I was intrigued by this movie the first time i saw it, but was also bored by it in many segments. I didn't think i would watch it again, but as with many cronenberg films, it stuck with me at some level and i had a compulsion to view it again. I have to say, i really enjoyed it a lot the second viewing. I think that if cronenberg took another stab at something very similar to this nowadays it could definitely be one of his finest films.
shareI agree, I just finished watching Crimes of the Future, and it's a bit difficult tofigure out what's happening the first time. Also, it was rather silly to have people putting their feet on other people's foreheads.
shareIt´s probably the most uncinematic and - despite being only 1 hour long - tedious film I´ve ever seen so there most certainly won´t be a second viewing. What´s there to watch? Idea-wise, it may be interesting, but the picture itself basically consists of one scene after another of people sitting or walking around slowly, in total silence, doing bizarre things (slowly) while an effeminate voice of someone apparently on the verge of falling asleep occasionally manifests to talk stuff that´s hard to make sense of. It completely lacks any atmosphere which would be crucial to make such a thing work. Stereo managed to be at least semi-interesting, but this is awful.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
I find many, if not most, films to be better on second viewing, but it's going to be a long time before I watch this again, if ever. This provides a glimpse of Cronenberg's inspiration, but I found the narration detached from the imagery. It's less of a cohesive film and more of an experiment, and not a very successful one in my book. 5/10 stars from me.
shareIt's certainly interesting, with gorgeous cinematography and a bold line in pervy sexual tableaux, but the glacial pacing and total dearth of music and dialogue make it a bit of a rough slog at times. 7 out of 10 from me.
I am the Duke of IMDb bio writers! I am A#1!