David Cronenberg’s second attempt at making a film called crimes of the future is coming to theaters. In 1970, Cronenberg made a movie that followed a mad dermatologist in a world without women, and 52 years later, he’s back with an entirely new premise and the same old title. But this time, Cronenberg dares to ask the question: what if surgery was the new sex? It is one of those premises that excites the senses; it is provocative and chilling in nature as an idea. Unfortunately, the execution of such a riveting concept leaves a lot to be desired, as we have a pointless and strangely undirected movie from a director with a highly respected reputation.
Story structure is a template that most movies stick to like glue. Almost all movies have a three-act structure, an inciting event, and a climax. crimes of the future barely has any of that. While it’s easy to admire a writer bold enough to break convention and tell an unconventional, original story, this movie tells a narrative so surreal and out of this world that the result is a bunch of mind-boggling garbage that becomes virtually impossible to remember. connect with.
Not every movie should follow a story structure, but every movie should have a story. Unfortunately, crimes of the future it meanders quite a bit, and the results are not pretty. Some may skip watching the movie and instead read the plot summary on Wikipedia. However, I guarantee you that reading the synopsis of the film will give you a one-way ticket to two emotions shared by those who chose to sit in the audience: confusion and bewilderment. The story doesn’t surprise you in the way Cronenberg intends; instead, he shows you strange images in a world you don’t get involved with.
If one went to great lengths to describe what happens in this film, it would boil down to this: A Future Society features a couple of performance artists, Saul Tenser (Viggo Mortensen) and Caprice (Léa Seydoux). They grow and harvest organs in front of an audience. The concept is unique, but Cronenberg’s failure stems from his inability to take the story he came up with and take it in new directions. Instead, the film stays on a sustained note, diverging into an endless series of subplots that amount to nothing worthwhile.
The film has original ideas, namely the National Organ Registry, which includes researchers like Timlin (Kristen Stewart). But the movie doesn’t use those ideas to create the tension that this kind of movie might have. crimes of the future It has been marketed as such a grotesque body horror movie that people walked out on its world premiere at the Cannes Film Festival. However, while some scenes involve cut skin and some raw organs, this film is relatively tame from a gore standpoint. The only reason I can imagine people leaving the theater is out of sheer boredom.
Don’t get me wrong, a movie like crimes of the future it certainly has its audience. Fans of Cronenberg’s style probably won’t be disappointed with this film. Many may love his bold style. Unfortunately, I found it to be an endless series of lackluster expository dialogue scenes where an actress of Stewart’s caliber was given nothing to do but whisper. It is not a pleasant film to watch and less pleasant to reflect on. While I respect a filmmaker with an original style, this is a film that is hard to connect with and an even harder film to watch.
SCORE: 3 – BAD
As ComingSoon’s review policy explains, a score of 3 equals “Bad.” Due to major issues, this medium feels like a chore to digest.
Disclosure: Critic attended a press screening for our crimes of the future revision.