, not to mention monotonous, narration doesn't help.
In conclusion, an interesting failure mainly to be watched for Cronenberg completests. 4/10
'Stereo' really isn't one of his best, if anything for me, having literally just seen it, it replaces 'Cosmopolis' as his worst. It is interesting for it being so early on in his career, the first of two short-length feature films ('Crimes of the Future' being the other). Before he introduced and pioneered body horror, starting with 'Shivers', that featured in pretty much all his 1970s films and most of his 1980s ones. It is also interesting for introducing one major theme in six of his twenty one films (different kinds of consciousness of minds through sexual exploration), except all six of those films explored that theme much better, even the weakest two of the six 'Crash' and 'M Butterfly'.
Other than the interest value, the best things about 'Stereo' are the eerie location and the black and white photography, which is not amazing and shows inexperience it did look less amateurish than expected and had atmosphere. Despite being made before 'Shivers' and 'Rabid' (his two worst-looking films from personal view), being on just as low a budget and the rest of his films being much more technically refined for me it looks better than those two.
Not much to recommend about 'Stereo' otherwise, and do regret saying that. Found it to be very dull, going at too slow a pace for a story so slight, making a very short length feel longer. Do think that the comparison to it being like trying to stay awake during a university lecture very apt, because to me it did feel like that having fairly recently finished being a student so the feeling is still fresh. Am really trying not to be mean, if it is coming across that way and apologies if it does. It is an interesting subject and the main theme likewise, but they are badly under-explored.
Also felt that it was too clinical and emotionally distant, usually do feel something watching Cronenberg whether it's being disturbed, being amused at some dark wit or being moved. This is a not so common case of feeling nothing in a Cronenberg film. Cronenberg's inexperience does show, he directs it too coldly and it just feels bland. Sadly, that is not it with the faults. 'Stereo' felt confused and muddled, with it being difficult to follow what was going on. And the over-used and over-complicated, not to mention monotonous, narration doesn't help.
In conclusion, an interesting failure mainly to be watched for Cronenberg completests. 4/10