User reviews

This line is normally where I put the plot, but the plot is unclear to me... a group of people who live in an institution for bizarre venereal diseases, perhaps?

This film is David Cronenberg's follow-up to "Stereo", and aside from a slightly bigger budget and moving from monochrome to color, it is clear that his themes have not shifted much (if at all). He loves the medical institutions, the sterile surroundings of the hospital, and the imposing architecture (camera shots repeatedly make the building look bigger and the hallways longer than the reality most likely is).

He again talks of medical abnormality, something he would visit again in "Rabid" and "The Brood" and "Scanners". The special effects are played down here, with a discussion of new organs having few visuals to back up the idea (some indecipherable mass in a jar). The film as a whole is really an artistic exploration of minimalism. Most scenes involve characters sitting still for minutes at a time, hardly any words are spoken (though numerous discomforting sounds are heard). The whole film's plot is drawn out by a voice-over (perhaps calling to mind Chris Marker's "La Jetee").

What differentiates great directors from poor ones is, in my opinion, the ability to know your limits and to stretch the limits while keeping the budget in mind. Cronenberg fits into this category of greatness. Like early Kubrick ("The Killing"), he knows he has no budget but makes up for it with stark contrast and searing images. While this is by no means Cronenberg's best work, it is clear to see that given another script and a bigger budget, he has the vision. He frames each scene very carefully, the camera actually taking in more than is actually there in the process.

Your average viewer would watch this and, even at the very short 62 minute running time, declare it a waste of film. Who wants to watch a bunch of ugly men in a courtyard while a voice talks about venereal disease and the need to impregnate a child? But a film student or scholar may see the film differently. Clearly, knowing what we know now about Cronenberg's success makes me biased. But still, the germ of directing genius is present here.

Aaron Tripod is studying a patient at a clinic that can emit a chocolate like substance from his body, which people become compelled to eat. This occurred after nearly all the woman on earth died from a poisonous cosmetic. After the patient disappears Aaron moves onto another clinic where there are more people of that type being used by doctor for his own purposes and there's a secret lurking in the facility that can change the fate of this outcome.

Just like the film before this: "Stereo", Cronenberg comes up with another experimental, art-film that combines his interest in literature and science. Especially that of the human body and sexual chemistry, where science tries to manipulate the genetic makeup somehow. On this particular film the style and story's context are very similar to "Stereo" with most of the cast and crew returning for this project. I actually found this one to be slightly better and one incredibly bizarre trip compared to his previous film. But for this experience you have to be in the right frame of mind that's for sure, as this one too goes for an hour, but there are many padded scenes with many slow stretches. But for me it didn't seem to drag that much. Again there's no dialogues, but there are some odd sound effects worked into the picture that sound like something out of nature (bird cries, ocean waves and even a sound like someone is blowing bubbles). This gave the film such a real anxiety, but at times it did get a bit overbearing. Also you got a fitting narration that's gives out an mildly stimulating outlook and provides at times a coherent plot device. This could be because a plethora of characters spring out and then suddenly disappear which makes the story rather uneven, as it changes course quite a bit. The static voice over is not as frequent here, but it's the actions and faces that mostly tell the story. Now the look of the film is where Cronenberg was at his best here and the budget was a tad higher for this outing, since now this one was shot in colour and production was of high quality with what he had to work with. Great use of composition and lighting, while the strong shapes in the background features added a huge imprint. Plus there was always little things going in the foreground that you catch a glimpse of. The film sustains a bare atmosphere, which has a emotionless, post-apocalyptic feel where everything is beyond redemption. The offbeat environment is filled with many surprises and the hypnotic images just flood the screen. The haunting conclusion stages one that's hard to forget. The camera-work here gives the film a third perspective and builds on the groundwork very well. Ronald Mlodzik's performance as Aaron Tripod is rather good and his expresses his actions in a clear and concise way. Cronenberg has come up with an far more accomplished effort on this occasion.

This excursion I found strangely fascinating as you can easily see this as a stepping stool for Cronenberg to iron out those creases for future projects. He's obsession on the evolutionary process where sex and disease is controlled by science makes his work so unique. Again just like what I said on "Stereo", if you're looking for some entertainment, look elsewhere. But if you want to see the where the clinical influence and cold style for his most assessable work came from, there's no better place to start than here.

Crimes of the Future (1970)

** (out of 4)

Normally I'd use this portion of my review to describe the "plot" of the film but I must admit that I have no idea what the plot of this film is. Basically it takes place at a disease clinic where several people are staying and we're introduced to a doctor and a mysterious disease that has killed off sexually active women.

CRIMES OF THE FUTURE was the second feature film from director David Cronenberg and it's a lot like his first STEREO. Both films are very experimental and I'm going to guess that you could show both of them to a hundred different people and you'd probably get a hundred different explanations of the plot. Heck, you'd also probably get quite a few walk-outs because neither film is what you'd call normal or for the mainstream.

I honestly felt the same for both pictures. I honestly respect both of them a lot more than I was actually entertained by them. I thought Cronenberg did a good job with the direction and there's no doubt that you're watching a film from someone with a vision. I also thought the performances were nice. There was a bizarre atmosphere to the film as well, which is something else I liked. With that said, did I enjoy watching the film? No, I didn't. Would I ever watch it again? No, I wouldn't.

In a future imperfect all females have perished due to a deadly chemical outbreak, leaving the male population to fend for themselves. Among them Aaron Tripod (Ronald Mlodzik), a researcher coping in the new world now devoid of a moral compass. During his studies he encounters a patient, which emits mysterious excretions tasting of chocolate. Once the subject inexplicably disappears Aaron employs himself in another clinic, which serves as a compound for individuals with similar bodily substances. There he encounters the changing functions of the new man and its new flesh. All with true Cronenberg-esque style...

Similar in execution as "Stereo", with an upgrade from black and white into full colour, but still experimentally coping without sound, instead inputing odd disjointed sounds and a voice-over to convey the slightly misogynistic story. Rife with motifs featuring in Cronenberg's earlier works, like "Shivers", "The Brood" or "Scanners", this artsy feature remains an intriguing expansion of Cronenberg's cinematographic world-view. Despite a larger budget than "Stereo" and undeniably better technical resolution with some excellent framing of shots, "Crimes of the Future" is comparatively a step further into detrimental watching, making novelties like fast forward necessary to survive the viewing.

Nonetheless the overall experience remains an excruciating watch as a product of a student filmmaker, overawed by his own brilliance, but unaware that his supposedly nouvelle experiment in filmmaking is mostly unwatchable drivel. As such the style is almost unbearably self-defeating, making the story drown under the pretentious exposition and ultimate lack of direction. The script may sound cerebral (however truthfully strongly undercut by an intellectual overreach), but that does not excuse a total detachment from the viewing audience. Ultimately Cronenberg's venture feels overly childish in his introvert drive for novelty. Several scenes do manage to build a vague anxiety with it cold and distant atmosphere, especially the layered denouement involving a bout of paedophilia.

Best viewed for Cronenberg fanatics with a strong inclination towards understanding his perspective on film and exploring his growth as a filmmaker. Remaining subjects best resolve to focusing on his later works.

I described this as a crime of the present. A decade before the debut of MST3K the only joy derived from this film was our comments and the laughter of the audience.

This film, I believe, is only about 70 minutes long and succeeded in being one of the longest movies I have ever seen. I actually fell asleep for about 10 minutes toward the end. I appreciate this movie to an extent since the concept itself is interesting and the narration, when it happens, can be quite funny. But it gets old quickly. I think it is more interesting to remember than it is to watch. I view this movie and "Stereo" the same way. The narration is funny at times and has a very satirical and original style but it is not enough to keep one awake, let alone keep ones interest. I think the lack of sound is due to Cronenberg's laziness and lack of desire to do any recording and mixing. Maybe I should give him more credit than that. Maybe it was lack of funds and knowlege. After all he was paying for those out of his own pocket and was, to paraphrase his own words, still teaching himself how to make movies.

This is an unusual filmic experience, hypnotic, trance-like, not totally rewarding but still fascinating. On the soundtrack you can only hear the narrator, strange noises (sounds of sea-creatures) and for some stretches, total silence. Signs of Cronenbergs weird imagination is present throughout the narrative. I especially liked the quite extraordinary concept of "creative cancer".The sterile, modernistic architecture lends the movie a strangely desolate, surreal tone and sets, at least my, imagination in motion. It´s like stepping into another reality, something Cronenberg has continued to achieve in the best of his subsequent movies. It´s an experimental film, but it succeeds in drawing the viewer into the picture, not solely with its narrative, but with its images and composition. In fact, it´s not unlike what Kubrick did, in much larger scope of course, with 2001. Recommended for Cronenberg fans, and those of you who aren´t afraid of something different.

Have become a great admirer of David Cronenberg and find his films and style interesting. His films are unsettling and the subjects that he chooses to explore are very difficult ones, but that is what makes him and his films interesting. Most are good to brilliant and none of them for me are terrible or irredeemable (though a few disappointed). A few too belong in the appreciate rather than love category.

There were directors that started off shakily, Stanley Kubrick for example started with his worst film 'Fear and Desire'. Cronenberg was one of those directors, with this and 'Stereo', before improving significantly with 'Shivers'. Which wasn't perfect, but explored the major theme of sexual exploration and consciousness of mind that was introduced in 'Stereo' much better and the other five or so after doing the theme even better than that. Found his first great film to be 'The Brood' and his best films 'The Fly' and 'Dead Ringers'. After seeing 'Stereo' and 'Crimes of the Future' not far apart only recently, it is hard to decide which was worse between those two. None of them are unwatchable, but for Cronenberg they were both underwhelming and the flaws in both films are exactly the same.

Beginning with the good things, 'Crimes of the Future' doesn't look too bad at all for early Cronenberg and for a film made on a low budget. Actually thought it was one of the better-looking early Cronenberg films and feel the same with 'Stereo', both look better than 'Shivers' and 'Rabid' despite both of those films being better overall. The photography shows inexperience at times but mostly is quite skillful and atmospheric. The location does have a good deal of unsettlement, if not as eerie as 'Stereo' and the lighting adds a lot to the atmosphere.

Some interesting diverse themes here in 'Crimes of the Future' (but they were explored in much more detail and more compellingly in other films). Intriguing concept, Ronald Mlodzik is surprisingly hauntingly nuanced and the ending is memorable.

On the other hand, the flaws that were in 'Stereo' are not improved upon, other than the acting being marginally better (not saying much for most, got the sense their hearts weren't in it properly) and that it was a little less confused. That's pretty much it for the improvements. Found it to be very dull, going at too slow a pace for a story that was pretty slight, making a very short length feel longer. Too many overlong and drawn out scenes are the problem in this regard. Also felt that it was too clinical and emotionally distant, usually do feel something watching Cronenberg whether it's being disturbed, being amused at some dark wit or being moved. This is a not so common case of feeling nothing in a Cronenberg film.

Cronenberg's direction is similarly clinical and it comes over as bland apart from being relatively technically sound. Despite saying that the slight story was less confused, again that was actually not saying much either because it is still muddled and one may have to ask anybody who's watching it with them what's going on and they are likely to not know. The dialogue is self-indulgent and eccentric and the over-use and over-complicated (the writing here not the delivery, the delivery is infinitely better here) feel present in the narration of 'Stereo' is here too at times if not as much. One never cares for the characters, who come and go a lot which confuses the narrative. Then there is the soundtrack/sound effects, which sometimes was not necessary and often went overboard on the weirdness.

In conclusion, an interesting failure that is still worth a one time watch. 4/10

As soon as the film begins it's abundantly clear that the production is irretrievably low-budget ("shoestring" seems an apt descriptor) and geared toward art-house pretension over storytelling judiciousness. These qualities are further accentuated by the many hats filmmaker David Cronenberg wore to make this - which is to say, it seems, all of them - and the silence that dominates the soundtrack, save for sparing sound effects and Ronald Mlodzik's narration as protagonist Adrian. Even here, in so fundamentally crude a movie, Cronenberg demonstrates skills that he would hone to great triumph as his career took off and reputation grew. His eye for shot composition is exceptional, and the story as written is equally grotesque and fascinating in concept. Of course, one could nitpick elements to lavish praise upon all day, yet there's no denying that 1970's 'Crimes of the future' represents a filmmaker who had not yet come into his own, as this is defined more by rough edges than any meaningful, striking refinement.

Given the nature of the title, I take no issue with Cronenberg's direction, nor the basic construction of the film in any technical capacity. For the material they are given, I think the inexperienced, non-professional cast is just fine. While some of the notions in the plot are borderline problematic, it all falls within the bounds of low-grade science fiction. There are some enticing narrative ideas here, and I can only begin to imagine how an actual remake might look given a proper budget (needless to say, it would probably be equal parts bizarre and disturbing). The overshadowing flaw here is simply poor conveyance of the plot. It's one matter to say the pacing is overly deliberate, and sluggish. It's another matter entirely to say that the essential communication of the story, relying entirely on Mlodzik's narration and the imagery before us, is so weak that it may be very difficult to discern the course of events without the benefit of outside analysis and summary. Could that partial obfuscation be part of the art-house intent? Sure, of course it could. Even if that's true, however, that doesn't mean it benefits the picture.

I appreciate what Cronenberg wrote, and what he created with definite limited resources. That admiration is nonetheless tempered by meager plot, flimsy plot development, and staggered, unconvincing, incomplete impartment thereof. The most severe restrictions on the potential of 'Crimes of the future' wasn't the finances that backed it, but the abilities of a burgeoning auteur whose film-making prowess outpaced his storytelling capabilities. None of this is to say that this modest slice of cinema is bad, but it's unquestionably a feature best reserved for diehard fans of Cronenberg, or for the direly curious. To these groups I would say, watch with tempered expectations. To anyone else - you probably don't need to watch this, and just look for the director's later works instead.

Crimes of the Future (1970) was made a year after Stereo and with a larger budget, Cronenberg came out with an even more bizarre film based around sex and human nature. In this film he takes his cold, clinical and dark view of the world a step further. A world filled with emotionless people who are devoid of individual thought and repressed beyond imagination. A doctor uses this to his advantage whilst sexually experimenting amongst patients within a mental hospital.

This film is kind of hard to describe without giving away to much. But I found it to be comparable (somewhat) to THX 1138. In many ways you can compare the two. Cronenberg shot this faux documentary style accompanied by narration. The film reminded me of those videos that psychiatrists use when documenting extraordinary cases of psychosis and what not. Maybe that's what he trying to accomplish (if he was he succeeded). However some of the scenes in this movie are not for all viewers (those easily offended will be turned off by the subject matter).

All in all it's a more polished film than Stereo and his film-making had matured. Cronenberg also experiments more with sound and editing. The technique he uses gives the viewers the impression that they're under a state of semi-hypnosis (I don't know if they'll appreciate that or not). A interesting experimental film.

For fans only. Recommended.

David Cronenberg's second feature is a slight improvement over Stereo and showcases a couple of elements that David would begin to use in his body horror films. Crimes Of The Future uses the same method that was used on Stereo. A narrator who is in charge of narrating the events, characters who resort to mimicry and gestures and the absence of sound. The only difference is that it is Cronenberg's first film made in color and the soundtrack consists of quite strange sounds. The film also acts in a rather random manner, making it somewhat difficult to follow the plot. The story is told in such an ambiguous way that in order to understand what it is about, you need to read the hypnosis after watching it, which summarizes everything in small lines. What can be understood is that the story takes place in a dystopian future, where, due to a disease caused by a cosmetic, many women died, making them almost extinct. Reference is also made to human evolution, survival and sex in a mix of what possible future awaits a society where there are almost no women. Because women are important for humanity to continue to exist, a future without them is quite difficult to imagine. Much of what happens here is bizarre, but considering the main theme, it is clear that the male population suffers from terrible despair. The most shocking thing is the ending that touches people's morale and raises the question of how far human beings are willing to go to survive in a catastrophic situation. It can be said that Crimes Of The Future is an oddity that as a film in itself is questionable, but it leaves a thesis about one of the many futures that can await humanity. My final rating for this movie is a 6/10.

Cronenberg's final underground film carries on in the same vein as Stereo. Set in a dystopian future, it centres around strange institutes, bizarre medical disorders and mutating organs. Like Stereo, there is no sync sound here, so we listen to narration from a doctor called Adrian Tripod. We learn about the House of Skin, the Institute of Neo-Venereal Disease, the Oceanic Podiatry Group, a process known as Artificially Induced Puberty, and finally encounter a paedophile cult! Needless to say, the content is confrontational and taboo-busting but its not as shocking as it sounds as, like Stereo, its definitely more interesting to read about than actually watch. The lack of sync sound immediately puts up a barrier between the viewer and the movie, while there were several truly patience-testing segments, often revolving around feet! But for Cronenberg-heads, it feels almost compulsory to check these early underground films out, as they do show that Diamond Dave burst out of the starting blocks with many of his core cinematic ideas already fully in place. Consequently, Crimes of the Future, like the others is fascinating and frustrating in equal measure.

Like Apocalypse Now, The Shining, (Fassbinder's) Satan's Brew, and others, this movie makes you feel like you're watching the state of insanity as rebellion. The protagonist in Crimes of the Future, Adrian Tripod is free from all judgment. It is exhilarating and hilarious to watch him respond to his environment. Cronenberg's writing of the voice-over narration is frightfully intelligent and ahead of its time. I believe this short film will gain popularity exponentially in the next ten years with its inclusion on the Fast Company DVD. Ronald Mlodzik's performance is overwhelmingly detailed and his delivery of the narration (if it is him) has more confidence, if not arrogance than anything I've experienced in cinema. Perhaps Alexandra Stewart in Chris Marker's San Soleil can rival, or Malcolm McDowell in A Clockwork Orange. You must see this!!!

A grotesque oddity, Cronenberg's 2nd feature, Crimes of the Future, evokes the same sense of transcendent magnetism as films like Eraserhead and 2001. The story unfolds like a series of connected dreams, ones which emerge from the edge of consciousness.

The narrative plottings and concerns are not unlike those that exist in other Cronenberg films. However, their unfolding feels so much looser and uninhibited, creating a similar sensation as removing rocks from your shoes, causing it to almost float along. I love this type of avant-garde cinema that feels like it can do anything at any point in time.

Beauty products designed by the deranged and ideological dermatologist Anton Rouge have lead to human mutation on such a cataclysmic scale that the entire population of sexually mature women has been eradicated. Rouge has since disappeared or perhaps died, and the film follows a languid disciple of his, Adrian Tripod.

Tripod is long and gaunt. A vampiric black coat coiled tightly around him creates a stark counterpoint to his pasty, white skin. It's his internal musings that serve as the only spoken words in the film. Shot without synchronized sound, Cronenberg extracts all dialogue while focusing exclusively on a shearing combination of indefinable noises which work somewhat like a score.

Sterile, geometric spaces encompass the characters' surroundings. They feature rational modern architecture full of straight lines and intersecting right angles. These austere and formal geometric patterns are not only inherent in the architecture but also constructed as obscure props, most noticeably during the film's introduction of its pedophilic cult where a dark void-like space is illuminated only from large, glowing monolithic rectangles.

Cronenberg creates a strong counterpoint between the composed and simplistic architectural geometry and the abstraction of mutation and intellectual perversion. In doing so, he sets up an evolutionary hierarchy where humanity, as we know it, sits in the middle between individuals who are undergoing a "psychic relapse" due to "intense genetic pressure" (basically these people are losing evolved human attributes like feet and have begun growing fins and flippers instead) and amoral, paraphilic entities who have moved beyond human emotions and ethics.

This is Cronenberg at his most experimental. Crimes of the Future certainly is not an easy watch, but I found it to be engaging. I see the film's intentional opaqueness as one of its strongest attributes, because it becomes so otherworldly. That being said, I can also understand how it could be perceived as a frustrating and unapproachable method of filmmaking.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to watch Crimes of the Future ... Kim Newman hit the nail on it's head when he wrote that here Cronenberg demonstrated it was possible to be 'boring and interesting at the same time'. I know what you are thinking: you're thinking you aren't some bozo-stim-monkey, and you in fact crave glacial near-status. This film you will take in your stride. But you reckon wrongly. This film is one hour, not twenty five minutes, and interminable in places. Unless you have attained a level of Zen mastery, you will fidget in your seat, possibly contemplate chewing the carpet such is the oppressive sense of confinement. And yet, and yet ... Maybe that is the point? It conjures a world with total success, the world the later, funny films take place in. (No exploding heads or slapstick classics of such an ilk here). And it has a strange effect. Getting to the end feels like completing an arduous task, but after a while, you want to do it again. The locations are fascinating - we truly live on an alien planet. In fact the whole project has the feel of a documentary from another world - or convincingly from the future. It's beautiful, and very disturbing, in a subtle way. And it's funny! there should be a Ron Mlodzik fan club.

This early Cronenberg is bizarre, strange, experimental – and yet, this avantgarde approach to science-fiction nonetheless does not match with the masters latter works. Fascinatingly, in some regards, "Crimes of the Future" looks more "mature" then, say, "Shivers" or "Rabid". This is probably because the director/writer/cinematographer/producer Cronenberg does not mind to use a form of narrative which, while being incredibly slow and intentionally mannerist, also manages to trap the viewer into an almost hypnotic state. In other terms, he unfolds an "uneasy" way of story-telling. For the context of the tale, the venues are excellently chosen, and rarely have I seen such a convincing portrayal of an apocalyptic society. This counts for post-apocalypse (since all women have died and the male survivors behave in a dreamlike state, making it impossible for the protagonist (and us, the viewer), to read the rationality that motivates their doings) as well as in terms of pre-apocalypse, as the ending leaves no doubt that mankind – this sort of "man"kind – is doomed. Many aspects later to be taken up in other of Cronenbergs films already appear here, most prominently the subject of estranged skin diseases – later to become "the new flesh". However, fans of the latter-day Cronenberg may be puzzled by this hard-to-crack nut; it is very different from what you might expect. It comes as no surprise that critics at the time, the booklet mentions, stated the young director is unlikely to continue film-making. And he did indeed change the direction. I would just love to see the short films for Canadian TV that followed this piece. Recommended!

"Crimes of the Future" is nothing less than Cronenberg's "Eraserhead". Its flawless aesthetic approach is so superiorly arty and relevant that all of Cronenberg's following work appears bland by comparison --a bit like what happened with David Lynch after he created "Eraserhead". The great originality of CRIMES as a work of contemporary film art resides in its twin-leveled disruptiveness --both the storyline and the aesthetic choices that trigger it appear weakly structured. As a result, the film wanders, just like the poetic mind in action. We are in poetry territory here, not in the realm of manipulative ideological discourse like what happens in "Dead Ringers", for example. "Crimes of the Future" will stand as one of the first true works of Canadian Film Art.