Reviews
DISSECTING ORGANIC CINEMA: ‘Crimes of the Future’ (2022) Review
Is Cronenberg’s comeback brilliant or botched?
I’ve always felt like biopunk is a highly underrated genre, especially with how much screentime cyberpunk gets in mainstream media. The transhumanist dilemma that those works always delve into felt silly when the delineation between man and machine is so apparent.
But biopunk is a different beast altogether. What if those shiny new organs weren’t cybernetic, but organic, and perfectly melded with your own flesh? What if they were grown inside of and on your own body? At what point does the invasive flesh become native? How many new organs must be added until you’re not human? I mean, how human is humanity?
This idea is where David Cronenberg’s triumphant return to filmmaking, Crimes of the Future, dives deep like an exploratory biopsy. The philosophy of self in relation to the human body, culture, sex, morality, and everything in between is the heart of this film, and it’s a heart that beats hard enough for you to hear it from across the room. It’s a heart full of love and intrigue.
We follow performance artists Saul Tenser (Viggo Mortensen) and Caprice (Lea Sydoux), a duo specializing in artistic surgeries. They extract mysterious organs being sprouted de novo in the sickened Tenser’s body. As Tenser suffers from “Accelerated Evolutionary Syndrome,” a widespread conspiracy involving Tenser’s groupies, a reviled cult, and the highly bureaucratic government of this world seems to close in around the mesmerizing art he and his lover perform. All the while, a quiet biological disaster looms in the background of their dilapidated dystopia: human beings are no longer able to feel pain, leading to increasingly extreme displays of surgery and the popularization of self-harm for entertainment.
This film has been widely described as sci-fi body horror, and while I agree, for the most part, I also think that a large element of this film is more the sci-fi thriller on a romantic streak, something that the body horror is embedded in. This film’s most gruesome and hard to stomach death is undoubtedly horror, horror so good I felt a tingling in my neck for a few minutes after it. But its framing felt reminiscent of a hit in a mob film, and one of the characters even refers to it as an assassination.
Compared to the rest of Cronenberg’s filmography, Crimes of the Future isn’t unique in this way. Videodrome feels like a spy film where our main character doesn’t even know what side he’s on, and Existenz itself is a full-on meta-psychological thriller. In an intuitive move, this film contains homages and echoes of both of those films plot-wise; if you can believe it, even a large part of the story resembles The Fly.
Overall, the movie ends up feeling self-referential to Cronenberg’s previous films, but in a way that seems fond of them and utilizes them transformatively rather than rehashing the material (even the title is transplanted from another of his films despite not being related to it). Cronenberg gives us a bizarre and enrapturing love story between two characters in an uncertain world, finding comfort together as everything around them crumbles.
And yes, there happens to be freaky deeky surgical sex going on in this relationship, but who are we to kink shame?
As expected, the special effects here are fleshy, uncomfortably squishy, and organically out of place in the cold world around them, so classic Cronenberg. However, some of them feel much too animatronic, and you can tell exactly which ones got the most attention. The highlight of these is the SARK, a bone-plated, biomechanical, autopsy performing sarcophagus. It’s the anchor point for some of the film’s most intimate and painful moments, where Mortensen and especially Seydoux excel. The latter has a gothic and heart-wrenching speech that she pours her heart and soul into at the film’s climax. While the dialogue feels stilted when exposition is on the table, the chemistry between Saul and Caprice is subtle and torrid, saving this film from some of its monotony.
For a film about eccentric performers, it ironically squanders its greatest resource: Kristen Stewart, playing the unfortunately unforgettable Timlin. From the moment she’s first onscreen, she portrays the most perverse and strange character of the cast with a palpable and, at times, borderline comedic arousal. She’s awkward, erotically attuned to Tenser, and behaves like her mind is moving too fast to keep up with her physical, quaking need for recognition from him; it’s just so much fun to watch!
I don’t say unfortunately unforgettable because I dislike Stewart, but because she is irritatingly absent from the film for such an important player, both as an actress and an arm of the narrative. For some light spoilers, Timlin spends her final scene skulking around a corner rather than interacting with any of the main players, which is a crying shame since she could have been used so much more. The same could even be said for Welket Bungué’s Detective Cope, but it’s Stewart who was truly robbed here. That, on top of a potently abrupt ending, left me wanting more, for better or worse.
BOTTOMLINE: Cronenberg delivers a film that feels like looking back fondly on his most inventive works and creates a dramatically heavy piece. While it’s just shy of being truly great due to some of its choices, it’s an experience that grabs you and keeps you under the knife until it’s over. The haruspicy reads: get into the guts of this strange medical daydream and see this in theatres now.
Most people find that stretching their dollar still barely gets them by in today’s economy. I am very particular about what I spend my spare money on regarding extracurriculars. And no one likes to feel like their money is wasted. Madame Morbid Trolley Tours wasn’t an experience I had been familiar with. Maybe that’s because I’m chronically offline for most of my life. So this leads to the perfect question: in today’s turbulent economy, is Madame Morbid Trolley Tours worth the price? The short answer is unquestionably, yes. But it’s more than just a simple yes.
My wife and I arrived at the designated meeting point 15 minutes before the scheduled departure time. A handful of minutes later, a gorgeous, e-candle-lit trolley pulled up to the side of the road. We were greeted by impeccably on-brand Allison Chase, our tour guide, and trolley driver ‘Mad’ Matt Zaller. The wonderfully cheery duo invited us on the trolley, and the tour was set to begin.
400 Years of Death, Destruction, and Infrastructure
After a welcoming video intro from someone who knows a thing or two about busting ghosts, we set off on the inaugural Madame Morbid Trolley Tour in its ninth year of operation. From the Brooklyn Naval Yard all the way to Dumbo, and more, this tour magnificently chronicles 400 years of history, the good and the bad, expertly. No matter how much you think you may know about Brooklyn history, I can bet there will be something new learned within the first 15 minutes of the tour. From the first-ever plane crash to one of the worst theater fires in history, this tour covers tragedies that the greatest horror writers couldn’t conceive.
The Deadly [Charming] Docent
Allison Chase led the fascinating tour in character from the moment we stepped on the trolley until our departure. But Allison’s character was not forced or fake; you could feel Allison’s passion for not just morbid history, but the accuracy of it. Some of the stories we heard were steeped in historical context, and it was not boring for a single second. The Madame Morbid Trolley Tour is not your standard full-talking tour. It’s a mixed-media adventure of some of Brooklyn’s darkest moments.
During “downtime” (the times between locations), we were edutained by mini documentaries (that were quite funny). Some of the “downtime” was filled with traffic trivia (I won a needle pen!). And other times were show-and-tell-like, with objects passed around for us to examine. But there was never a moment of silence that wasn’t purposeful. All in all, Allison’s knowledge and passion shone like the luminosity of a full moon.
Is Madame Morbid Trolley Tours Worth It?
The Madame Morbid Trolley Tour was not just a fun night out for my wife and me, but it was a delightfully dark night of edutainment. It should also be noted that ‘Mad’ Matt’s driving skills were fantastic. There was a time when I had become enamored with how Matt handled the narrow streets of Brooklyn before realizing that I needed to refocus my attention on Allison. The Madame Morbid Trolley Tour is an exceptionally fun evening of horror and history that will make you think twice next time you walk down the streets of Brooklyn. It is worth the money, and then some. There’s no better activity for a cold, dark October night than the Madame Morbid Trolley Tour.
For more information on Madame Morbid Trolley Tours, and to get your tickets, click here!
I don’t know what’s wrong with me. I should have watched the Stephen King adaptation Cujo a million years ago. First of all, I was a voracious King reader in middle school. The other thing I was obsessed with during those years was Friends. You know, the show that hinges a major episode’s subplot on Rachel (Jennifer Aniston) watching Cujo for the first time. Whatever the reason was, I never got around to it, but I’m rectifying that oversight now.
What is Cujo About?
Cujo tells a relatively simple story. Donna Trenton’s (Dee Wallace) a housewife who’s cheating on her husband Vic (Daniel Hugh-Kelly) with local handyman Steve (Christopher Stone). There’s no accounting for taste, because Vic is 10 times hotter and Steve doesn’t own a bed frame. Look, Donna. I know Vic has that awful David Hasselhoff hair, but I promise the 1980s will end sooner or later. It’ll be OK.
Donna’s attempted termination of this affair ultimately leads to its discovery. Amid this drama, her car breaks down at a mechanic’s isolated farmhouse, trapping her and her son, Tad (Danny Pintauro). You see, the mechanic’s dog, Cujo, freshly christened with rabies, is patrolling the area and attacking everything in sight.
Dee Wallace Is Cujo’s Not-So-Secret Weapon
It would be impossible to start a worthwhile review of Cujo without praising Dee Wallace. The woman is a genre icon, naturally. Think about this: She had only appeared in seven theatrical movies before starring in Cujo. Four of those movies are The Stepford Wives, The Hills Have Eyes, E.T., and The Howling. But this woman didn’t become an icon simply by accidentally stumbling into some iconic titles. She is simply terrific as Donna, using her darting eyes and taut expression to deliver oodles of subtext. You instantly get the sense of how trapped she feels by marriage and motherhood without her uttering a single word.
A good performance is vital, here. Because there’s a hell of a lot of drama to get through before she’s trapped in that damn car. But Wallace instantly shoves you into Donna’s perspective, whether you like it or not. This makes it all the more potent when she is menaced by Cujo. Her desperate attempts for survival, also impeccably performed, have true weight because she seems like a real person. She is also given an incredible scene partner in Danny Pintauro. The future Who’s the Boss? star, who was only six when shooting Cujo, has a perfect everychild quality. His innocence heightens the peril. But so does that fact that he is just as irritating as every six-year-old you’ve ever met.
This movie truly captures how annoying it must be to be stuck in a life-and-death situation with a child. This is a compliment, I swear! Donna is worn down by every aspect of the situation, including her own son’s inability to cope with it. And this ratchets up the tension even further, to an almost unbearable degree.
Cujo Is a Mixed Bag, But Worthwhile Overall
The movie doesn’t work if Cujo himself doesn’t work, and at first I was real worried that he wouldn’t. In the first half, the St. Bernards that play Cujo onscreen are often shown to be wagging their tails in delight. Which kind of undercuts the reality of the situation, I’d say. But the editing and the special effects step in to fix what animal training couldn’t. The attack scenes in the second half are constructed with quick cuts that never let you get too much purchase. It’s a good approach for keeping viewers off-kilter.
Also, Cujo becomes less and less recognizable as a cuddly canine the further the movie gets. It’s a simple trick, really. He ends up getting coated with more and more slime. Saliva, pus, blood, and what have you. This is good for making him feel like a true movie monster. Plus, it’s a good mirror for the sliminess inside the car as it gets covered in sweat, blood, and grime.
The second half of the movie ultimately works like gangbusters. It’s a shame that Cujo is too cowardly to get Donna and Tad in the car before the halfway point. This decision is somewhat faithful to the book’s structure as I remember it. However, it diminishes the weight of the long days that they spend in the car. We really need to feel that crushing stretch of time, and we don’t. When Tad is suffering from dehydration, it’s not a gut punch. Honestly, I just found myself asking, “Already?” It’s good that they gave the movie a happier ending, because the classic grimdark Stephen King finale wouldn’t have landed.
Is Cujo Worth Watching in 2026?
At the end of the day, Cujo is a solid movie and I’m glad I finally watched it. However, it’s not such a stone-cold classic that I’m not at least a little intrigued by that upcoming Netflix remake…
