SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

just watch it!

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

~Spoiler~ Future Shock is another terrible anthology film that is a bore to sit through. We're given the standard three stories and in each, nothing happens. And I mean NOTHING. All of the stories deal with a fear; fear of the outside world, fear of bullies, and fear of death. And they're thrown together by a wraparound story involving a new form of psychiatry. Each segment ends with the main character finding out they've been in some kind of advanced virtual reality. So how can we even care about any of this when it's not even happening? Some good actors that are wasted in this crap include Bill Paxton, James Karen, Brion James, and Martin Kove. Avoid this.

FUTURE SHOCK is complete garbage although it definitely had potential. Certain scenes are great but I was turned off by the whole virtual reality thing and by some of the incredibly bad acting. The actor that played Dr. Langdon looked like the late actor Michael Landon and I thought that the character name was actually Dr. Landon. Coincidentily, Michael Landon died in Malibu, California where some of this movie was made. The best actor in this sad film had to be James Karen who gave yet another hillarious performance as Kefka, the mute boss. Overall, not BAD BAD, but not as good as it could've been. I strongly believe that it was the whole virtual reality thing that sunk FUTURE SHOCK into future schlock-**1/2out of****.

Future Shock (Eric Parkinson et al., 1993)This could have been a fantastic movie. It's an anthology film set around the office of a therapist who's come up with a new method of hypnotherapy. Over the course of the day, he sees three of his truly screwed-up patients, subjects them to the hypnosis, and waits. We get to watch what happens during the waiting.The writing is just shy of good. The acting is just shy of good (save a few memorable performances, most notably from Bill Paxton, back when his contract still allowed him to play sleazy bad guys; he's as good and rowdy in here as he is in Near Dark). The production is just shy of good. Unfortunately, it all adds up to bad, albeit bad in a kind of endearing way. The potential in each of these stories tends to get in the way of the sheer, mindless enjoyment. The exception is the last story, "Mr. Petrified Forest," a shaggy-dog story about a guy having a near-death experience who can't remember how he got outside the gates of heaven.Ah, the potential. It's worth a free viewing if it pops up on TV, but don't go out of your way. **

This movie still chills me to the bone thinking of it. This movie was not just bad as in low-budget, badly acted, etc. although it certainly WAS all of those things. The problem with this movie is that it seemed to be intentionally trying to annoy the viewer, and doing it with great success. What I want to know is, is this supposed to be a horror movie? I mean, it's definately horrifying, but not in the way horror movies are supposed to be. I could see the first segment trying to be horror and failing, but what the hell is the second segment? It's just annoying. The third segment is like watching an artsy student film, which amazingly enough makes it the least painful segment. It's an atrocity that this movie isn't way low on the bottom 100, so get your votes (1/10) in people!! I know some people gave this good reviews, but, well, they're lying in a sadistic attempt to trick you. Trust me, it is impossible to like this movie. The only benefit of this movie is an amazing life-extending effect: it feels like you've been watching this movie for years after only the first half hour has passed.