Humans adapt to a synthetic environment, with new transformations and mutations. With his partner Caprice, Saul Tenser, celebrity performance artist, publicly showcases the metamorphosis of ... Read allHumans adapt to a synthetic environment, with new transformations and mutations. With his partner Caprice, Saul Tenser, celebrity performance artist, publicly showcases the metamorphosis of his organs in avant-garde performances.Humans adapt to a synthetic environment, with new transformations and mutations. With his partner Caprice, Saul Tenser, celebrity performance artist, publicly showcases the metamorphosis of his organs in avant-garde performances.
- Awards
- 10 wins & 33 nominations total
Ephie Kantza
- Adrienne Berceau
- (as Efi Kantza)
Alexandra Anger
- Surgeon
- (uncredited)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
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.
As another 21st century art object, not a "movie" which is an early 20th century concept, this delivers everything the brand name (David Cronenberg) promises. Plus it's pretty high-brow. Superior production values but I really think it'a more of a moving painting. When everyone has 4K video projection it could play silently on a wall, slowly changing from pale, wan faces to exotic biomorphics to visceral, pulsating fantasias. If you want date night (unless your date is Amy Taubin) forget it.
I just remembered what this kinda, sorta reminded me of. Quintet, Robert Altman's arty, dystopic from 1979. That wintry society was pre-occupied with the stylized rituals of the titular board game. And everyone was cloaked and draped against the cold with hats and hoods. Similar end-of-world feel.
I just remembered what this kinda, sorta reminded me of. Quintet, Robert Altman's arty, dystopic from 1979. That wintry society was pre-occupied with the stylized rituals of the titular board game. And everyone was cloaked and draped against the cold with hats and hoods. Similar end-of-world feel.
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!
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!
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!
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.
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.
Did you know
- TriviaDavid Cronenberg's first film in thirty-five years not to have his sister Denise Cronenberg serve as costume design. Denise passed away in summer 2020.
- GoofsAround the 44th minute, when Caprice and Saul use the bed for their own play, the cuts on her chest differ between the scene when she was alone and after he joined her on the bed.
- How long is Crimes of the Future?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Crímenes del futuro
- Filming locations
- Piraeus, Greece(hotel Sparti exteriors: Kapodistriou 18)
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $35,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $2,452,882
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $1,117,962
- Jun 5, 2022
- Gross worldwide
- $4,551,565
- Runtime
- 1h 47m(107 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content