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.
