Dans un futur proche, l'humanité apprend à s'adapter à son environnement synthétique. Cette évolution sort les hommes de leur état naturel et les mène vers une métamorphose, qui altère leur ... Tout lireDans un futur proche, l'humanité apprend à s'adapter à son environnement synthétique. Cette évolution sort les hommes de leur état naturel et les mène vers une métamorphose, qui altère leur apparence biologique.Dans un futur proche, l'humanité apprend à s'adapter à son environnement synthétique. Cette évolution sort les hommes de leur état naturel et les mène vers une métamorphose, qui altère leur apparence biologique.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 10 victoires et 33 nominations au total
Ephie Kantza
- Adrienne Berceau
- (as Efi Kantza)
Alexandra Anger
- Surgeon
- (non crédité)
Avis à la une
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.
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!
"crimes of the future" is an efficient film, it does a lot with little, without big sets and gigantic practical effects, everything is very simple but very convincing, the scenery compositions are dirty with a dark photograph, always looking for an intrinsic degradation, the effects practical are good, the few CGI are weak, but the sound editing is magnificent, always looking for sounds that seek the viewer's discomfort, another positive point is the performances, the duo Vigo mortise and Léa Seydoux are very good, Viggo manages to show all the pain and anguish of her character with her body and vocal posture, Kristen is another highlight, making an anxious and paranoid character the actress delivers a very good performance, despite her little screen time, but the best point here, I bring the classic and brilliant Canadian director, david cronenberg, is his script, which, despite being a little confusing, has as its main premise the limit of art, its contradictions and subversive appreciations, its criminal lity, and with that it makes a self-reflection of its own filmography, the film is also a critique of state bureaucracy and government intervention in art, all on a derogatory dystopian futuristic science fiction plan. The feature has some problems, the biggest one is perhaps the subtexts that are open and not always completed. We don't have the best version of Cronenberg here, but his style remains authorial and inviting. Grade 7/10.
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!
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesDavid 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.
- GaffesAround 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.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Crimes of the Future?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Crímenes del futuro
- Lieux de tournage
- Piraeus, Grèce(hotel Sparti exteriors: Kapodistriou 18)
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 35 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 2 452 882 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 1 117 962 $US
- 5 juin 2022
- Montant brut mondial
- 4 551 565 $US
- Durée1 heure 47 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
What was the official certification given to Les Crimes du futur (2022) in India?
Répondre