Rabid

audience Reviews

, 32% Audience Score
  • Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars
    A decent throwback to the horror genre of the 70's and 80's. A lot of negative reviews judge this movie based on the current cinema because people cannot separate between their daily cultural experience and their expectations. They exist now and what they experience must fit what they know. And as result many are just missing the whole point. The movie is mostly a tribute to Cronenberg and his movies, with small winks to his other films. But it is also an attempt to do a pure horror movie of the 70's and 80's. Not in a way of homage or a reference, but as if it was made in 80's on its own. And I admit the attempt doesn't always work out and there are some falls on the way, but in general they did succeed. From the zooms and strange top angles of the camera, to the thematic mad scientist with fatalistic ideology and ridiculous over the top colorful characters. It's hard to judge pop culture of a different decade, many things can seems so alien and unusual. There are decades so far it's practically a history, there are decades that are not so far in the past that still feel popular in a retro sense, and there are decades between them that awake a sense of nostalgy, specifically if the person was a child or a teenager in that decade. That's what horror of 70's and 80's is now, it's already out of retro references but still not old enough to become classic history. And this movie attempts to link viewers into that, as if this was a hidden film straight up from that time. Not fully successfully, but entertaining enough and smart enough for some viewers to appreciate it. Suggest original Rabid to anyone who want to see pure classic horror, it's one of the best films of early Cronenberg before he switched to more philosophical movies.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    After a car accident and corrective surgery, an uninteresting fashion designer starts craving human flesh and passes on a form of rabies to morons in the fashion industry.
  • Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars
    The film is beautifully shot and The Soskas have turned up the temperature in this film with the gorgeous neon's,the set design its music, clothing designs. In fact everything about this film is ramped up to a wonderful degree that for me showcases how great these two are when it comes to directing feature films. For anyone thinking ‘oh god not another remake' please do think again. Rabid (2019) fits more in the upgrade version rather than a retread and for those who know Cronenberg films, and those who have seen Rabid (2019) there are so many wonderful nods to the work of Cronenberg that they will make you smile if you see them (but they dont detract from the story or the film itself, they are just there out of love the Mr C.) You'll notice I haven't delved into the story or plot of Rabid too much, and thats on purpose. I had watched Rabid (1977) only a few days before Rabid (2019) and I was still surprised by the plot, the structure and the world that Jen and Sylvia have crafted As I said at the beginning of my comments. It still has the heart of Rabid )1977) but this is a whole new film, made by two of the most exciting filmmakers around It was also a treat to see a revisit to a story that I love, actually being better than the ‘original' film.
  • Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
    Vandervoort is effective but the film takes to long to develop, and rarely has any scares when it does.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    My second movie from the Soska Sisters, after American Mary. This one reminded me of two novels: Voracious, by Wrath James White, and Coldheart Canyon, by Clive Barker. I liked how Rose's condition panned out as a creepy, slow-burning transformation, before it finally got into the epidemic territory that is well-trodden now. Along with the heavy dose of body horror it brings to the sick man's table, Rabid dissects the psyche of a self-conscious woman mocked and hurt to the point of utter emotional collapse. The loss of face (literally here) makes her desperate enough to go for reconstructive surgery because her looks are the last straw she has been holding on to. In the midst of all the mayhem is the loneliness of a person who can do anything to mingle into society as someone successful and likable.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    A remake of the 1977 David Cronenberg original 'Smallville' and 'Supergirl' star Laura Vandervoort plays Rose whom works as a seamstress for a high fashion design company  She's always felt out of place and not quite deemed beautiful but her friend Chelsea has always had her best interest A photographer she works with also is interested in her  Things change though after a misunderstanding at a night club, Rose runs away upset and gets into a car accident It leaves her face disfigured and her body scarred making her feel like a monster But she hears about this experimental stem cell skin treatment at a clinic that could fix things After the procedure it looks as if she's cured and she can get her life back on track but little does she know that the surgery has side effects; Rose has developed an uncontrollable desire for sex and a thirst for human blood  Several instances she passed out and can't remember what happens to unsuspecting victims and now there's an outbreak going on Can Rose keep it together while also still living her dream as a designer? T he practical make up effects are impressive and they do look very grisly Vandervoort does a good job playing the lead being confident but also fighting to control her animal instincts  There's even a strange implementation of perfecting the human species with immortality but also evolving into the next apex predator Is the next step in our human evolution not being human anymore but more unstoppable? This definitely brought me back to the movie Contracted which was way more stomach turning to sit through True those whom are easily squeamish may want to stay away from this one too But for gore hounds and David Cronenberg fans this is a worthy remake to follow up on  A lovely leading lady, gross effects, and an example of a fearful new strain of disease make for a good watch
  • Rating: 0.5 out of 5 stars
    When I first heard they were remaking this movie I got so excited upon watching the trailer I already knew it was going to be awful but I decided to give it the benefit of the doubt and maybe don't trust my gut. I should have trusted my gut. It was a waste of time and money and it was a movie based on jump scares which even then didn't come through. I don't even know why it have been given a rating of 30% as it is worth -30%
  • Rating: 1 out of 5 stars
    Terrible. Decent idea and some parts but the end was so bad to make it 100% rotten.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    Honestly, I didn't really connect well with the movie. It began quite promising and then teetered off the edge of a cliff with the rest of my patience. The special effects were nothing short of fantastic! The facial trauma that had been created on the main character was enough to make anyone feel sick to their stomach. It was truly like an image out of Saw. Gruesome and grotesque, it was brilliant. As the story went on things just started getting ridiculous and childish. The plot began making no sense whatsoever and then there was the issue with the 'armpit tentacle'... ... I mean what the F@!&* was that about.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    IT was a refreshing to finally see a Horror movie that was true to the genre. It did not rely on CGI to show a very interesting story!!!