Main cast: Laura Vandervoort (Rose Miller), Ben Hollingsworth (Brad Hart), Hanneke Talbot (Chelsea), Mackenzie Gray (Gunter), Stephen McHattie (Dr Michael Keloid), and Ted Atherton (Dr William Burroughs)
Director: The Soska Sisters
Why do these people think the world needs a loose remake of David Cronenberg’s 1977 film Rabid?
While that 1977 movie isn’t particularly amazing by any means, it is a viscerally frightening movie, one that can be pretty disturbing to watch because of the well done body horror in the film. The lead character grows a phallic-like organ from her armpit that she then uses to feed on her victim’s blood—and yes, this movie can be seen as one big gender-reversed metaphor for date rape—and her victims turn into rabid creatures that attack and infect others. The tragedy is that she has no idea that what she is doing half the time, and certainly no clue that she is the cause of the “rabies” infestation that has overtaken the city.
What works very well in that movie is how Mr Cronenberg succeeds in fusing what would seem improbable on paper: eroticism and rabies. Rose’s feeding on her victims, males of course, predates Species in the whole deadly seduction by a female monster thing, and as gruesome as things can appear on screen, there’s something disturbingly sexy about the whole carnage.
Now, this Rabid. I suspect there will be trouble ahead when the directors and screenwriters, the Soska Sisters, made a big fuss about making some feminist interpretation of the movie and keeping it relevant to current issues (in other words, Orange Man Bad), blah blah, and I hear nothing about the actual movie itself. There are many movies that are hyped to be “diverse”, “feminist”, “directed by women”, et cetera that end up being tepid disappointments, and it turned out that they had to hype about these things because the movies by themselves having nothing worth hyping about. Sadly, I can add this one to the growing pile of movies that live and die on the hill of gone woke, who cares.
In this version, Rose Miller works in the fashion house owned by Gunter, the usual diva that mocks and belittles everyone slaving away in his tyrannical kingdom. For some reason, I’m to believe that Rose, who looks like Laura Vandervoort, is not the right “fit”, looks-wise, with the rest of the staff despite looking the way she does.
Well, when she gets involved in an accident that leaves her face looking hideously disfigured, she agrees to an experimental surgery conducted by Dr William Burroughs, supposedly involving stem cells. What do you know, when the bandages are removed, Rose actually looks like a hotter version of her old self, and there are no scars even from the surgery! Ooh, nice. Because she is now hot, she also gains the confidence to flaunt what she has, earning herself Gunter’s approval as he finally notices her designs for the first time and makes these designs the main attraction of his upcoming show.
Alas, she also starts having nightmares about meeting men and biting them at first, and later, having some protrusion shooting out of her to feed on and killing these men. These dreams are just side effects from the surgery, right?
This movie already has one thing against it from the start: this Rose Miller is not a sympathetic character trapped in a nightmare not of her own making. No, this Rose is selfish and rather vapid, her only ambition is to be accepted by the cool and pretty people, and even when she is aware of the problems she has created, she insists on staying on course because she wants to see her designs on the runway. It’s her dream, after all, and like a Bridezilla, she cannot be reasoned with because it’s her dream.
Also, this movie is said to be more feminist, but I’m not sure where the feminism is. Is using the entire movie to point out how bad the fashion industry is some kind of feminism? Perhaps that message will feel less disingenuous if they had actually cast someone else to play Rose, someone that isn’t tall, slim, and hot. Seriously, watch the scenes that Rose shares with her friend Chelsea, who’s a model, and I dare anyone to tell me that Rose doesn’t look good enough to be, at the very least, some model in a magazine. Yet, this lady is supposed to be somehow insecure because she doesn’t look hot enough? What, does feminism now include setting down unrealistic beauty standards for women?
On the bright side, some of the practical effects are pretty nifty. Also, the men, especially Stephen Huszar, are hotter than those in the 1977 movie, so there’s ample eye candy for people that like to look at hunky males.
Still, this Rabid lacks the visceral impact of the original film. It’s lovely lit and some of the set pieces are gorgeous, but it’s also a misguided film that takes out any kind of ambiguity in the original film and turns the whole thing into a sinister plot of a cackling deranged megalomaniac. Despite claiming to be a more modern, feminist take, this one ends up feeling more like a cartoon than the 1977 film, due to the absurd villain and the presence of many one dimensional yet over the top characters.
For a scary time, watch the 1977 one. For hot guys and nothing else, well, watch this one.
