I like Cronenberg. I even wrote a paper on "Dead Ringers" in a film class, so I am not coming to this movie unbiased.
I enjoy horror movies, but usually find that the horror movies from the 70s are drastically lacking in anything worth keeping. For example: "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" is one of my least liked movies not for the movie itself, but for the fact that by time I saw it I had seen so many others do the same thing much better many times before. I was underwhelmed.
Not so with "Shivers," which does an excellent job of dealing with horror standards (the good doctor, the mad doctor, secluded victims, and a parasite/disease/curse running rampant) and not kowtowing to the standard uses of them.
Sure, we can read "Shivers" as being a warning about the excess of promiscuous sex and the lack of control human beings exhibit when it comes to sex, potentially leading to hedonism (if not a modern Sodom and Gomorrah) and, eventually, death. That's an easy read for any kid in Film 101 to do.
But the movie does actually work on the very superficial level that a horror movie should: It horrifies, terrifies and titillates (and with a young Lynn Lowry in the nurse's role you know very well it's going to titillate). Sitting through the entire movie becomes well worth it simply for the sensual, seductive, and scary shot of Lowry in the pool at the end.
This movie, like much of Cronenberg's work, is designed to make you think, but it also to reaches into the basest emotions you have. Lowry, Susan Petrie, and Barbara Steele (can we say "MILF" in a review?) become objects of lust for the viewer (yes, this is assuming the viewer is male and/or into women, I agree) just as we know that the film is a warning to us about the excesses of sex and emotion.
Not all of Cronenberg's work is great art, but "Shivers" is one of those movies that has stood the test of time and continues to work. Considering how few movies from the 70s can say that, I take my hat off to you, Mr. Cronenberg.