Shivers (1975) Poster

(1975)

User Reviews

Review this title
150 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Influential debut for the great Cronenberg.
Nightman857 March 2008
The first big screen flick for Canadian horror master David Cronenberg was this skin-crawling B horror movie.

Residents of a high rise apartment building are being attacked by parasites that are turning them into crazed zombies with nothing but sexual assault on their minds!

Shivers is an effectively disturbing movie, not unlike most of Cronenberg's later horror classics. It's had a good hand in influencing later creature flicks. The story has a good premise and builds some terrific tension as it escalates to a great claustrophobic climax. What's clever about this movie is that most of the horror is suggested, we don't see the parasites much and their elusiveness just helps to create more tension. The makeup effects are decent for a low budgeter and the cast turn in some adequate performances, horror veteran Barbara Steele is a nice addition to the cast.

Shivers is a entertaining slice of B horror that manages to live up to its title well. A must-see for Cronenberg fans.

*** out of ****
24 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
competent debut, given the circumstances and time period
BlackBalloon25 July 2001
Cronenberg's directorial feature film debut is built around a now-familiar amalgamation of sex, technology, and medicine gone mad. The Canadian "Shivers" (original American release title "They Came From Within", aka "The Parasite Murders") opens with a slide show advertising a creepily perfect-sounding high-rise apartment building isolated on an island but just minutes away from downtown Montreal. We are told that the complex contains practically everything necessary to maintain a comfortable life- medical and dental practices, clothing stores, a gift shop, a deli, recreation, etc. Ideally, it would seem, the only reasons a resident would leave would be to work, socialize with non-residents, or take a vacation, if that wasn't too redundant. But of course, something terrible is just under the polished surface.

Cronenberg's direction is obviously not as polished as in later features, but we begin to see his signature style translated well into a full-length format.
16 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Night of the slimy sex-monsters
AS-6917 August 2001
Cronenberg's variation on the Zombie theme was his first full length feature film and for this it is surprisingly good.

From the technical point of view, it is very amateurish. The lighting and camera work are highly reminiscent of home made Super 8, and the sound is bad beyond belief.

Although the mindless creatures attacking anything that moves immediately recall the Zombies, Cronenberg's movie has some original ideas. In fact, watching German television these days, the subject of bored middle class diving into sex orgies (at least in their fantasy) seems more up to date than ever. Unlike Romero's Zombies, Cronenberg's creatures simply embark into endless sexual excesses, including minors. Indeed, one of the most scandalous scene shows two young girls on dog leashes, climbing up a stair and barking - unexcusable image!

The special effects in "Shivers" work very well and are more slimy, organic, and visceral than say Romero's, and give better testimony of the vulnerability of the human body. They set the tone for Cronenberg's use of gore in his subsequent films.

"Shivers" earned Cronenberg immediately the title of the "reigning king of shlock horror" - very appropriate.
31 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cronenberg's Impressive Feature Debut
eibon0920 July 2000
Shivers(1975) is a fascinating first film especially for a person who was learning to direct professionly on the job. An interesting part about this movie is that Cronenberg did Shivers(1975) without having a clue of what people in the film crew does or containing knowledge of film terms. The fact that he made a cult classic is a testament to his potential at the time to be an excellent movie maker. Shivers is basically the first horror film made in Canada as far as I know and David Cronenberg was the first director to open the flood gates for the horror film in Canada.

This motion picture mixes together the erotic with the zombie genre made famous by George Romero in 1968. In fact, there are many references to the zombie classic Night of the Living Dead. The movie is about parasites who enters people's bodies and turn them into sex maniacs. It dares to break many sexual taboos that many film makers would be afraid to explore.

Shivers would provide a starting point for some themes that David Cronenberg would explore in later films like Rabid(1977), The Brood(1979), Scanners(1981), Videodrome(1983), The Fly(1986), Dead Ringers(1988), and Crash(1997). The two themes are disease as the transformation of the body into the next state of evolution for the human being and the other theme of the outsider who does not understand why they are so different from other people. Barbara Stelle provided the movie with many memorable moments especially the infamous "bath tub" scene. It is a groundbreaking movie because it would become a source of many movie directors for the next two decades.

One great scene is the "bath tub" scene which is a classic example of building up suspense until the final moment when the scene ends. Another excellent scene is when the protagonist tries to escape outside and he goes back in as swarms of Sex zombies go chasing after him. I consider this movie the beginning of a trilogy I call the 'sexual evolution' trilogy. The trilogy starts out with Shivers(1975), continues with Videodrome(1983), and finishes with Crash(1997).

Shivers(1975) would be a major influence for the scifi-action thriller The Hidden(1987), especially with the idea of a parasite entering a person's body and changing their entire personal behavior. Also influenced by Shivers were the Alien series(especially Alien(1979) which was made four years after Cronenberg's directioral debut) and there are a couple of examples of this influence. First, the two movies involve parasites who go in and put out of a person's body as well as having acid for blood. Second, They both take place in an isolated and high placed area with Alien(1979) taking place on a spaceship in the middle of nowhere and Shivers(1975) takes place on a apartment complex called the Skyliner Towers on the middle of an island that is isolated from the rest of Canada.
75 out of 87 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Zombies of Sex
claudio_carvalho14 February 2006
In the fancy Starliner compound in an island near Montreal, a mad scientist tests a parasite in the body of his mistress. He believes that man is an animal that thinks too much, and he develops a parasite to increase the violence and sexual desire of mankind. There is an outbreak in the condominium, with the fierce dwellers becoming zombies of sex.

"Shivers" is the third feature of this great Canadian cult director David Cronenberg, indeed a very low budget trash movie, with a final cost of US$ 179.000,00. The story mixes humor and horror and the effects are very nasty and disgusting, a trademark of Cronenberg. The story is a kind of sexual version of "The Night of the Living Dead", with people turning out zombies of sex. The screenplay of 1979 "Alien" used many concepts of this movie. The interview of David Cronenberg in the DVD is excellent, and it is very funny to know that the actress Sue Patrick asked him to slap her face in the scenes that she needed to cry, and Barbara Steele reaction to this physical assault. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Calafrios" ("Shivers")
35 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Decent Cronenburg Film
EVOL66618 October 2005
SHIVERS (aka THEY CAME FROM WITHIN) is another pretty twisted outing from freak-o Canadian director David Cronenburg. SHIVERS is not nearly as memorable as some of Cronenburg's other works (VIDEODROME, THE FLY or my personal favorite - THE BROOD...) but it is still worth a look for anyone that is into Cronenburg's strange cinema.

SHIVERS is about parasites that enter their human hosts and cause them to do all kinds of strange sexual and violent things. Pretty cool concept that is handled well, and the film is both weird and entertaining as only Cronenburg can do it. Again, not the best of his films by any means, but still solid. Give it a shot - 7.5/10
16 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Night of the Orgies
sol12184 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
***MAJOR SPOILERS*** Having felt that man has not lived up to his potentials since he's restricted by the laws imposed on him by society Dr. Emil Hobbs, Fred Doedrlein, has developed this parasitic type earthworm. The parasite when entering the human body, orally as well as sexually, will cause the person to drop all his or her inhibitions, as well as their pants and skirts, and let it all hang out attacking and raping anyone they come in contact with.

Having implanted his new "invention" on one of his patients Annabelle, Kathy Graham, Dr. Hobbs soon realized that he had created a Frankenstein monster! In a wild frenzy Dr. Hobbs strangled Annabelle in his suite at the Starliner Apartment Complex before , feeling a deep sense of guilt, slitting his own throat.

It turned out to be too late for the guilt-ridden Dr. Hobbs to stop the sexually transmitted plague that he created. It soon becomes evident that the parasite left the dead Annabelle's body and started infecting everyone in the apartment complex. Traveling though the air-condition ducts garbage disposal and plumbing systems of the apartment complex the parasite has easy excess to everyone living there. By the time the movie is over everyone living and working in the apartment complex had become a victim of the attacking parasite.

Both young and old, from pre-teenagers to senior citizens, people that were infected by the parasite became so horny and sexually aroused that they went on a full scale wild orgy by the time the movie ended. These uncontrollable sexual acrobatics not only spilled into the surrounding neighborhoods but city's and towns as well.

Even though the movie "They Came from Within" or "Shivers" was made some five years before the emergence of the deadly AIDS epidemic in the early 1980's its striking similarities to that both sexually and blood transmitted disease is absolutely amazing. The deadly parasite, like the AIDS virus, enters it's victim and causes him or her bodily defenses to totally collapses: It's there where the similarities between the AIDS virus and parasite ends.

The parasite soon causes its infected host to go out looking, like a vampire looking for blood to survive, for new victims and strikes out at anyone uninfected in a wild sexual frenzy. This ends up with the infected person implanting the parasite in his or her victims body to start the whole cycle, person to person transmission, all over again.

The film is a lot like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" in that nobody knows who's been infected, like the people who's bodies were taken over by the body snatchers, by the parasite until it's too late.

The resident doctor at the apartment complex Dr. Roger St Luc, Paul Hampton, gets the lowdown to what exactly is going on there from his colleague Dr. Rollo Linsky, Joe Silver. Rollo had been working with the late Dr. Hobbs before he completely cracked up and killed, along with Annabelle, himself. It's later that Rollo himself falls victim to the deadly parasite when he's attacked by Nicholas Tudor, Allan Kolman, a resident at the apartment complex. Tudor had been infected by the parasite when, cheating behind his wife' Janine's (Susan Petie) back, he had a sexual tryst with Annabelle.

Trapped in the complex with its sex-crazed residents trying to both rape as well has induct Roger into their ranks has him make an desperate attempt to escape the fate that awaits him there. Roger tries to cross the causeway, connecting Starliner Island to the mainland, making a wild dash to both freedom safety.

*****SPOILERS****** It's then that Roger realizes just how helpless his both escape attempt and him warning the general public is! The cat, or parasite, is out of the bag, or plumbing system! And with it being able to greatly intensify man's most darkest and suppressed, through laws and religion, thoughts and taboos there's nothing on God's green earth, military medically or psychologically, that can stop it!
23 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A Man Spends 30 Seconds Nibbling On A Pickle
darthmorbyva22 September 2020
There is a lot of nothing in this movie. A lot of points where people just stand, talking about nothing that pertains to any part of the story until there are just exposition dumps. The parasites seem to effect different people differently and it's unclear how or when certain people got it yet they seem to be the major players.

Ending is sort of good though.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Fascinating and Disturbing
dispet5 April 2004
An early piece from David Cronenberg, this is his first cinematic exploration of themes which he would continually come back to throughout his career in films such as eXistenZ, Videodrome, The Fly and Crash. to best explain these themes, i must qoute the man himself, "I was saying, I love sex, but I love it as a veneral disease. I am Syphilis. I am Enthusiastic about it, but in a very different way from you." and while that doesnt shed a whole lot of light on the film, it sure is a hell of a qoute :) the plot of Shivers, aka The Parasite Murders, revolves around a parasite which has been bred to heighten sexual desire and other primal instincts while dampening our mental awareness. this parasite has been let lose within a high-tech high rise block thanks to the experiments upon a young girl by an older scientist. the horror begins immediately, as do the social metaphors and ideas of sex and death. it is interesting to note this film was produced before the outbreak of AIDs, but is entirely applicable in our modern world. in some ways this is a tale of warning, of what can go wrong and how we can destroy ourselves. but above all, cronenberg delights in sinking us into the flesh, so the film can also be seen as fable of a world gone mad with life and freedom, which many would not consider so horrific. it defies simple catergorisation, it is not just a story about rampantly sexually active teenagers like so many of its kind. it is a story about every person's desire for safety, and the darker desires which hide behind it. wonderfully directed, intriguingly written, there is little that i can fault this film for, except perhaps its little to obvious reference to Romero's Night Of The Living Dead. while it is obviously partly inspired by that film, and brilliantly reinterprets it for a new age and a new social strata, the tiresome zombies that stagger about like slugs are a little out of place, but fortunately it does not let the film down. a must see.
30 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Sex Zombies!!!
Polaris_DiB16 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Man, what better response to George Romero's newly created zombie archetype could be better? Cronenberg's debut feature, though a little worn around the edges, is a spectacular funhouse, a dire warning, a potent sexualized anxiety creation, and best of all, a whole lotta fun.

The feature starts with an advertisement for a nice, secluded Yuppie apartment complex, sensually (and homoerotically) appealing to live in some paradise high rise removed from the greater degradation of Canadian society. Class, sexuality, fear, and setting are all established in one swift stroke. It's not long before the carnage begins.

See, it seems some mad scientist was using the inhabitants of this virtual Eden to test out some replacement for organ transplants: a parasite that is also "a stimulant and an aphrodisiac". Basically, a person loses a kidney and replaces it with a penis-shaped worm that makes he or she attack and have sex with almost everything in sight... such automatized lust is very zombie-like, but with the added bonus of maintaining language and critical thinking (at least enough critical thinking to not be stopped by doors, for instance). Yesss, it's not long before these worms have burst from the interior of some hapless young man to destroy the entire community into an orgiastic apocalypse.

And seriously, if terms like "orgiastic apocalypse" excite, intrigue, or compel you, this movie is right for your tastes. Cronenberg begins his body horror mentality by mixing sex, death, violence, disease, medicine, and technology at manic levels, something he has continued to do for over thirty years now. The movie is a little different from his usual work in that as an early feature, he used some of the more regular tropes of horror film-making such as monster cam and chiaroscuro (later, he would find he didn't even need these devices as the plots and concepts of his ideas were enough, and most of the horror he'd show would be in a much more direct exposition with much more open and regular spaces). The movie at one point literally becomes a sex/horror fun-house as each door is opened to reveal another act found by the mainstream to be sordid and degraded, from pedophilia to incest to homosexuality and everything in between, the underlying erotic impulses of the community is abjectly revealed.

What's fascinating about this movie is that it's kind of hard, from modern eyes, to see the end result as being too bad of a deal. The troubling part is the sexual violence and the attacks, but once it's all done, it's hard to discern the difference between consensual and exploitative. Do the characters in this movie, upon getting invaded by the worms, start doing things against their will, or do the worms merely excite a repressed desire that they finally act out? "Everything is a sexual act", a nurse says at one point, describing a dream she had to her impotent lover/hero figure. Such a theme will continue through almost everything Cronenberg would later film, as he would become the master of body horror.

--PolarisDiB
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Not many shivers.
gridoon9 February 2003
I suppose if you've never seen any of Romero's zombie films, or his "Crazies", or even Cronenberg's "Rabid" and "The Fly", you might be impressed by this film. But for even a mildly seasoned horror fan, there is nothing especially interesting here. Of course it's Cronenberg's first feature-length film, so it's worth seeing for historical reasons, but the script is boring, monotonous, unfocused and it lacks an engaging protagonist. There are some disturbing moments (the opening fight/murder, where we don't even know who the villain is; the barking kids; the bathtub scene), but the film lacks a clear idea of how it wants to portray the "infected" people; most of the time they behave like energetic sex maniacs, but at other times they become the plodding zombies of the "NOTLD" variety. (*1/2)
18 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Wonderfully twisted horror masterpiece.
HumanoidOfFlesh19 December 2002
"Shivers"/"They Came From Within" is a wonderfully twisted horror film directed by Canadian maestro David Cronenberg("The Fly","Rabid","The Brood").It certainly works as a gory shocker(it actually managed to make my skin crawl),but there's not enough tension for my liking.There are some great gross-out moments and the parasites are suitably disgusting.The plot is simple:bizarre parasites lead the inhabitants of a high rise apartment building to go on an orgy of sex and violence.The film is delightfully disgusting,so if you like horror movies check out this masterpiece.Highly recommended.10 out of 10.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Attack of the parasites
TheLittleSongbird4 May 2019
If compiling a list of favourite directors, David Cronenberg if to be honest wouldn't be on it (having only properly started seeing his work fairly recently). If compiling though a list of the most fascinating and unique directors, he would almost certainly be on it and high up the more work seen of his. A vast majority of his films disturb in his use of imagery and make one feel uncomfortable with his tackling of challenging subjects, but as said in some of my other reviews for his films there is much more to his work than just full on horror as seen with him moving away from it in later years.

Cronenberg's feature film debut 'Shivers' is nowhere near among his best work (though nowhere near among his worst either), but for a film debut with limited resources despite flaws 'Shivers' is pretty impressive. The rest of the films that are part of his filmography are far more refined visually, explore their themes/subject much deeper and are far better written and acted. But every good/great director has to start somewhere and this impresses and interests, and even with the low production values it's fairly ambitious in its subject and for low budget. In terms of content, 'Shivers' is one of Cronenberg's more disturbing films.

There are issues with 'Shivers'. If there was an award for the worst-looking Cronenberg film, 'Shivers' in my mind would be an easy win. With the exceptions of the suitably freaky special effects and eerie apartment setting, this does fare pretty badly in the visual department and reminiscent of a very low budget television film. The camera work and editing are both rather slip-shod and like the makers were still experimenting when shooting and editing without having put much thought into what to do and when to do it. The sound is also amateurishly handled.

Another weak point is the acting. There are two exceptions, Joe Silver, who really does give it his best shot without over-compensating, and particularly Barbara Steele, whose experience in Hammer films is obvious. Other than that, 'Shivers' contains some of the worst acting in a Cronenberg film even for mostly non-big names. Paul Hampton is especially awful, who looked like he wasn't interested in the film at all (even Stephen Lack in 'Scanners' wasn't this bad). The script does have some very clunky moments.

However, despite all of this it is difficult to be too hard on 'Shivers'. As said the special effects are freaky, surprising as one does expect for minimal budget for the effects to be the worst part when it comes to production values, the apartment setting has real eeriness and Silver and Steele do well with what they have. Cronenberg gave himself a lot to take on and does so admirably, even if his style had not fully formed yet. Yet his style can still be found all over 'Shivers', with the famous themes and ideas often re-visited in later films present but much deeper and with more subtlety later on. Other parts of the script are darkly humorous and intriguing, like the flesh monologue.

What is particularly good here though in 'Shivers' is the atmosphere and the horror. Even by 2019 standards, 'Shivers' is still genuinely scary and even now is one of Cronenberg's most disturbing, old and new. The starkness evokes genuine chills, something that would be seen in his later films but much more technically advanced in them. There is a real sense of dread, with a lot of tension and suspense. The parasites are not seen a lot but really chill the blood when they do appear. A lot of the imagery is stomach churning, especially the bath scene which is one of the most frightening scenes of any early Cronenberg and overall Cronenberg perhaps for that matter. The claustrophobic climax is also unforgettable.

Summarising, very flawed but did give me the shivers. 7/10
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What a FANTASTIC waste of my money!
tailsofthewind4 May 2020
The parasites were cool, great effects for the time and money, the concept was enough to lure me in, but the movie did NOT deliver because the script was forgettable.

Skip it.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Intelligent social-commentary disguised as a lurid slice of pure exploitation; a great film
ThreeSadTigers20 June 2008
For me, the best of Cronenberg's earlier works is an exercise in claustrophobic tension building, wrapped in a concept of pure exploitation, and all further used as an excuse for a wicked Buñuelian-like satire on the woes of contemporary consumer culture and the antiseptic nature of modern living. The way that Cronenberg creates this world of gated purification turned into a beacon for the very best of late twentieth century existence, only to then pull the walls down from within as the characters are turned into dribbling, sex starved deviants is not only an effective horror-film scenario - drawing on the prevalent notions of isolation and paranoia usually found in films of this particular nature - but also as a comment on the vapid, overwhelming sense of boredom that modern life, with all its consumer fads and soulless pursuit of social fulfilment can present.

Like the very best of these retro exploitation films, Shivers (1975) works on at least two distinct levels of enjoyment and interpretation, with the obvious shocker elements suggesting an even more warped take on the territory of Night of the Living Dead (1968) - with sidelines into the same kind of atmosphere created by John Carpenter in his subsequent Assault of Precinct 13 (1976) - while the more personal and psychological aspects of the script complement the more recognisable elements of horror in a way that creates a perfect symbiosis between presentation and form. Admittedly, the look of the film and the obvious limitations of the low budget might disappoint some viewers more accustomed to glossier, 21st century thrillers; whilst the once shocking elements of the film might even seem somewhat quaint, especially in light of the veritable pornography of violence in films such as Saw III (2006), Hostel (2005) and The Hills Have Eyes (2006). Nonetheless, I think many viewers more familiar with horror/thriller/science-fiction cinema of this particular period will still be able to appreciate what Cronenberg was trying to achieve with this depiction of violence and depravity; with the scenes and scenarios - especially in the film's frenzied final act - really going for the jugular in terms of outré shock spectacle and the subversion of traditionally wholesome, all American iconography.

The idea of a small band of survivors coming together in the name of self-preservation as an inexplicable horror affects those closest to them is still a well worn concept in horror cinema, and one that works incredibly well when combined here with Cronenberg's cold, Kubrickian vision of a sterile, social environment as sex and death become distorted amidst moments of stock exploitation, sly wit and a genuinely subversive sense of satirical absurdity. Though it is admittedly rough around the edges and lacking in the obvious prestige of films like The Brood (1979) and Videodrome (1982), I'd still take this over A History of Violence (2005) or Eastern Promises (2007) any day; with Shivers standing out as not only one of Cronenberg's very best films, but one of the most unique, unconventional and completely engrossing exploitations works of this particular cinematic period.
29 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Paul Hampton's used pickle
hmservant25 January 2021
Warning: Spoilers
This film needed a little more time to bake. Some of the dialogue is weak. Case in point: Rollo Lynsky: "How about that pickle?" (Dr. St. Luc tosses him half-eaten pickle.) Rollo Lynsky: "It's used!" Some characters simply vanish, like the couple at the beginning of the movie (the Svibens); I thought they might return at the end, but after being introduced and appearing to be major characters, they just disappear. The acting also ranges from very good (Susan Petrie) to barely adequate (Paul Hampton, who resembles the love child of David Duchovny and Owen Wilson). Despite the imperfections, I found the film certainly watchable and even enjoyable at times. I'm not a big fan of Cronenberg's body horror, but any movie that features Lynn Lowry in various stages of undress is okay by me.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
How Disgusting. Gets More Gross And Disturbing Every time I see This
johnstonjames18 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
EEEEW. i admit. i'm 49 years old and afraid of sex. don't ask. it's so sad. this movie scared and nauseated me when i first saw it as a kid back in the 70's. i mean it really freaked me out so bad i sometimes wonder if this film had a hand in making me suspicious of sex. i don't even know why they let me and my brother into the theater in the first place. we didn't have a guardian with us. we saw it on a double bill with 'Rabid' starring Marilyn Chambers. i think we had our dad's permission. or maybe it was just the 70's and nobody really cared.

i remember the first time i saw a porno movie when i was fifteen (it was on an old home movie projector),the first thing that came to mind was this frick'in flick. and i remember getting kind of freaked out. the first time i made out i thought about this movie. man. stuff like this can mess you up if you let it.

when i first started to realize who David Cronenberg was i remembered this weirdo film and was immediately suspicious of him. it took me a while to warm up to him, but now i love Cronenberg films and 'Dead Zone' is one of the best no doubt.

early Cronenberg films explored the subject and nature of sex. 'Within', the memorable 'VideoDrome', and 'The Brood', were all very sexual in nature, if not almost down right dirty. 'It Came From Within' is a film that is about the rational mind at war with the out of control sexual libido.

a lot of people have called me a repressed prude. maybe so. but i know psychology, and i try to keep a open mind. a certain amount of repression is only civilized, but too much repression can drive you to an polar extreme so you should be careful. but sex is a hot potato. this movie is a testament to that.

and after seeing it you may never french kiss anyone ever again.EEEEW.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Would've been fine with an imposing monster
slayrrr66625 April 2008
"Shivers" isn't all that bad, but it does have some really bad flaws to it.

**SPOILERS**

At the Starliner Hotel in Canada, Dr. Roger St. Luc, (Paul Hampton) the building's doctor, is called up by Mr. Merrick, (Ronald Mlodzik) the local agent on call, he finds several bodies badly mutilated in one of the apartments. Finding a trail of evidence that leads him to the work done by a former friend, Dr. Emil Hobbs, (Fred Doederlein) on the benefits of introducing genetically-altered parasites into an incapacitated human body to help it continue to function properly. Discovering that Nicholas Tudor, (Allan Kolman) one of the building's residents, was a participant in an experiment to receive them, he realizes instead that they're dangerous and deadly, and turns to his wife Janine Tudor, (Susan Petrie) and his friend Rollo Linsky, (Joe Silver) to help him put a stop to the parasites when they get loose in the building.

The Good News: This here wasn't that bad of a film, and has some good parts to it. One of it's best features is that the ending is insanely fun and features a lot to like about it. The general pandemonium with the changed people going after the lone unaffected person in the complex is great fun, since there's plenty of stumbling across the residents of the complex performing sexual acts of various stages with everyone around to provide some good goings on, and the long chases through the building, with the sight of them crashing through the under-construction hallways or through the glass doors into the swimming pool are two great moments that make for some really big action scenes. There's also some really nice sequences from before, such as the opening attack in the living room, a marvelously creepy showing in a bathtub and the encounter in the hallway being some of the better action scenes in the film. That there's a really nice story here to account for the release of the creatures, since the experiment has a much more original feel to it, and there's certainly a lot to appreciate about that. Combined with the fact the film simply flies by without feeling like it's going as slow as it is, and these here make up for the film's good parts.

The Bad News: There wasn't that many flaws to this one, but it did have a few. The most obvious one here is that the transformation the parasites force their victims to undergo is simply not scary or terrifying at all. Being forced into a state of complete amorous adulation for the closest person toward you, regardless of anything or anyone, is so far from terrifying some might see it as something to enjoy and be desired of. The change is one for the better, and despite the vomiting, is a positive experience that seems to be desired rather than shunned or launch a strike against. That is a big flaw against the film, since it builds nicely to it, and the end result is something pleasureful rather than feared, which is the reaction provided here. A more terrifying end result would've made this one a little better. The other flaw here is that the threat here is ignored early on and would've been discovered then had pure stupidity not allowed it to get out of hand. The follow-up check-ups would've found them at an early time, yet nothing is done and the creatures are able to disperse amongst the tenets. The parasite looks a little cheesy and not at all like what they should look like, but they're hardly seen and won't be a bother to some. These here are the film's flaws.

The Final Verdict: This wasn't a completely terrible film, but the fact that the flaws in here are pretty big lower this one somewhat. It's good enough to be given a look-see, so fans of the creative staff's work would enjoy this one, while those curious should also give it a shot, but others should heed caution with it.

Rated R: Graphic Violence, Full Nudity, Language and several sex scenes
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
"The poor birdie...."
garyvines-012905 May 2023
I watched this at a drive-in back in the 70s. It was wildly inappropriate for a kid my age (about 6 years old). It scared me but not because of the aliens, but because of how weird the movie was. I only saw people kissing and their throats bulging so the alien infection could go from one to the other. Imagine how I felt when the first Girl wanted to kiss me later in life...

Anyway, I didn't understand what was going on at the time. I was too young to comprehend everything so I re-watched this again a few years later and I have to say, I still don't know what's going on LOL!

It didn't' age well. It's about this guy who infects a teenage girl with alien parasites, who he kills (and shows her bare chest) and allows things to slither about in an apartment complex. Once someone is infected, they want to have sex which is apparently how it's transmitted. I saw one of the first woman on woman kisses of my life when I was six so there's that.

It's kind of dumb, poorly acted and written and a lot of people have given it high marks. It's a predecessor of other movies like Alien, even though they were both made in the same decade, this movie served as sort of a template making it important, even if it's dated.

You should watch it, only if you're an adult who doesn't mind nudity and a very dated 70s movie that's not that great.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A very gross and deviant early horror effort from David Cronenberg
Woodyanders25 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
A virulent strain of ugly and lethal parasites turn the residents of a swanky deluxe apartment complex into depraved sex-crazed fiends. Doctor Roger St. Luc (the hopelessly bland Paul Hampton) and his amiable colleague Rollo Linsky (a wonderfully engaging portrayal by Joe Silver) try to figure out what's going on before it's too late. Writer/director David Cronenberg concocts an unsparingly bleak meditation on the horrors of mankind being reduced to sheer psychotic libido impulses (check out the scene with a homely fat middle-aged woman jumping a younger man while exclaiming "I'm hungry for love!") and does a sound job of creating and maintaining a cold, icky tone which becomes more increasingly creepy and unnerving as the grim narrative progresses towards a wild pull-out-all-the-stops climax which plays like a perverted version of "Night of the Living Dead." The acting is rather hit or miss: Hampton barely registers as the insipid would-be hero, the ever-alluring Lynn Lowry contributes a memorably sexy turn as the enticing Nurse Forsythe, Barbara Steele projects her usual sense of class and commanding presence as poised lesbian Betts, Allan Kolman does well as the infected Nicholas Tudor, and pretty Susan Petrie likewise impresses as Tudor's sweet, distraught wife Janine. Moreover, this picture comes through with several effectively nasty moments: the jolting opening with a deranged old scientist murdering his teenage mistress, cutting opening her abdomen, and pouring acid in her stomach prior to slitting his own throat; Betts being violated by a parasite while taking a bath, a parasite attacking Linsky by attaching itself to his face, and a brief, yet startling shot of two little kids on leashes walking on all fours and barking like dogs. Robert Saad's plain cinematography presents a credible evocation of everyday pedestrian reality while the spare, chilling score does the shuddery trick. Joe Blasco's hideously ghastly and gruesome make-up f/x deliver the disgusting goods. Plus there's a wickedly twisted sense of blithely morbid black humor at work throughout. Not peak Cronenberg, but still worthwhile and engrossing all the same.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Decent early Cronenberg
The_Void22 May 2005
Before he became a respected director, upon the release of classics such as The Fly and Videodrome, David Cronenberg was the director of cheap little films such as Rabid and this one; Shivers. Of the two movies mentioned, Shivers is certainly the weakest of the two, but then again it was also the earliest, so budget constraints are more likely to have been a bigger problem and it was also made before Cronenberg was a fully fledged professional. While the film is lacking in many elements that are needed to make a successful film, things such as coherency and interesting characters, it does feature lots of horror, and that just about pulls it through. Obviously, due to the man in the director's chair, it's not a straight horror and the film focuses primarily on the psychological terror of changes occurring in one's body, and although Cronenberg explored this idea much better in films such as the aforementioned The Fly and Videodrome, along with other films such as The Brood and Dead Ringers, he doesn't do a bad job here.

The film is halfway between a zombie flick and an alien film such as Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and it certainly could have been a lot better if it had been more professionally handled. The film is typical of this type of movie in the seventies as it is cheap looking and the camera work, lighting and other techniques aren't exactly high quality either. None of the cast stands out, and the acting is terrible on the whole. Still, these things are part and parcel of this sort of movie and personally, I quite like it. The movie is very much of the 'schlock' persuasion, and the way it fuses a fast paced plot with sex and violence will ensure that fans of that type of film will be happy. The creature effects in the film aren't very spectacular, but at least they look real enough not to simply look stupid. Some of the images that Cronenberg presents to his audience are shocking, and a lot of the fans of this movie no doubt will be so for that reason. Personally though, I just like it.
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Too Tame
Tweetienator19 October 2021
Shivers is a somewhat okay movie with that 70s B movie horror flavor but there is one main (and big) trouble I got with the movie - the tempo of the story progressing is so painfully slow (for that rather simple plot) that it almost kills the movie for me. Also, for today's standard the level of gore, violence is too low, also I do not care for any of the characters. Conclusion: compared to the original The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) Shivers is a rather tame attempt in the art of horror. A work of an apprentice not of a master, but two years later, Cronenberg made Rabid, which is also no masterpiece but I consider as the better and more interesting work. Shivers - interesting for those invested in the works and career of Mr. Cronenberg.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Deviously fun sci-fi horror
I_Ailurophile17 October 2021
I love the opening - a cheeky advertisement for the apartment tower featured in the film, over which credits roll. I love the first concurrent scenes - strong violence juxtaposed with the perfectly mundane introduction to the tower of potential new tenants. From there 'Shivers' develops slowly, with unsettling goings-on and acutely jarring scenes scattered across the next half hour or so, paired with surprisingly thorough dialogue to set up the plot for the rest of the film. At that point, though, events escalate quickly, and the spiral of sex and violence can begin in earnest.

The premise is curious, and the concept underlying that premise even more so - but it's an oddity that's ripe for storytelling potential. For much of the initial length the film takes a more restrained approach that works to build a distinctly unsettling atmosphere. Make no mistake, though - that disquiet is increasingly punctuated by some truly bold, unexpected scenes that are weirdly disturbing - and also wonderfully fun. At first the pacing comes off as a little lethargic, but it's only to allow the sequence of events to progress naturally, without being forced. I was anticipating a concretely visceral, bombastic explosion of aggression and passion, and that's just what we get - only on its own time, and not ours, a show of determination for which I am glad. The writing here is solid through and through, and David Cronenberg's eye and guiding hand as director is just as confident and well practiced. Characters, scenes, and the overall narrative are gratifyingly complete, and compelling, and the movie absolutely holds our attention from the very start.

Everyone involved is clearly having such a good time bringing this cheeky, creepy, clever tale to fruition, and it's a joy to watch them at play. The makeup and effects are fantastic, including substantial blood, gore, and the excellent little plot device around which the whole narrative is slyly crafted. Though marginally sluggish in the first third, the feature builds most marvelously to an electrifying, entertaining sequence of events for the bulk of the runtime - culminating in an exquisite climax and ending. And with that said, not only can I happily overlook early plodding, but I think the remainder of the film handily outweighs any marginal shortcoming.

This is full of nudity, sex, and violence, and it's not for the squeamish, either. But this is tremendously exciting, invigorating, and highly enjoyable as a superb slice of sci-fi horror. With the noted content warning out of the way, I'd be remiss not to recommend this to just about anyone who appreciates the genre: 'Shivers' is an outstanding, stimulating, smart and boisterous film that's very much worth seeking out wherever you might find it.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
I've got you under my skin.
Son_of_Mansfield9 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Satire on the sexual seventies? Parable on man's growing devotion to science? Simple horror film? It just might be all three. You could also put this in the Invasion of the Body Snatchers or Living Dead mold, a group that never stops, you either become one or die. However you look at this movie, it is real fun. There are plenty of gore scenes, most featuring strange growths on people. Then, there is also a heaping helping of bare breasts. My favorite scene is where one of the hotel staff tricks a couple into a large room where a parasite orgy is going on. He undresses while sticking out his tongue. Now, that is scary. The sole weakness of the film is that it is seriously dated, some scenes are funny now simply because of people's clothing. But the best joke of the movie is intentional; when sex is the sickness, who doesn't want it?

P.S. They Came From Within is the the best of titles, but It Comes From Within would have been better.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Laughably horrible, horribly laughable
jo-30912 July 2005
As a big fan of David Cronenberg's later films, I was eager to see this one. Even though I knew it was his first--and therefore probably cheesy--I still hoped for something of value. I was mostly disappointed. The production values were so incredibly awful they made Roger Corman movies look like epics; the lapses in logic were big enough to drive elephants through; and the acting was so bad it actually became entertaining. (I've never seen anyone "act" walking across a room before!) There were two saving graces: if you're in the mood for a blast from the past, the ultra-hip 70's feel is totally groovy, man; and if you still happen to have a dusty bag of grass in a drawer somewhere, this is the movie for which to bring it out.
13 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed