CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Organnall Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

Twilightfa Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

Melanie Bouvet The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Michael_Elliott Stereo (1969) ** (out of 4)Ultra bizarre film from David Cronenberg has a group of young people agreeing to have a brain surgery, which will take away their ability to think or feel but they will gain the ability to communicate mentally.STEREO was the first feature to be directed by the young Cronenber and many people see a connection between this film and his later hit SCANNERS. This film here is certainly a well-made piece but it's one of those movies that you can respect much more than actually enjoy while watching. I say that because the film is certainly very well-made and it has a terrific atmosphere and visual look. I loved the B&W cinematography and I thought the director did a very good job with the look and style.I'd also argue that the actors do a fine job with their roles but, with all of that said, there's very little else going on with STEREO. The film was shot without any dialogue or even sound effects but every few minutes a narrator will fill us in on the "plot." All of this just really doesn't add anything compelling and in the end the film is rather boring and hard to get through even at just 65-minutes.

poe426 STEREO is the first of David Cronenberg's two "psychosexual studies" (the other being the follow-up, CRIMES OF THE FUTURE) and also features the malleable Ron Mlodzik in the lead (here playing the cloaked and mysterious aphrodesiast, "Dr. Stringfellow"). He arrives at the Canadian Academy For Erotic Inquiry, where "human social cybernetics" is practiced. Their motto is: "Love conquers all." Eight "category A" subjects have undergone experimental brain surgery that has rendered them "Telepathists." Like CRIMES OF THE FUTURE, STEREO was shot sans sound, with narration (the "parapsychological experimental gestalt" observations of Dr. Stringfellow) added later: "Electromorphological dependency results in reinforcement withdrawal" when the object of focus is gone- whereupon, brain tissue DESTRUCTS. He interacts with one subject (who has voluntarily had his larynx speech centers removed) by sharing his pacifier (the next best thing to "symbiotic telepathic cohesion," one assumes). "Is abstract, logical thought even possible without language...?" It turns out that Negative Thinking is the Positive way to protect oneself between "attuned" people; unlike SCANNERS, the STEREO redux, where every thought of every passerby is "picked up," here the telepathy must be a "mutual" interaction. "Phenomenological refinement" is the ultimate goal (telepathic communes are suggested). "Omnisexuality" is one possible outgrowth: "a fully three-dimensional sexuality" (as opposed to "monosexuality" or "bisexuality"); group groping is explored. A telepath, he concludes, is the prototype of three-dimensional man... although sometimes a candy bar is just a candy bar... We'll just have to wait, though, until the "electroencephalographic data gets to be evaluated." "Art is the tree of Life," Cronenberg once said in regards to his biohorror approach to film-making: "Science is the tree of Death." STEREO is a fascinating piece of work.

HyperPup This strange gem fits suitably in the creche of Cronenberg bit it's not for everyone that loves Cronenberg....Just the ones that are insanely in need of everything he has ever created. Its not because it's a bad film, on the contrary it is very intriguing. Its just incredibly slow and the sparse environment lack of color and mostly silent audio makes for a surreal but not very compelling film. There is no soundtrack...At all. There is no real dialog just moments of narration, which of course paints the picture moreso than the acting and mise en scene. Set in the Future, we are treated to a pseudo-documentary based on the scientific workings of a parapsychologist named Luther Stringfellow a famed member of the fictitious Canadian Academy for Erotic Inquiry. His thesis; It is hoped that telepathic groups, bonded in polymorphous sexual relationships, will form a socially stabilizing replacement for the "obsolescent family unit". The subjects will be seven young volunteers who will submit to experimental brain surgery to endow them with telepathic abilities and quench their ability to speak and be recorded daily. The film serves as a record of said experiment. This is where the film kinda falls down. The film gives us some interesting characters to watch, but their silence doesn't allow us to really know sympathize with them. Its like watching an acting class exercise in "emoting" or "mugging". A pantomime this complex needs some form of interpretive audio. While it is interesting to watch the actors go about their "telepathic" play, the drama comes off as stilted due to the highly scientific nature of the narration. Some long sequences that involve little or no narration do not pass quickly and create a kind of dream logic between film and audience. Are we getting what he is showing us? I dunno, as some of the action is so interpretive that we could be on a completely different plane of reasoning than what Cronenberg could be trying to describe. Heady, perhaps, but I think that Cronenberg was not trying to be pretentious, I think he was doing what a lot of first time film students do. Get in over their heads with grand ideas. I can forgive as I have done that myself, which is why I gave it 7 stars. Its not bad its just not for everybody.

saydstrings I won't lie and tell you that this is a gripping short film. Being a devoted Cronenberg fan, it's hard for me to comment objectively on anything he's made. But on this film I believe I can.It's very obviously a student film, and while there is an interesting visual style being cultivated here, nothing is developed or matured enough to constitute much praise--from the script to the "acting" to the cinematography. While none of these aspects are bad, they aren't particularly noteworthy either.What it boils down to is that this short is an indulgent piece for Cronenberg. There is no dialogue and very little action (and by action I don't mean gunfights or car chases or even horrific venereal sequences). It's a cold, calculating, scientific investigation of god-knows-what. Something Cronenberg had on his mind, I suppose. Granted, the script is an extended metaphor and has some nuances that I'm sure are very clever, and in that regard it's interesting to consider what is being said in the voice-over that drives the film, but it is not near as effective as, for example, his wrath-children in The Brood or the reality-blurring Videodrome, etc. I could go on, but you get the idea.Still, for my money I don't regret the purchase. If you're a Cronenberg fan, you'll want to check this out and have it in your collection. At this point in his career he simply didn't have the writing ability to expand upon his ideas to create interesting situations or plots; but it's still the Cronenberg we know and love. His visual style is definitely present here, and there are some breathtaking shots and beautiful cinematography at points.