Reviews & Ratings for
Crimes of the Future More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Index

15 reviews in total

---

19 out of 23 people found the following review useful:
hypnotic, 27 August 1999

Author: fred-83 from Sweden

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.

---

16 out of 20 people found the following review useful:
Another early film from David Cronenberg., 24 September 2004

Author: Miyagis_Sweaty_wifebeater (sirjosephu@aol.com) from Sacramento, CA

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.

---

12 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
a J.G.Ballard/W.S. Burroughs-esquire speculative fiction masterpiece!, 14 August 2005

Author: (benjaminchance) from toronto

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Well, my favorite Cronenberg anyway. The dialogue is incredibly detailed, with a seemingly pseudo-scientific bent which in fact, actually makes some sense if you pay attention! Many obscure facets of telepathy research are examined in a very Burroughs/Ballard style of writing, coupled with an intense strangeness to the multiple voice-over narration. This is of course, all helped out by the setting in a nightmare near-future after a major cosmetics related catastrophe has wiped out most of the female population. The men in the film have, by a natural balancing process, become more feminine; more androgynous. However, there is a secret lurking in this research institute- a fresh, organic, young, female secret... a secret worth dying for, maybe. Truly fantastic experimental cinema that outre' film fans everywhere should at least check out! Note: one of the subtly eerie things about this film is the lack of sound other than the voice-over. A recording by the San Francisco-based avant-garde soundtrack group SPOONBENDER 1.1.1 called 'Stereo Telepathy Academy' was released this year. It seems that the group took advantage of the fact that there is no sound in Crimes Of The Future, and wrote a score for the film. They performed it live while the film was projected. I have it and have been lining it up to my DVD of Crimes at home! Awesome!

---

10 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
The ticking mind of Cronenberg., 22 April 2006

Author: lost-in-limbo from the Mad Hatter's tea party.

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.

---

8 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Institute Cronenbergia, 20 October 2004
Author: tedg (tedg@FilmsFolded.com) from Virginia Beach

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Spoilers herein.

You might find this interesting if you are in search of something deeper in Cronenberg's mind than what is apparent in his later projects. I think that rather than they being watered down, they are a blooming of early intuitions.

Or, you might find this engaging on its own, as an economical dive into obsession. I myself am in this camp, and though all but the last 5 minutes is tedious, it has one of the best conceived endings I've seen recently.

Its a cheap shot in a way, using a child. But so effective that at the time we should have known that we had a man who is both original and has the competence to express his vision. This indeed presages crimes of his future.

But if you want a more competent and bizarre treatment of the same, check out 'Institute Benjementa.'

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

---

6 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
A subtle post(and pre)-Apocalypse, 11 November 2006

Author: Thorsten_B (thb8@hotmail.com) from Frankfurt, Germany

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!

---

12 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
Amazing!!!, 4 October 2005
Author: elliottdixon72 from United States

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!!!

---

14 out of 25 people found the following review useful:
I love Cronenberg, but..., 5 February 2004

Author: Armel Patanian from Los Angeles

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.

---

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Unremarkable student film., 17 June 2008

Author: icenine0 from United States

I'd like to preface this review by saying I'm a big fan of Cronenberg and have seen and enjoyed many of his films (M. Butterfly, Eastern Promises, History of Violence, eXistenZ, Videodrome, etc.). With that out of the way, this movie does not, in any sense, stand up to any of his later work -- poor acting, ridiculously drawn out scenes that do nothing to advance the plot, similar sequences needlessly repeated 3 or 4 times, pretentious psychobabble narration, and, to top it off, the movie is shot entirely on a university campus with a budget of what I'd estimate to be less than 5 dollars.

Although the movie is short at 70 minutes, very little actually happens. The length and sparseness of the scenes seem to betray that Cronenberg was desperately trying to fill out time by stringing footage together -- one scene that stands out in my mind involves an unnamed character repeatedly removing and replacing socks and underwear from a leather bag for no apparent reason.

If this movie wasn't directed, written, and edited by Cronenberg, whose later work truly is stellar, it would have certainly been forgotten as a standard or even totally sub par student film.

---

A Germ of Cronenberg, Not a Masterpiece, 2 June 2011

Author: gavin6942 from United States

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.

---

---

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Ratings	External reviews	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user reviews	Your vote history