User reviews

My thoughts on "Crimes" is more of a deep-dive into the metaphorical meanings within Cronenberg's on-the-nose, satirical (albeit horrific) and sometimes humorous view of modern-day technology (ex: eating chair, sleeping bed, autopsy bed), exhibitionism and voyeurism (ex: Saul, Caprice, Timlin, two women with drills), pop culture (ex: Klinik/Ear Man, others), celebrity status (Saul and Caprice), and ultimately the "plastic" society that we have become (ex: plastic eaters, non-plastic eaters, and those "evolving" into eating plastic. There are also the "policing agencies" (Cope, Wippet, Timlin) that tries to regulate and/or terminate humanities permanent decline into a meaningless existence of seeking out ever-greater, "shocking" sensualities (ex: government's attempts to regulate social media and the moral decline of society).

The story clearly identifies "plastic" as the synthetic, cheap, easily consumed and digested content in social media (I think of "Barbie Girl" by Aqua, Madonna's "Material Girl"). Each of the main characters is participating in the so-called "art" in some way with a brief glimpse of a "normal person" who dies from eating "plastic".

The boy Brecken, from the outset, has already "evolved" into a full plastic eater. The mother, representing parents of young "social media artists" today, smothers him. This represents the consequences of parents allowing their children to consume and produce cheap, easy to consume exhibitionism eventually leading them to be killed by it (ex: kids being killed by their stalkers, older men being fans of young girls) as if the parent was the actual murderer.

Through the entire story, the main character Saul resists "evolving" into a plastic eater (ex: "tumor-like organs" that grow inside him = the cancers of society) using alien-looking tech just to eat and sleep (Ex: cpap, hospital surgical devices, feeding tubes, mechanised beds etc). Finally, after just giving in to "evolving" into a plastic eater does he find complete contentment and peace. However, never does he realize that his "painless" exhibitionism is the very cause of his morphing into a plastic eater; he's now desensitised to it all.

Along the way, we also meet two woman voyeurists who drill holes into people's heads representing the mindless, intellegence draining people of YouTube Channels and pornography; they create content that displays to everyone their so-called "inner beauty" but is secretely "horrific" for us to watch, and we can't turn our eyes away (ex: Adrienne, Ear Man, zipper device, etc.). In addition, Ear Man (Klinik) demonstrates how even the hippocritical Producer of his "Art" (ex: the music and entertainment industry) can be the very one who exploits the financial successes but joins the "popular" view of hating it (ex: anonymous likes, dislikes, etc.).

There are many more metaphorical references throughout the story and Cronenberg uses the genre as a warning of the future "horrors" of becoming "Plastic Eaters". Cronenberg asks us If we are disgusted by what we are watching and thus why are we not disgusted by what we "consume" in today's media? He suggests that if we are not disgusted by what we're watching, we're already a plastic eater. Indeed, ultimately society will become senseless, meaningless, painless, completely devoid of the characteristics that make us human if we don't stop eating plastic both metaphorically (ex: social media, empty entertainment, exhibitionism, voyeurism, pop culture, celebrity status, etc.) and physically (ex: oceans being full of plastic-fish eat it, we eat the fish). Neither has any nutritional value.

Some people in the future muck about with their saucy organs and that's about it. Some of the effects and prosthetics are creative, but some of them are bobbins.

The drama is mundane. There's no suspense, tension or stakes. If all the movie had is a premise, then the body horror needed to be bonkers to give the audience a bit of fun. But it's all too serious. The philosophical aspect is brought to the fore, which is the least interesting thing about it. I like that it's trying something different, but it comes at the cost of good storytelling. A simple thriller element would have balanced the movie nicely. Unfortunately, the plot is too thin to hold any weight.

The sets and cinematography are good. The acting is clunky and the dialogue is waffling, when it's audible. Cronenberg has fallen victim to the trend of dialogue being whispered, mumbled, fried or delivered in an accent so outrageous that it's hard to decipher what anybody's banging on about.

A meandering, middle-of-the-road sci-fi.

"crimes of the future" is an efficient film, it does a lot with little, without big sets and gigantic practical effects, everything is very simple but very convincing, the scenery compositions are dirty with a dark photograph, always looking for an intrinsic degradation, the effects practical are good, the few CGI are weak, but the sound editing is magnificent, always looking for sounds that seek the viewer's discomfort, another positive point is the performances, the duo Vigo mortise and Léa Seydoux are very good, Viggo manages to show all the pain and anguish of her character with her body and vocal posture, Kristen is another highlight, making an anxious and paranoid character the actress delivers a very good performance, despite her little screen time, but the best point here, I bring the classic and brilliant Canadian director, david cronenberg, is his script, which, despite being a little confusing, has as its main premise the limit of art, its contradictions and subversive appreciations, its criminal lity, and with that it makes a self-reflection of its own filmography, the film is also a critique of state bureaucracy and government intervention in art, all on a derogatory dystopian futuristic science fiction plan. The feature has some problems, the biggest one is perhaps the subtexts that are open and not always completed. We don't have the best version of Cronenberg here, but his style remains authorial and inviting. Grade 7/10.

This movie starts out great, with an awesomely dark opening scene to set the mood. It's really weird immediately and reaches high levels of grossness, but I surprisingly dug it. In many movies set in the future, it really isn't much different except for the technology and a few aesthetics. But here, we see a really interesting depiction of where humanity ends up, some of which I find scarily possible.

Unfortunately, it's extremely dull with just the slightest hint of a story and doesn't amount to anything. By the end I was checked out, or else I might've been furious at how it ends. I think many people will think this is one of the worst movies they've seen. (1 viewing, 6/8/2022)

This flick is off the wall even for Cronenberg. And I'm amazed that such well known actors made this dark and almost plotless film.

It opens withan outrage and ends with a whimper. The dialogue is vague and depressing as is the premise that future art will be of pain and suffering.

Crimes of the Future is an original and thought-provoking sci-fi arthouse film, featuring great performances from Léa Seydoux, Viggo Mortensen and Kristen Stewart.

David Cronenberg approaches his material like that of a final year thesis paper, using his characters as a mouthpiece to discuss the next step of human evolution through biology melding with technology.

In the future, climate change and pollution have fast-tracked the advancement in biotechnology. Pain and infectious disease have been eliminated for most of the human race, resulting in human evolution going outside of the natural order.

Saul Tenser and Caprice, a performance artist couple who do live avant-garde performances of open surgery, making use of Saul's unique condition of regrowing organs and cutting them off in front of a live audience. For their upcoming show, Saul and Caprice are entangled between an underground organization and government forces about unveiling a key secret about the next phase of human evolution to the public.

Jerry Seinfeld once had a joke about how men are fascinated by whatever body parts a woman covers up. If women all started wearing hats one day, men would get their ya-yas from looking at the top of ladies' heads.

David Cronenberg applies this very same concept to his own body horror aesthetic in Crimes of the Future. In a world where pain doesn't exist, where would human sexuality go? What would people do to their own bodies for pleasure?

The film pushes its sci-fi themes even further to new places and asks, if biotechnology allows us to control our own evolution, should people be allowed to dictate their own evolution? Or should we stay on nature's course?

Although it was a challenging watch, I found Crimes of the Future intellectually engaging. It is a pure ideas film and not a film to relate to emotionally. At times, Cronenberg's transhumanism ideas could just as easily be presented as art pieces in a museum exhibit or a novel.

There's a lot of time spent in the body horror moments lingering on grotesque wounds, but it is towards a thematic point. Cronenberg isn't holding onto the shot to disgust or scare the audience; he's studying it. He presents the body horror as a reflection of our own humanity, as in, "If the world was like this, this is what we would probably do to ourselves."

Cronenberg's future world, perhaps due to budget constraints, is all world-built through dialogue, which has a style and rhythm of its own that one must tune their ears to. It was mentally challenging keeping up with what was happening but ultimately rewarding. Watching it with subtitles on will help.

The cast does a great job delivering the stylistic dialogue and working together to create an emotional core for what otherwise is a cold cerebral film.

Viggo Mortensen is great in a subdued part but it is Léa Seydoux who steals the show. Seydoux dug deep and convinced us that performing live open surgery is as important as Michaelangelo painting the Sistine Chapel.

Kristin Stewart brought something we've never seen before as a squirrelly horny government clerk, which was funny because I almost wished she performed the Twilight films this way.

For the uninitiated, Crimes of the Future could be frustrating at times for its unconventional style and it will play best to David Cronenberg fans or body horror fans who are familiar with his work and will find these ideas fascinating.

The film stayed with me long afterwards and the more I thought about it, it slowly blew my mind with its rich ideas. This is a true work of art.

I don't know who to recommend this film to without getting vicious complaints afterwards. I suppose the people who want to see Crimes of the Future will see it. Meanwhile, I desperately need to discuss it with someone.

I was really excited to see this movie, and while I enjoyed the movie, I was ultimately left dissatisfied, because Cronenberg is capable of making better films. This movie basically explores a lot of the same themes as Crash, eXistenZ (did i spell that right?) and Dead Ringers, and sort of throws them together. I think it was miles beyond what eXistenZ was, but not as good as Dead Ringers, and nowhere near as good as Crash.

The pros: Acting is great, Scott Speedman was surprisingly really good in his performance, concept of the film is great

The mehs: Soundtrack, I feel like you could slap any of Howard Shore's Cronenberg soundtracks onto this one, and it wouldn't matter, it's there, it probably doesn't need to be though, for me it doesn't add anything, which makes me wonder if I would have enjoyed this move more if it didn't have a soundtrack...and I think I would. I think maybe going for something ambient over orchestral would have worked better as well, but I guess you can't teach an old dog new tricks. People have been talking about how gross some of the stuff is in the movie, but in all honesty, after watching it, I feel like Cronenberg and or the production company pays people to talk about how hard it is to watch, to build hype. Pretty tame in the gross out department if you ask me, which is fine, because I think all of the surgical stuff that's happening was delivered at a very appropriate level, not off putting to watch.

The cons: the costume design is hokey, Viggo Mortensen's ninja poncho hoodie thing looks silly, the set design is really boring, the design of the various apparatuses that characters are connected to (the autopsy machine, the eating chair thing, the bed) all look like cheap plastic crap, and I don't think that was intentional, the way they're presented is as elaborate pieces of technology, but they look cheap and idiotic, and it really killed any engagement that I had, it kept reminding me that I was watching a movie with bad props, I'm glad he used props instead of CGI, but these just look like crap. The props and makeup in Naked Lunch worked, these look like they were props that were discarded from Naked Lunch's props department because they weren't good enough to use. Lastly the final con of the film is the script, the entire plot is fantastic, it's well thought out, but when you're dealing with complex themes and subject matter, why would you write a script that tries to explain what's going on like a 3 year old is watching the movie? The script is patronizing to the viewer, and I felt cheated when I listened to the dialogue. Characters don't need to explain to the audience what's happening when we're already watching it, most of the dialogue is a narration of the plot and the themes, and it's irritating to sit through.

Well, that was a complete waste of my time. Talk about a movie that is equally as weird as it is boring. There is so much going on, yet nothing is happening at the same time, and not a single bit of it is explained well enough to grasp. David Cronenberg has officially lost his touch as a filmmaker. Not to mention this one might win an award for the worst cinematography ever put to screen. A vast majority of the scenes were so dark that I couldn't see what was on screen and I felt like I was just staring at silhouettes of characters talking. Combine that with some really terrible cgi and you've got a recipe for the ugliest movie ever made. The only strong aspect the film has going for it is the acting. You can tell the actors really gave it their all with the material they were given. Overall, the film felt like a complete waste, and a half baked effort on behalf of the director. There is definitely a reason as to why I was the only one in the theater for this one. Also, for the preview to make this film out to be so disturbing, I can assure you it is not. Hell, it's even very light on the blood and gore, which the preview built up as well. Majorly disappointed in that category. I can recommend this film for people who want to take a nap, it will definitely put you to sleep. 1 fleshy instrument out of 5.

Crimes of the Future (2022) is a movie my wife and I saw in theatres last night. The storyline follows a future where surgery and pain is the new sex. In the future they don't feel pain so they push the limits of the human body. They've gone so far in their experiments the human body has begun to evolve in new ways science has never seen and the government wishes to hide from society. Underground observations has become the rage to whiteness surgeries that explore the human body and its evolution.

This movie is directed by David Cronenberg (Dead Ringers) and stars Viggo Mortensen (Lord of the Rings), Kristen Stewart (Twilight), Léa Seydoux (Spectre), Scott Speedman (Underworld) and Welket Bungué (Upheavel).

The storyline, settings l, cinematography and circumstances of this picture are wildly original, unique and well done. The special effects are first rate with fantastic surgery scenes and gore. The characters are mysterious and unpredictable and there are tremendous plots and subplots in this film. My only complaint is the entire movie feels like it is building up to a worthwhile and tremendous climax that the film never hits; but conceptually, this is brilliant.

Overall this is a movie that fails to reach its full potential but is wildly entertaining and an absolutely must see. I would score this a 7.5/10 and strongly recommend it.

65/100

My expectations for the film were completely off. The trailer made me think that the film was going to be one way, but turned out it was the opposite.

While it wasn't as I expected it was still a decent film. It was artistic, dark, twisted, and intriguing. The story had an interesting concept. "Surgery is the new sex". With that in my mind now it really opens a new visual to the film.

The performance was very well done. It's been awhile since I've seen Viggo Mortensen in a film. He was excellent and I enjoyed his performance. Having only seen Léa Seydoux in "James Bond" previously, I thought she did an excellent job as well opposite Viggo. Continuing with the acting performances, this is perhaps the first film that I enjoyed Kristen Stewart's performance. Just her shyness and dark persona made her likeable.

The film does lose a lot interest because it becomes too slow at times and drags on more than it needs to a certain moments. While a slower pace is key to the film it's just too slow.

Overall, there is some good intriguing moments to the film that I struggle to convey into words. A twisted art story involving slicing and dicing the body. Honestly, it was worth seeing in theatres, but I would've preferred to see it on a cheap night.

Thank you for reading my review. I hope it helps you a little in making a decision. Until next time.... Enjoy the show!

I'm not sure if anyone watched the same movie as I did, but this movie was awful from start to finish. Slow boring and stupid plot. I would never recommend it or see it again.

Not sure I liked it, not sure I disliked it, but boy oh boy was it a Cronenberg movie, and if you like his style, check it out. My two biggest gripes are that I felt as though it ended too abruptly, and that honestly, I wish it was grosser. Is that weird? Most of the "shocking bits", besides one scene, were in the trailer, which was a bit disappointing. Really not much more that I can say. Great performances!

An extremely dystopian look at the future, full of scalpels, tattooed growths but not enough suture, the metaphors perish, no personas to cherish, synthetic, superficial, fascicle culture.

And it's also extremely dull, while the choking noises will annoy you all the way through.

Greetings again from the darkness. So, what happens when society evolves to the point that pain barely exists? Well, of course, people will then desire pain for pleasure and will go to extremes to experience the new forbidden bruised fruit. Anyone familiar with filmmaker David Cronenberg's 40+ year career is already anticipating 'what else' the master of 'body horror' and twisted provocations will add to the proceedings. And the answer is ... plenty.

Viggo Mortensen stars as Saul Tenser, and Lea Seydoux co-stars as Caprice, his performance art partner with benefits (such as they may be). If you've ever wondered what a second career for a trauma surgeon might look like, well Caprice's role in the live shows is to first tattoo and then remove the newest organ that Saul's body has generated - all while the appreciative audience looks on as if Picasso were painting or Edith Piaf were singing. Wait, what? His body grows new organs? Yes, Cronenberg has set this in a future where a segment of the population has an evolved digestive system and mutations, pain has been mostly eradicated, and Saul's body grows new organs that may or may not have a legitimate function - they're never left in the body long enough to find out because it's Show time!

An opening sequence features a young boy's inexplicable action, which leads his mother to an unfathomable next step. We are clearly in a (not so bright) future and Cronenberg delivers his first crime. That boy is linked to one of the many sub-plots in the film, though it's Saul and Caprice who are at the center of most. A secretive government agency is responsible for registering all new organs, and it's run by Wippet (Don McKellar) and Timlin (Kristen Stewart). Wippet worships Saul as an icon, while Timlin takes it a step further by whispering in Saul's ear, "Surgery is the new sex." Stewart plays polar opposite to her usual subtle on-camera style, delivering a humorous take on a curious, bird-like creature with tics and a lack of social graces.

Outstanding supporting work comes from Scott Speedman, Welket Bungue, Tanaya Beatty, and Nadia Litz. I'll say little else about these characters or their story lines, because this film works best as you uncover each layer for yourself. A general description of the film would be what happens when anatomy and art collide with science-fiction. One can easily draw connective dotted lines between this Cronenberg film and many of his earlier ones. It has the bizarre sensuality of CRASH (1996), a nod to THE FLY (1986), common ground with EXISTENZ (1999), a line from DEAD RINGERS (1988), and social commentary in line from both VIDEODROME (1983) and SCANNERS (1981). This is Viggo Mortensen's fifth collaboration with Cronenberg, but surely the first where he's said, "I'm not very good at old sex." Carol Spier's signature Production Design plays a significant part in the film, and best I can tell, she has worked on each of Cronenberg's films since 1981. The two Canadians make a good team. It's been 8 years since Cronenberg's last film, and the 79-year-old filmmaker is already in pre-production for his next. The Inner Beauty Pageant and Accelerated Evolution Syndrome are elements within this film, and as you would expect, he delivers visual effects that will stick with you. That said, nothing is over the top, and if anything, the cult filmmaker is on pretty good behavior, though he fully expects "walk outs" within the first few minutes. While I'm not sure the twist is even a twist, this is vintage Cronenberg offering no apologies while choosing to leave us with yet more of his provocations ... "don't spill".

Opens in theaters on June 3, 2022.

This is the worst movie I have seen in a long time. I went in not having watched a trailer or reading anything about it because trailers these days give so much away, and I like Cronenberg, so I was down for a sci-fi film with elements of horror. I don't know what I just watched. The first five minutes, my jaw was on the floor and I was ready to leave if it continued like that. It made me expect something along the lines of Mother or Climax. The rest of the movie? Terrible CGI effects, bad acting from Viggo Mortensen, story elements that made zero sense and way too much exposition about the wrong things. This movie came across as incredibly pretentious, it felt like a bunch of half thought out ideas, it tried to be shocking for the sake of it. It seemed like a film an art student made with a small studio budget. One scene looked like it could be a Chemical Brothers music video. This is the first movie I've seen in a long time that's genuinely bad. It's not even so bad it's good, it's just BAD.

I was in shock after this ended. All I could do was sit there and watch the credits roll. When I finally walked out, the usher said "Wow, you survived," because multiple people walked out early. "Survived" is a very appropriate word for this, it's not something you watch, but endure. I get the strong sensation that Cronenberg is disillusioned with modern film and wanted to make his own attempt at progressing the art medium forward. With all of the discussion of corpses, body parts, and conflating art with mutilation, the message comes across clearly. The "Crimes of the Future" the title refers to are embracing the evolution of art and mutating human anatomy.

In Cronenberg's dark and muddy dystopian future, police, bureaucrats, and conservatives are the enemy here, they prevent change at all costs because of fear. Whereas the ones willing to test the limits of art, their audience, and the human body are the trailblazers. The brooding lead, Saul, and his surgeon partner Caprice approach performance art in a way that illustrates this fear of evolution dichotomy; Saul rejects evolution out of disgust, but Caprice rejects the change out of fear. While their art is avant-garde, it does not push progressive boundaries the conservative bureaucracy believes. The process of embracing evolution occurs slowly over the course of Saul and Caprice's experiences in the grimy underworld of Cronenberg's complex dystopian future. There is no clear good or evil, only a hopeful destination that lies ahead, as the ending suggests.

As mankind develops more and more technology, there will likely be more and more of an interest in the quest for immortality. And that brings various ramifications, some not so positive perhaps. It might be better to just accept the natural cycles, accept natural death rather than trying to fight against it so much with these man-made, unnatural processes. This seems to be the overarching statement of the movie. It is an important topic that deserves exploration and discussion, certainly.

But getting to this statement is certainly a bit of a slog. The mechanical dialogue and characters' robotic mannerisms become tiresome. The whole thing feels cold, detached and hard to connect to. Sure, this is a cold and detached dystopic world, but there isn't a counterbalancing element which is needed to build empathy in such a world.

I get why Mortensen would make the actorly "choice" to be almost constantly throat clearing. The character has internal organ issues, I get that. But that doesn't make the choice any less annoying. It just becomes excessive and annoying.

As usual, Seydoux is sexy and talented and probably the best thing about the movie.

What starts off as a bizarro arthouse film gradually transpires into a film that feels almost too visceral.

There are some absolutely breathtaking and strikingly beautiful shots in this movie. Witnessing this work of art felt like I was watching something I shouldn't be experiencing, as I felt disturbed but also entertained simultaneously in so many of the scenes.

A stunning cast brought stellar performances that really elevated the stakes for all characters involved. Intense moments were brought to life through the palpable tension that Cronenberg was able to incorporate. Every word, action, and movement felt very intentional as well as masterful.

The first half of this film felt extremely slow. While the pacing doesn't really seem to even pick up halfway through, it definitely became more intriguing from then on out, and I couldn't pull my attention away. My only other main issues are that this film could've incorporated more horror to feel like a true horror film, and the ending was a little too abrupt. That, and I didn't like the dark message that the film left us with, but then again I could just be looking too far into it or maybe I'm just being too sensitive.

And I don't want to go to YT and watch a 20-minute video explaining to me the "deep" and philosophical themes and ideas of this movie. If a movie can't even in the tiniest way tell me itself what it's actually about, then something is wrong and I don't consider that a good movie. And I'm not talking about movies with actual mindbending plots that you have to watch or read an explanation to get the ending and the story, I'm talking about the movie that doesn't even try to hint at what it actually wants to say. So if I didn't enjoy the story, if I didn't enjoy the way the movie is shot, and if I didn't even enjoy the acting of everyone in this world who act like complete weirdos, and if I didn't like the weird and confusing dialogue, and I only kinda liked the music and some of the body horror stuff, I can't really give it a high or even a mediocre rating.

First of all, the movie doesn't even try to present the plot or the characters in an interesting way. Like the director doesn't even care, which there might be something admirable there, but it doesn't make for a good movie. Like do you remember the movie Passengers from 2016, which had an interesting plot but it was mediocre at best, then someone edited the movie and replaced the order of acts 1 and 2 and it became a whole new movie with mystery, suspense, and tension and it made it so much better? Yeah, this movie feels like that but a hundred times worse.

Presentation really matters. Things just happen in the movie without a single ounce of suspense or tension. We don't know the characters and we don't really get to know their actual motivation and what they're thinking about. There's even a scene like 10 minutes into the movie that reveals something about the protagonist, but it's presented in the blandest and most unsurprising way. Like it's technically a twist, but it doesn't feel like a twist at all. It's like "oh, so this happened, cool I guess". Like they could've shown that in the beginning and it would've made no difference at all.

I don't really know why, but apparently, everyone in the future is super creepy and absolute weirdos. Everyone acts weird like they're not even human, but the weirdest one is the Kristen Stewart. Why does she talk like that? Who knows! Why is she always on the verge of crying? Why does she talk and act like someone had her balls in their hand and was squeezing them and she wants to cry and can't speak loud enough all the time?

Why is the dialogue so weird, confusing, and meaningless? Why does Viggo Mortensen go around in a ninja suit like he's a vampire or something? "I get cold", ok that's cool, but why is that?

Why is everyone obsessed with the organs and autopsy? "Surgery is the new sex". Really? Did humans develop a new desire related to maiming that is better than sex and orgasm? How? The movie doesn't even tell us if or how or why they are enjoying it more than sex. They say at the beginning that humans no longer feel pain and infections are gone, so no matter what you do with your body, you won't get a disease or feel any pain at all. But how does that lead to enjoying getting cut and having your internal organs pulled out feel better than sex? Why is everything shown from the life of these people, is just eating weird mushy food and talking about bodies and organs every second of their life? Like are they so obsessed that they have literally nothing else to do?

The budget is really small, so I get that we're not gonna get Blade Runner 2049 level of world-building and set pieces. But the whole movie is literally in ruins and ship graveyards. I'm not kidding, literally every "house", every "art gallery", and that office is an abandoned house with rundown walls.

I really don't know what the point of the "twist" was, if it wasn't gonna go anywhere. Or the point of those two women, if they don't show, tell, or even hint at who they were and why they did what they did. It just seems like a movie with a couple of ideas that go absolutely nowhere at all.

The only movie from Cronenberg I've seen, a while back, was eXistenZ, and I absolutely loved it. I enjoyed the twists, I enjoyed the mystery, the suspense, and all the gross body horror stuff, and I was really shocked how well it predicted what video games in the future are gonna look like. Like you could say it was Matrix before Matrix. So I thought Cronenberg was pretty smart and he predicted video games really well in a genius way. But this is nothing like that, the concept is weird and it's presented in the blandest way as if the director didn't care at all, it's not clear what it wants to say or what it is actually about, and it's not a fun watch like eXistenZ.

But then again, eXistenZ shockingly did really predict how video games were going to be very well, so who knows, maybe we'll look back at this movie in 30 years and we'll be awestruck with how accurate this movie was!

A lot of people are passionately disliking this film and I'm not really sure what they were expecting. Have they forgotten what classic Cronenberg films are actually like? Have they lost the plot in their own skewed fantasy of a David Cronenberg film that's been distorted over years of non-exposure while his ever-emboldening reputation only feeds each delusional individual's twisted perception of his filmography?

Cronenberg's fleshy visuals have always been singular, striking, and disturbing - but they've typically been an added bonus to what really makes his films legendary, and that's CONCEPT. Concept is far and away the strength and the entire point of Crimes Of The Future - the primary plot, the philosophies it presents, and all the ideas that branch out around it. Nearly every scene introduces an intriguing idea or philosophy that takes the concept one step further, and as a viewer, if you are able to keep up with it, the extremely forward-thinking ideas generally become more fathomable with every conversation. It's amusing to me that "The Future" is right there in the title, and still it seems that the primary problem people are having is that they cannot look ahead far enough to perceive these ideas as even remotely realistic or relatable in any manner. Well, people felt the same way about VIDEODROME when it came out in 1982, but now it makes a pretty succinct statement that can pretty easily be tied to the horrors of social networking - from the inarguable prediction about "screen names" and beyond.

While I'm seeing a lot of people call the dialogue in this "atrocious", I truly found it to be some of the most intellectual and intriguing dialogue I have heard in a while. It honestly feels like you are reading a philosophy book the entire time. Considering how out-there the material is, the entire cast did a really phenomenal job sculpting out bizarre personality types that feel as if they may not exist at all YET, but certainly could in the future. Viggo Mortensen definitely steals the show with such a unique approach to a human character that it feels entirely alien. Lea Seydoux held things down as expertly as she always does, and Lihi Kornowski, Scott Speedman, and Don McKellar made great impressions on me for the first time.

While the movie isn't thrilling enough to be considered any form of masterpiece, it fits in very well with Cronenberg's final decade of body horror: the 90's. This makes perfect sense since the movie was originally written in 2002, and put on hold for 20 years. (Noting this, it makes it even more impressive that the plot still feels so ahead of it's time.) This movie feels most like eXisTeNz and Naked Lunch, with hints of Crash and Videodrome. But, if you loved Dead Ringers, you should be able to get plenty into Crimes Of The Future - it's "slower" than a lot of classic Cronenberg, but all the elements of classic Cronenberg are there.

I went in expecting a film that was all aesthetic with no heart, but I was fully proven wrong. Cronenberg is not facing Dario Argento syndrome in the way that I feared he would. David Cronenberg still has the heart and mind of an artist, and it is fully clear through Crimes of the Future. It's challenging, visceral, and feels pretty gross to watch, as it is meant to be. Much of the film feels like a reflection on David's existence as an artist himself, but its primary appeal is as an exploration of bizarre but very possible elements of our own future world. Kudos, Cronie.

Crimes of the Future features tremendous world-building and concepts, but is incomplete in its narrative. In addition to prompting one to fill in the pieces that led to this world, there also is a sense that there is more to say about characters and the world that is depicted. Those who love Cronenberg's past body horror outings may very well forgive the film's shortcomings, especially given the following vivid perspectives fully on display:

1. Evolution is rapid. Human bodies are changing in our world, but writer/director David Cronenberg further accelerates this timeline. Examples include interior changes in the body, from growth of new organs to altered gastrointestinal tracts. There are much softer current-day precedents for these concepts (just two examples include changing waist-to-hip ratios in females and lower testosterone levels in younger males) - with these and likely those in the film speculated as related to changes in sleep/exercise/diet/environment. The extreme examples in the film are presented as social commentary in the form of body horror, as this is a format with which Cronenberg feels very much at home. I do like how the horror is presented in two ways: visually, and through the discussion of the fear that humans may branch off into separate subspecies.

2. People are restless. Although there is no reference to the internet or social media in the world presented in Crimes of the Future, there is heightened interest in displaying changes in the human body in order to both grab attention and to feel a greater sense of personal fulfillment. Technology AND evolution have both fostered these innate and selfish desires.

3. People in the society depicted in the film are not easily shocked. Although the threshold to accept previously unacceptable behaviors has attenuated in our culture (at least in the First World), The Crimes of the Future's world is on another level. Many examples abound, but the following stand out: a. A child is murdered by his mother, and there is surprisingly little visible repulsion by those who are aware of the act.

B. Said child undergoes a public autopsy, with body entirely uncovered and displayed from the outset, and then abdomen is open for attendees to see internal organs. Laws preventing this activity, if at all present, are not enforced. In this dystopian future, characters reference that law enforcement and governmental agencies are not to be trusted, with characters linked with both fringe and governmental agencies accordingly shown to be unethical. This plays off of a theme that has been debated in recent years.

David Cronenberg constructs a world with some uniquely horrifying characteristics, and the superb performances by this cast accentuated by a top-flight production design and Howard Shore's haunting score, all beautifully tie together the film. As above, and with other reviewer's comments thus far, various narrative aspects appear incomplete. It would be interesting to follow up these and other themes presented, and see where they go in a sequel - with even some backstory added in order to help understand how humans reached the point depicted in Crimes of the Future. Although he has not done this in the past, and time may be running out in his creative life at the age of 79, more information with another installment would very much be welcomed.

This is a cool concept but it was poorly executed and the story was not told very well. The visuals weren't as great as it was advertised and then the movie just suddenly ends without anything worth while happening. Overall it left me questioning whether this whole movie even needed to be made...the concept will draw you in but there is nothing that really holds your attention.