Good concept, poorly executed.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Crimes of the Future (1970) ** (out of 4) Normally I'd use this portion of my review to describe the "plot" of the film but I must admit that I have no idea what the plot of this film is. Basically it takes place at a disease clinic where several people are staying and we're introduced to a doctor and a mysterious disease that has killed off sexually active women.CRIMES OF THE FUTURE was the second feature film from director David Cronenberg and it's a lot like his first STEREO. Both films are very experimental and I'm going to guess that you could show both of them to a hundred different people and you'd probably get a hundred different explanations of the plot. Heck, you'd also probably get quite a few walk-outs because neither film is what you'd call normal or for the mainstream.I honestly felt the same for both pictures. I honestly respect both of them a lot more than I was actually entertained by them. I thought Cronenberg did a good job with the direction and there's no doubt that you're watching a film from someone with a vision. I also thought the performances were nice. There was a bizarre atmosphere to the film as well, which is something else I liked. With that said, did I enjoy watching the film? No, I didn't. Would I ever watch it again? No, I wouldn't.

Cronenberg's second feature length shot is no radical departure from the first - still obscure, still static, still dwarfed by that hypermodern architectural location. But it is an advance. The color cinematography is more precise than that of "Stereo", and the silences are broken by bizarre, muffled sound loops that sound like nature LPs put through a Seth Brundle telepod. The narrative has taken on more forward motion this time, and is better integrated with the voice-over. And the absurdist humour is more precise, more pervasive, and less improvisational: you feel he's got control over the actors as well as the camera. And in the final sequence he pulls a real gotcha, as the rebel doctors set out to impregnate the little girl they have kidnapped; this palpably tasteless, horrifying scenario could have been played for easy irony, but the scene carefully choreographs a series of complex and challenging emotional reactions to this 'strange, unfathomable captive', sending us out the door on a mind-bending curve that both foreshadows and illuminates his later bravura nose-thumbing atrocities.

"Crimes of the Future" is nothing less than Cronenberg's "Eraserhead". Its flawless aesthetic approach is so superiorly arty and relevant that all of Cronenberg's following work appears bland by comparison --a bit like what happened with David Lynch after he created "Eraserhead". The great originality of CRIMES as a work of contemporary film art resides in its twin-leveled disruptiveness --both the storyline and the aesthetic choices that trigger it appear weakly structured. As a result, the film wanders, just like the poetic mind in action. We are in poetry territory here, not in the realm of manipulative ideological discourse like what happens in "Dead Ringers", for example. "Crimes of the Future" will stand as one of the first true works of Canadian Film Art.

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.