User reviews

This film is one of the most under-rated, I have to say. I know it takes awhile to get into and you have to use your mind while you watch it but it's not THAT complicated, is it? Especially if you watch this film more than once you really become to understand what it is it with Spider. I don't want to give away the plot, because you really have to see it for yourself. It's surprising and pleasantly different.

I have to highlight the acting in the film, it's that superb. All the actors are just simply amazing, taking the acting to a completely new level. So, if you want to try something that's not so mainstream film-making, watch Spider. I dare you.

We watch Spider (Ralph Fiennes) at the present time, trying to live at a boarding house which takes pity on people who should legally be in mental institutions, and, in parallel action, watch him reliving his childhood, doomed to stand watching those events play out again and again, an observer as impotent as he felt when they originally happened.

This film is a mystery into the character and history of Ralph Fiennes' character. Its a little film, dealing with the mind of one troubled little man, and a patient film. Its also a very mature film from Cronenberg, where he has done away with the shock tactics of the past, and the results are delightful. But if you don't like patient films (and you might see it as a slow film - don't expect big action, expect to watch a fascinating character - and maybe discover why he's so troubled), watch any of Cronenberg's previous efforts instead.

Its not a very big or important film - not one of the most essential films of 2002, but if you've seen those more important choices, and are looking for something different, Spider may just be an interesting, atmospheric experience for you.

8/10. Maybe I was just in the perfect mood for it, but i loved Spider. I thought it was a beautiful and atmospheric character study. Spider is a real unique character, brought to life vividly by Ralph Fiennes.

Spider is a wonderful entry into the Cronenberg cannon. I strikes me as Cronenberg trying to do a Ken Loachesque style movie with all of his usual hard philosophical questioning, sniping at your assumptions of what reality really is.

The overwhelming impression I was left with was the sheer creepiness of the film, highly appropriate in a film about a Spider. This impression is built up with wonderful cold and dismal sets and cinematography and a relentless slow pace that draws you in to the inevitably horrifying conclusion. There is always an undertone of the horrors that have driven the protagonist to his fate though you never really see that underlying terror. You almost feel as if his psychotic reaction to events was almost the only thing he could have done. The acting is first class all round I feel it would be unfair to single out any one of the stunning performances.

This film is really about growing up and how you cope with it. Everyone has to go through it and most seem to emerge the other side with only minor ticks and deviancies. Some people however are crushed by the terror of the things that come to light between the ages of 6 and 17 and this is the perfect illustration of this. This could have been you. More worryingly, if something really bad happens to you, this still could be you.

Are you so sure that everything you remember happening in your childhood really happened? Those little anecdotes you trot out when you're with friends? Are those memories coloured by how you saw the world when you were that age? What are childhood experiences are you hiding from yourself? In a sense these are all very Freudian concepts given life in a film that has as it's central plot a case of Oedipus twisted way beyond it's classical borders.

Some have found this boring, I didn't. I can understand that the slow pace and, for Cronenberg, the simplicity of the storyline might lead one to not engage with the film especially if you find the entire concept of mental illness alien. However, that feeling of wanting to run away from this film as fast as possible whilst screaming is one that should really recommend it to you in the strongest possible terms. Not all horror is jumps and monsters, some is atmosphere and the ordinary. And that's the scariest sort.

I've read a few of the other user comments about this film and often words and phrases like pretentious, dull, boring, lacking in entertainment are used. All fair comments, it is definitely not a film for a fantastical exciting escapist experience - however, I would suggest that a little effort on the part of the viewer will pay big dividends.

The first thing to say is that the actual plot of the film is not the main focus of the film. This is all about the madness, and subtle questions that are raised and need to be held in your mind throughout.

Every scene provides vital information, but do not forget we are seeing inside the 30 or 40 year old memories of a man who has spent most of his life in a mental asylum. I would not advise taking any scene at face value, particularly the flashbacks.

It is a challenging film and may at first seem to lack coherence, or be artsy for the sake of it. However, like the jigsaws that appear in the film in various forms it is the final pieces that are the hardest to deal with and potentially the most dangerous.

And at the end we are left with a question - is Spider's trauma the cause of his insanity, or is his insanity the cause of the trauma.

There are always films that people will either see what the director was going for, or simply won't connect with the film. David Cronenberg's Spider is one of those films.

Many comparisons can be made between this film and the Ron Howard film A Beautiful Mind in that they both examine the complexities of mental illness. Whereas Howard took the glamorous Hollywood style approach -- complete with government agents and associated adventures -- Cronenberg continues to prove that less is more when it comes to film. Spider is significantly more effective in that it does not candy coat its subject, rather approaching the scenario with brute realism.

Cronenberg is certainly one of the most under-appreciated and misunderstood directors of our age in terms of popular appeal. His films are not for mass marketing and popcorn sales, but rather are psychologically and sociologically challenging to the viewer. Cronenberg films generally demand a surrender from the audience to an unsettling reality, and Spider is no different. The fractured perception offered by the protagonist as displayed through Cronenberg's eye is truly unique and refreshing.

If you are the type of person who is up for quick, easy entertainment, Spider is not your film. But, if you want to explore a brilliantly crafted submergence into the strange reality of a mentally ill person, Spider will leave you wanting more. Cronenberg has once again proved that there are few directors of his talent and skill. His ability to create a wholly original feel in film incomparable to any of his contemporaries is always welcomed by this viewer.

This film kept me totally engaged during every single second. The acting was no less than you would expect from such a talented cast - brilliant performances from all. Ralph Fiennes is just superb. Gabriel Byrne in probably the most difficult role of his career to date keeps the `secret' to the end. John Neville and Lynn Redgrave, provide the supporting roles with a flare that never upstages the lead actors. Bradley Hall as the Boy Spider gave a fine performance as only child actors can. But it was the Chalk and Cheese characters play by Miranda Richardson that for me stole the show and clearly shows how deep her talents run.

The script, adapted by the author of the book, was powerful without going over the top and was very authentic. Even throwaway lines by supporting actors had meaning and helped convey the power and momentum of this masterpiece `.. seven packets of Crisps and a packet of Embassy.' Many times have I uttered similar words in a London Pub.

The locations were so real, you could smell and tasted them - I grew up in such a places and in the same period as the Boy Spider - every single and highly accurate detail brought my childhood memories rushing back.

The story is real - events like the critical event in this film really did happen and still do.

For international readers, England from the late 70's onwards adopted a 'Care in the Community' programme and every city and major town has halfway houses, like the one portrayed in this film, where newly released inmates of mental institutions are ordinarily just dumped to fend for themselves.

This film is nothing short of a Masterpiece - the real pity is that it won't appeal to a wider international audience.

A mentally-disturbed man (Ralph Fiennes) takes residence in a halfway house. His mind gradually slips back into the realm created by his illness, where he replays a key part of his childhood.

I have read other reviews stating this film is "misunderstood" or that some people will get it and others will not. I think that is quite true. While I love Cronenberg and I can not deny the powerful acting talent of Ralph Fiennes, I just did not connect with this one. I found it a bit boring and not as profound as I felt it could have been.

While the directing is more than adequate, with a grim, dirty color scheme that really evokes a feeling of desolation and despair, I just did not feel this was Cronenberg's comfort zone. The issues of mental illness might be something he addresses, but here it seemed all too tame and "normal" -- he was not able to give this a personal touch. Was there something about it that screamed "Cronenberg"? To me, no.

The standout performance must be of Miranda Richardson, who played both Mrs. Cleg and Yvonne. I may be blind, but I honestly did not realize until much later that the same actress played both parts. They look different, talk different, and just do not have any common ground. I think this is a testament to Richardson's skill and deftness, and I wonder why she is not given more attention. Certainly hair and makeup must be credited, but Richardson owned these roles and therefore the film.

Roger Ebert heaps praise on Fiennes, saying he plays "a man eaten away by a lifetime of inner torment" and "looks here like a refugee from the slums of hell." Ebert is likely just glad to see Fiennes in something besides the rom-com "Maid in Manhattan". He also points out the film's ambiguous nature -- that since we are seeing things from the point of view of a madman, we can never be sure what is real and what is not.

But, in fact, we can. I strongly urge people to listen to the director's commentary on this film. I was left with questions and then went back over a few key scenes with the commentary on -- it really made me see the true perspective, at least as Cronenberg intended it. The film makes much more sense that way. Sure, I still think it comes up short and lacks any real dimension (the film follows only one character, who is almost entirely mute) but at least the message was made known to me.

Recommended? Not sure. Some people swear this is among David Cronenberg's best. I am not of that opinion, but I am just one man. Your thoughts may be different. Fans should give it a shot.

****SPOILERS**** Incredibly depressing movie about mental illness from the point of view of the person suffering the effect of it that gives you an insight of how difficult it is to cope with even after years of treatment in a mental hospital.

We first see Mr. Cleg "Spider", Ralph Flennes, getting off a train in London looking like he just survived a train wreck. Having been discharged from the institution that he's been in since he was a little boy, Cleg going to the East London section of the city pulls out of his pants a sock that has all his personal belongings where he has the address of a half-way house that he's been sent to in helping him get back to a normal life.

It's brought out later in the movie that the neighborhood where the half-way house is is also where Cleg lived with his parents Mr & Mrs Cleg, Gabriel Byrne and Miranda Richardson. With Cleg being released to society to begin a normal life we get to see the world from his point of view. Cleg's mind is still traumatized by what happened to him, or what he did, as a boy.

The movie has Mr. Cleg, in flashback, back in his childhood with his parents observing his life with them and the reasons that led him into a life of mental illness and being committed. But what we see is only from Mr. Cleg's unstable point of view and in that way we see how his mind works. We get a very penetrating insight of his mindset by seeing things the way Cleg wants them to be in his distorted vision of reality. We also get confused about what happened until the very end of the film when we see the truth about Cleg and his parents which is a lot different from what Cleg's mind conjured up for him during the movie.

Cleg in his distorted mind tried to put the blame of his actions on his father but you only realized this at the end. With that revelation it brings Cleg as well as the movie audience back down to earth and also for Cleg's part accepting what he did and thus helping him come to take responsibility for it.

"Spider" is not for everyones tastes but if you want to see the inside of a persons mind who's suffering from mental illness and how it distorts his reality and reason and puts him into a fantasy world that he creates for himself "Spider" is defiantly the movie for you to see.

There's good acting by Ralph Flennes as Mr. Cleg and Lynn Redgrave, as the manager of the half-way house Mrs. Wilkinson, and Gabriel Byrne as "Spider's" father Will Cleg as well as Bradley Hall as the young Cleg or "Spider". But the most impressive acting of all was by the gifted Miranda Richardson who played three major parts in the movie so well that I didn't know that it was her in all three roles until I saw the closing credits.

I was lucky enough to see a screening of this in Queens, where David Cronenberg spoke about the film afterwards. He may be the most intelligent filmmaker working today. This is such an incredibly complex film, with so many levels of interpretations and ambiguity, which most great films offer an audience. The acting is first-rate and Oscar-worthy in a literal sense, not a bulls*** Hollywood sense; the composition of the shots is beautiful; the story is flawless and engaging; the production design is perfect - I could go on, but you get the picture. What's unfortunate is so many critics are discussing this film as one about schizophrenia, which it really isn't, nor was it meant to be. As it turns out, it is an excellent representation of the schizophrenic experience. But Cronenberg intended it to be representational of the human condition, with all its mysteries, uncertainties and existential anxieties. What was never an uncertainty, however, is Cronenberg's skillful mastery of delivering genius.

Cronenberg never seizes to surprise me. From his violent, often repugnant, grim visions of the future and the marriage between man and machine, to this movie. "Spider" is something as refined as a low-key psychological drama.

The success of this movie depends mostly on two things. The first being the actors. Ralph Fiennes is a truly fine actor, something he proves time after time and this movie is no exception. He's magnificent in a role that must be difficult on so many levels. Gabriel Byrne is also excellent and i have longed to see him in something like this where his talent is given the space it needs for him to show just how good he is. The second thing is the directing. Cronenberg has an acute sense when it comes to creating a mood and a certain feeling for his movies. Usually the feelings he invoke are more dread and disgust than compassion and sadness. Here i feel he manages to create a whole spectrum of emotions that follow us through the whole movie, until the surprising ending that ties the whole thing together beautifully.

Movies like "Spider" are few and far between so it's all about enjoying them while you have the chance. This is a truly fine piece of film-making that i fear won't get the audience it deserves. On the other hand the people that do see it will thoroughly enjoy it, of that i'm sure. I rate it 7/10.

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

The way I felt while watching "Spider" was similar to my first viewing of David Lynch's "Eraserhead"--I was prepared to slam it as a lot of overpraised pretension, but at a certain point there was a turnover and it began to impress and challenge. Needless to say, "Eraserhead" is one of my favorite films, and "Spider" has that potential, as well. It should be said that the film is a drastic departure from director David Cronenberg's usual themes--no exploding heads, vaginal slits in chests, or insect-like gynecological instruments to be found--and instead goes for a psychological depth that might turn off fans of his earlier efforts. Those who give "Spider" a chance, though, will be rewarded with a subtly restrained, mind-bending tale of Dennis 'Spider' Cleg (Ralph Fiennes), confined to a halfway house where he attempts to piece together a crime that sent him to the asylum 20 years before. The narrative flashes from Spider's childhood (in which he is seen as a witness to his own memories) to the present, and Cronenberg fuses the puzzle pieces of this mystery together with a master hand.

7/10

REALLY, there are many better movies by Cronenberg: naked lunch, dead ringers, history of violence are much more engaging, dramatic and FUNNY !

I really CAN NOT agree, as another writer puts it, that SPIDER is delivering genius. There was simply not enough material or depth to the story to create an engaging movie--the story by Patrick McGrath may be good for a quick read, but there is simply not enough character and plot development for a full-length movie. Also, do we need 8 different scenes of Mr. Fiennes scratching in his notebook, then hiding the notebook, then tearing it up at the end. OK, we get the point already--you're boring us!! Honestly, I think all but die-hard Cronenberg fans will find this film slow and boring. OK, some people count these qualities as virtues, but I submit that the film is not engaging because the story lacks depth. (The acting and direction are fine but can't make up for the lack of story. Also, one reviewer's comment that this is an exploration of the human condition doesn't ring true--most of the problems seem very specific to the main character and difficult for the audience to relate to, even if there is some basic similarity with all human problems, i.e. mother love/fixation/paranoia)

After seeing every single Cronenberg film I've been able to find, I've come to one simple conclusion: I've seen entirely too little of his works. I have yet to see one film of his that I found a complete waste of time(though I did not find much point in The Brood). This is quite possibly my favorite film of his yet, and I guess that says something about how few of his films I've seen(as this seems like one of his more unappreciated films). The film is quite dark and bleak. It has a fairly slow pace, but there's plenty of atmosphere and I never really felt like turning it off. The plot is very good, and I liked the way it developed somewhat out of joint, with little continuity other than the main plot-line. The acting is superb. One actress performs two roles, and does so with such talent that I never realized they were being portrayed by one and the same person. I only discovered this after checking out the cast list. Spider is a very unsettling film, but I suppose Cronenberg has done far better in other films. For some reason, I just found this the more easily accessible of his films, the one that requires least afterthought to be understood, to decipher what he wanted to say. All of the other films by him that I've seen, I've required to basically 'be told' what the film was about... with this one, I thought for a while after seeing it, and figured it out, put the pieces together myself, without much difficulty. Maybe that's a problem for the film... it's too simple. It's far more simple than the usual Cronenberg, and that is what makes me like it more, and his more experienced and analyzing fans like it less. I recommend this film to any fan of Cronenberg and/or dark films. Don't expect to be able to figure out the film from just one viewing, and don't take anything you see in it at face value. 8/10

I turned this on because I love Ralph Fiennes. You need to be in the right frame of mind for this. It's not a horror film or comedy or drama. It's in it's own category. Just odd. I turned the channel a few times, but couldn't resist knowing what was going on. I was glad I finally kept watching. His acting is awesome in this.Unsuspecting. You almost feel ashamed or sorry for him watching him in such a role. The captain from Ghost Ship is also in this. If you like dark and dreary but very interesting in a can't look away from the car accident sort of way, you will like this. Just remember keep watching and you WILL get it.

Spider finally came to a city near me this weekend. I'm a David Cronenberg freak and I've been dying to see this movie, couldn't understand why it was taking so long to get released. Now I know. After driving 45 minutes to the art house cinema where the movie is currently playing, I prepared myself to be amazed by Cronenberg's genius. Not this time. This movie sucks. About halfway through it, I really wanted to leave but I knew that someday I would have to watch the whole thing and I sure as hell didn't want to sit through it again. I'm sure "Spider" is a wonderful book and I know Cronenberg did his best to translate the literature to the screen, but what is the point? Ralph Fiennes doesn't speak a single word of intelligible dialogue. There are huge stretches of the film where absolutely nothing happens. There is one kind of interesting character played by John Neville, but he's not really that interesting. There is nothing compelling about the characters or the plot or anything. I have never left a movie feeling so cheated and upset. Just a huge waste of time. I don't understand how this movie even got released. It boggles the mind that anyone would want to watch it. Technically perfect but what is the freaking point? This is the guy who did "Scanners", "Videodrome", "The Fly", "Dead Ringers"? Until I suffered through "Spider", I thought the crappiest movie Cronenberg ever did was "M. Butterfly". "Spider" sets a new standard for pointlessness. I dare you to watch "Spider". If I could turn back time, I would have rather spent an hour and 40 minutes hitting myself in the head with a hammer so that maybe I could personally experience what it might be like to have mental illness. To say watching this movie is like watching paint dry doesn't even come close to describing how stupefyingly boring this movie is. At least paint finally dries, this movie grinds on and on and on. A friend of mine asked me, "But is there a payoff at the end?", I said "Yeah, it turns out he's crazy, really crazy." People started leaving 30 minutes into it and I yelled "lightweights!" at every single one of them. Trust me, this movie really, really, really sucks. I wouldn't recommend it to my worst enemy. Imagine the most boring lecture you ever had to sit through in college and you're somewhere in the ballpark of just how terrible this movie is.