… …
Crimes of the Future explained | Embrace progress

Like Crimes of the Future (2022)?

Join our movie club to get similar movie recommendations and stories delivered to your inbox every Friday.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

We hate bad email too, so we don’t send it or share your email with anyone.

Reader Interactions


  1. You really did an amazing job providing this article. had to thank you! I kinda got disappointed by the end of the movie. had multiple questions. even a few things made absolutely no sense to me. like the pegeant thing. but after reading this I feel like I got it at last 😂 Im likely gonna watch the movie once again with the new prespective you offered. Thanks.

    • Thank you! Anything else you’re curious about or want clarification on? Definitely let me know how you feel after watching it again!

  2. Thank you so much for your deep dive analysis of this movie.

    • Thank you for the comment!

  3. Very interesting! I’m going watch again the movie based on your comments!

  4. Thanks for this article. I got confused about what happened in Brecken’s autopsy with the organs tattooed with ‘mother’ etc, but your explanation makes perfect sense.
    I also wondered what the ships out of water was all about….

    • Thank you! With the ships, I can’t remember if there’s some line about tidal shifts or plastics affecting the ocean and corroding metal? If there’s nothing actually said in the movie, then it might just be one of those details you think about when considering the future. Like, “What will the world be like x years from now?” If you think oceans will be affected, you start figuring out the consequences of that and how you visually demonstrate it.

  5. I personally think there really isn’t that much need to dissect the deeper meaning of the story or the scenes as the movie really isn’t good enough for that. It’s phony and pretentious for the most part. existenZ was a classic, but this one is trying too hard pretending to be what it isn’t.

    • I like the email you used haha. Whether the movie is good enough or not, it’s still trying to say something and I think that’s worth exploring.

  6. I believe the corporate remarks from Router and Berst come just before the man dies from eating the synth bar. They talk about how Tenser will push them into new and exhilarating territory. That they specialize in modulating and manipulating pain. There products are used by those resistant to change, to cope with the pain that comes with that. But are rendered obsolete by those that embrace it. Lang mentions he once considered the chair as a possible solution to his eating problem. Then Paul’s chair shuts down when he finally eats the synth bar. Router and Berst may have been just trying to keep the work coming in and avoid the rest of the products becoming as obsolete as the Sark. Also, the detective seemed to genuinely not know anything about the murders, while spilling the truth about everything else he did. He didn’t say or do anything to suggest he was willing to murder people to achieve his goals.

    • I think Detective Cope is lying about not being behind the murders. Saul says to him that he has a habit of not being honest with him. I took that to mean there were other lies before the autopsy & the assassinations are just the next thing Cope is being deceitful about.

      • I didn’t realize Saul had quit working with Cope though. I thought his line about part of you having to believe while being undercover, was just his way of getting Cope to not think too much of his statements that seemed to support the “enemy”. The fact he quit makes more sense though.

Write a response