What makes Cronenberg’s movie interesting and stood out was actually not all that disgusting horror stuff like Titane, but the depth of his stories and what he’s trying to draw parallel from. The marketing trying to attract larger audiences by selling its disgusting horror element, when in fact all cronenberg movies will never appeal to larger audiences
Surprised that this wasn’t as disgusting as it was made out to be - this is the sort of movie where if you don’t go all in, the whole concept doesn’t work
I would say that it's not supposed to be a horror movie. Body horror is the setting, but the film is actually an existential drama more along the lines of Crash. I thought it was absolutely fascinating from that perspective. When you hear Cronenberg talk about the film, he doesn't sell it on how disgusting it is. He just says "people will be disgusted by it." I don't think his intention here is to make us squirm; he wants to explore what it means to be human in a world that humanity has destroyed so severely that there's no longer any purpose to existing.
YES totally agree... it absolutely felt more like the beginning of a mini-series than a movie, it felt like it was really getting around to saying something and then it just stopped before saying anything at all. So you hit the nail on the head, it feels like it's missing a third act! Kristen Stewart was wasted as she had very little to do and her character seemed absolutely pointless! I had gotten irritated with the whole thing well before the end. It's saving grace was it's performances as those actors obviously all really admire and respect Cronenberg and really threw themselves in whole-heartedly... what a waste!!!
Fresh off from her award season especially her Oscar nomination thanks to Spencer, it's pretty amazing to see Kristen Stewart in a Cronenberg movie and glad that she does well in the movie. If anything she does weird, I guess that's what Cronenberg wanted her to do from a script standpoint of her character
Since it's Cronenberg I expected the movie to have a lot of booed at the festival after the movie was over and some critics would jumped on Twitter and express about the concern of violence or whatever on this film like they did with Joker at Venice but it actually got a six minute standing ovation which I was very surprised and it's currently a frontrunner for the Palme d'Or which is pretty cool
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 try 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 CZcams 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 and can kill us metaphorically, physically, spiritually, and socially.
haven’t seen it yet, but any chance it gets a vfx nomination? i know it’ll have to compete with a lot of heavy-hitters but cronenberg also has the prestige filmmaker respect that could garner academy support?
@@manantial773 lmao. i mean he has won before for the fly, so the academy is willing to award him. and his last film maps to the stars (which i would argue was far less awaited than his return to body horror here) has 40k reviews on imdb currently. not that that’s the metric i would use.
@Spencer Phinney The Fly was better reviewed tho and it came out in the 90s, so the effects were groundbreaking for the time It ain’t gonna happen for this one
I totally loved this film in every sense but I 100% agree when it ended my friend and I were like wait what?? I thought there was another 30 min or so. But for me it still all worked very well
This is speculative fiction but I feel that the pacing really dragged. I think Severance is a way better version of Crimes of the future. The title makes sense too
i understand your opinion on the world building in this movie but to be honest i’d have to say that i disagree. it never to me felt like i was watching anything other than a set or a soundstage built to mimic a post apocalyptic world. most of the exterior we get is in an alleyway or at that “junk yard” ish place. i wish we got more of the style that they showed in the first scene with the sunken ship. i did enjoy the movie and maybe i’m off base idk
If I were at Cannes, Top Gun: Maverick is the last film I'd want to see. It's out in theaters, you can watch it as soon as you get back home. I'd rather watch films without distribution in competitions/sidebar sections.
@@billhaverchuck3745 Yeah but Top Gun Maverick is (in my opinion) the best movie of the year so far! And watching it at its premiere in Cannes WITH Tom Cruise, would have been an amazing experience. But I agree with you that this movie is made for the big screen, so it would be a fantastic experience watching it in the theater too.
@@samuelblachon95130 Because it's an English-speaking film and it was already acquired by NEON. Half of the films in competition don't have a US distrubution.
5/10 is not bad, and it's just one guy's opinion. It's doing well in some polls (ICS, IONCINEMA, German poll) and worse in others (Chinese grid, Le film français)
@@thefilmseeker All I'm saying is 5/10 doesn't mean "bad film". 2/10 is awful, 3/10 is bad (but still not the worst in thing in the world), 4/10 is poor, 5/10 is lukewarm, mediocre. It's literally in the middle, not the best & not the worst. And again, it's just one guy's opinion, not the general consensus. Also, my taste doesn't line up with Cole's all the time. We both hated House of Gucci, but he gave Titane a 9 and I gave it 5. I'll judge it myself.
@@billhaverchuck3745 I can respect your score and scale. Personally I love when visuals can tell the story, so when I realized this film was full of exposition with quite boring visuals I was very disappointed. On top of that I found the cgi to be so dated and unimpactful I was constantly being pulled out of the movie. The performances were a standout. The initial premise is interesting but I didnt feel it was executed to its fullest potential. Was really excited for it and was let down in so many departments 3/10. I'll admit I missed a bit of the story throughout so many my score can go up to a 5 with a better understanding of what this movie really is, cuz it ain't really a body horror.
It's gonna be bloody, it's gonna be gory, it's gonna be well acted, it's gonna be violent, the violence is gonna be disgusting, it's basically everything I wanted from a David Cronenberg movie. The master of body horror 😎
Thanks, OE! 🩻 I didn't know 'til after I saw this movie that Mr. Cronenberg also made a film with the same title back in 1970. Now, I'm curious to compare them. #TheOscarExpert #DavidCronenberg #CrimesOfTheFuture #CrimesOfTheFuture2022
What makes Cronenberg’s movie interesting and stood out was actually not all that disgusting horror stuff like Titane, but the depth of his stories and what he’s trying to draw parallel from. The marketing trying to attract larger audiences by selling its disgusting horror element, when in fact all cronenberg movies will never appeal to larger audiences
Surprised that this wasn’t as disgusting as it was made out to be - this is the sort of movie where if you don’t go all in, the whole concept doesn’t work
Totally agreed. Exactly what I thought
I would say that it's not supposed to be a horror movie. Body horror is the setting, but the film is actually an existential drama more along the lines of Crash. I thought it was absolutely fascinating from that perspective. When you hear Cronenberg talk about the film, he doesn't sell it on how disgusting it is. He just says "people will be disgusted by it." I don't think his intention here is to make us squirm; he wants to explore what it means to be human in a world that humanity has destroyed so severely that there's no longer any purpose to existing.
YES totally agree... it absolutely felt more like the beginning of a mini-series than a movie, it felt like it was really getting around to saying something and then it just stopped before saying anything at all. So you hit the nail on the head, it feels like it's missing a third act! Kristen Stewart was wasted as she had very little to do and her character seemed absolutely pointless! I had gotten irritated with the whole thing well before the end. It's saving grace was it's performances as those actors obviously all really admire and respect Cronenberg and really threw themselves in whole-heartedly... what a waste!!!
I still say it can be a frontrunner, but now I'm waiting on Broker today!
Fresh off from her award season especially her Oscar nomination thanks to Spencer, it's pretty amazing to see Kristen Stewart in a Cronenberg movie and glad that she does well in the movie. If anything she does weird, I guess that's what Cronenberg wanted her to do from a script standpoint of her character
Would the themes of this film be a continuation of those he explored in Crash?
Oh I was waiting for this review!it's so unbelievable cool you're over there
Yes I envy him…
Since it's Cronenberg I expected the movie to have a lot of booed at the festival after the movie was over and some critics would jumped on Twitter and express about the concern of violence or whatever on this film like they did with Joker at Venice but it actually got a six minute standing ovation which I was very surprised and it's currently a frontrunner for the Palme d'Or which is pretty cool
It's not a front-runner
No way a front runner
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 try 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 CZcams 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 and can kill us metaphorically, physically, spiritually, and socially.
haven’t seen it yet, but any chance it gets a vfx nomination? i know it’ll have to compete with a lot of heavy-hitters but cronenberg also has the prestige filmmaker respect that could garner academy support?
Of course not, do you know the Academy at all? This is a movie that will die with 5 or 6 on IMDB from a miserable 2K to 5K votes...
@@manantial773 lmao. i mean he has won before for the fly, so the academy is willing to award him. and his last film maps to the stars (which i would argue was far less awaited than his return to body horror here) has 40k reviews on imdb currently. not that that’s the metric i would use.
@Spencer Phinney The Fly was better reviewed tho and it came out in the 90s, so the effects were groundbreaking for the time
It ain’t gonna happen for this one
Hey what about Claire Denis 's The Stars at Noon...
pretty mixed reviews so far...I love everything shes done so far tho
Please review Leila’s brothers, Joyland and Boy from Heaven
My only question is why is it called crimes of the future and is it somewhat related the why movie ends like that?
I totally loved this film in every sense but I 100% agree when it ended my friend and I were like wait what?? I thought there was another 30 min or so. But for me it still all worked very well
This is speculative fiction but I feel that the pacing really dragged. I think Severance is a way better version of Crimes of the future. The title makes sense too
i understand your opinion on the world building in this movie but to be honest i’d have to say that i disagree. it never to me felt like i was watching anything other than a set or a soundstage built to mimic a post apocalyptic world. most of the exterior we get is in an alleyway or at that “junk yard” ish place. i wish we got more of the style that they showed in the first scene with the sunken ship. i did enjoy the movie and maybe i’m off base idk
Man, they are in Cannes and they didn't even watched Top Gun Maverick!
If I were at Cannes, Top Gun: Maverick is the last film I'd want to see. It's out in theaters, you can watch it as soon as you get back home. I'd rather watch films without distribution in competitions/sidebar sections.
@@billhaverchuck3745 Yeah but Top Gun Maverick is (in my opinion) the best movie of the year so far! And watching it at its premiere in Cannes WITH Tom Cruise, would have been an amazing experience. But I agree with you that this movie is made for the big screen, so it would be a fantastic experience watching it in the theater too.
@@billhaverchuck3745 crimes of the future have a release date in the usa june 3rd
@@samuelblachon95130 Because it's an English-speaking film and it was already acquired by NEON. Half of the films in competition don't have a US distrubution.
@@billhaverchuck3745 neon have the rights for triangle of sadness and another i think it's broker
Ok sold me OE
Hope you watch Garlands MEN and review it
I think this could get Makeup.
I wonder if this movie is very scary…..
Hopefully none.
I've heard that people found the ending too hard to take
What was hard to take about the ending was how boring and pointless is was, quite frankly!!
@@bev9708 Just like Titane oh wait that one was praised
Maybe there's a sequel. Hahaha.
Daamn so it's bad, Cronenberg is so hit or miss lol
5/10 is not bad, and it's just one guy's opinion. It's doing well in some polls (ICS, IONCINEMA, German poll) and worse in others (Chinese grid, Le film français)
@@billhaverchuck3745 5/10 is absolutely not an endorsement. In most institutions, 50% is a failing grade. And yeah, This movie is a massive 5/10.
@@thefilmseeker All I'm saying is 5/10 doesn't mean "bad film". 2/10 is awful, 3/10 is bad (but still not the worst in thing in the world), 4/10 is poor, 5/10 is lukewarm, mediocre. It's literally in the middle, not the best & not the worst. And again, it's just one guy's opinion, not the general consensus. Also, my taste doesn't line up with Cole's all the time. We both hated House of Gucci, but he gave Titane a 9 and I gave it 5. I'll judge it myself.
@@billhaverchuck3745 I can respect your score and scale. Personally I love when visuals can tell the story, so when I realized this film was full of exposition with quite boring visuals I was very disappointed. On top of that I found the cgi to be so dated and unimpactful I was constantly being pulled out of the movie. The performances were a standout. The initial premise is interesting but I didnt feel it was executed to its fullest potential. Was really excited for it and was let down in so many departments 3/10. I'll admit I missed a bit of the story throughout so many my score can go up to a 5 with a better understanding of what this movie really is, cuz it ain't really a body horror.
It's gonna be bloody, it's gonna be gory, it's gonna be well acted, it's gonna be violent, the violence is gonna be disgusting, it's basically everything I wanted from a David Cronenberg movie. The master of body horror 😎
Man, you always give way too much away in your reviews lol
This movie sucked
Thanks, OE! 🩻 I didn't know 'til after I saw this movie that Mr. Cronenberg also made a film with the same title back in 1970. Now, I'm curious to compare them. #TheOscarExpert #DavidCronenberg #CrimesOfTheFuture #CrimesOfTheFuture2022