I'm convinced Cronenberg simply had a string of semi-conscious fever dreams and strung them together. I'm really unsure what was meant to be accomplished with this movie other than telling the audience: rich people are just like us- miserable people who are unsatisfied with their lives.
244 Reviews
Limo with unlimited gas
MarcoParzivalRocha4 December 2020
Eric Packer, a 28-year-old billionaire asset manager, crosses the city of NY in his limo to get a haircut.
All great artists, in this case, directors, have a bad work, and for me, this film is a splinter impossible to remove in Cronenberg's career.
There's no story here to follow, the dialogues are empty and sometimes pretentious, without substance that can be extracted from them, leaving the message of political and economic criticism completely distorted.
The characters have no soul, I simply couldn't connect and create empathy with them.
The photography made me scratch my head and thinking "why you did this?", I didn't see any credible reasons for using so many close-ups shots, or the sly CGI in the limo scenes.
Even Robert Patinson cannot save a scene from this film.
All great artists, in this case, directors, have a bad work, and for me, this film is a splinter impossible to remove in Cronenberg's career.
There's no story here to follow, the dialogues are empty and sometimes pretentious, without substance that can be extracted from them, leaving the message of political and economic criticism completely distorted.
The characters have no soul, I simply couldn't connect and create empathy with them.
The photography made me scratch my head and thinking "why you did this?", I didn't see any credible reasons for using so many close-ups shots, or the sly CGI in the limo scenes.
Even Robert Patinson cannot save a scene from this film.
A strange ride
TheLittleSongbird29 April 2019
My main reason for watching 'Cosmopolis' was David Cronenberg, a very interesting and unique director, who may have originated the body horror genre but his films are much more than that. They do disturb and makes one feel uncomfortable, but his daring explorations of challenging themes intrigues me and there are films of his that do move me (especially 'The Fly' and 'Dead Ringers'). His films are always extremely well made and he always did get good or more performances out of talented casts/actors (i.e. Jeff Goldblum, Jeremy Irons, James Woods etc.)
'Cosmopolis' also had a good cast going for it. May not be a fan of Robert Pattinson, but have seen and liked/loved a lot of Paul Giamatti's and Juliette Binoche's work. Howard Shore is Cronenberg's most frequently used composer and have seldom been less than impressed with his work for Cronenberg, 'The Fly' being his greatest achievement, his work unsettles but also really stirs the emotions. The source material is an interesting one, a challenging and fascinating subject depicted accurately and almost frighteningly so, but extremely difficult to adapt. Almost unfilmable.
Really do appreciate Cronenberg's effort here, and he certainly did do his best, but 'Cosmopolis' struck me as an interesting semi-failure with a number of fine things but an equal amount of glaring problems. Do agree with those that have said that the book should have been left alone, the subject is one worth exploring and addressing but there should at some point be a more accessible way of doing it.
As said, 'Cosmopolis' does have good things. As always with Cronenberg, it does look great. The photography is stylish and a good job is done trying to make a mostly single and confined location interesting, and at least the location itself doesn't look cheap. While nowhere near a top-tier effort from him, Shore's score is suitably darkly metallic and emotional, one of his more accessible experimental score endeavours, and the same goes for the healthy dose contribution from the collaborating Metric.
The cast, or at least most of them, do a good job with what is given to them. The best performance coming from Paul Giamatti, who is a powerhouse in the last twenty minutes. Those last twenty minutes are the highlight of the film and the most involving it gets. Cronenberg does laudably in the adapting stakes and it is a faithful adaptation, one can see influences of his previous work too, such as 'ExistenZ' and 'Videodrome'.
In my mind, and for others too, it is somewhat too faithful and the whole thing felt too verbose, too cold, too bloated and lifeless. This is particularly apparent in the script, which was in serious need of a re-write and trim, it is far too rambling and wordy that one loses track of what is being said and feels the need to rewind and loses interest too early. It didn't always flow very well either and did not always find it easy to follow with its use of over-complicated language that is going to, and has gone, over the heads of some. The story plods badly (with the first 10 minutes alone wanting one to bail), only coming properly to life in the last twenty minutes, and feels emotionally empty and at times coherence is an issue. Did not find any of the characters interesting really either, one never really gets to know them.
With this emotional emptiness, 'Cosmopolis' is one of the few Cronenberg films that has left me completely cold or found it hardest to engage with. The drama felt very stagy and the interaction between the characters was rather static, no matter how much gratuitous elements are thrown in to try and spice things up. One cannot accuse 'Cosmopolis' of not trying, or so in my mind that is, if anything it tries too hard. It did feel to me like it tried to include too many ideas and themes and didn't do enough or anything with them, any of them really. Like it was trying to say a lot in its ideas but doesn't really say anything on an emotional level. Cronenberg's direction is technically sound and precise but it felt like his heart wasn't in it or that he was out of his depth with the material. Could tell here that Robert Pattinson had come on as an actor, but still found him bland and in parts expressionless.
On the whole, a bit of a strange one. Interesting conceptually but the way it was handled was underwhelming, for me this was lesser Cronenberg. 5/10
'Cosmopolis' also had a good cast going for it. May not be a fan of Robert Pattinson, but have seen and liked/loved a lot of Paul Giamatti's and Juliette Binoche's work. Howard Shore is Cronenberg's most frequently used composer and have seldom been less than impressed with his work for Cronenberg, 'The Fly' being his greatest achievement, his work unsettles but also really stirs the emotions. The source material is an interesting one, a challenging and fascinating subject depicted accurately and almost frighteningly so, but extremely difficult to adapt. Almost unfilmable.
Really do appreciate Cronenberg's effort here, and he certainly did do his best, but 'Cosmopolis' struck me as an interesting semi-failure with a number of fine things but an equal amount of glaring problems. Do agree with those that have said that the book should have been left alone, the subject is one worth exploring and addressing but there should at some point be a more accessible way of doing it.
As said, 'Cosmopolis' does have good things. As always with Cronenberg, it does look great. The photography is stylish and a good job is done trying to make a mostly single and confined location interesting, and at least the location itself doesn't look cheap. While nowhere near a top-tier effort from him, Shore's score is suitably darkly metallic and emotional, one of his more accessible experimental score endeavours, and the same goes for the healthy dose contribution from the collaborating Metric.
The cast, or at least most of them, do a good job with what is given to them. The best performance coming from Paul Giamatti, who is a powerhouse in the last twenty minutes. Those last twenty minutes are the highlight of the film and the most involving it gets. Cronenberg does laudably in the adapting stakes and it is a faithful adaptation, one can see influences of his previous work too, such as 'ExistenZ' and 'Videodrome'.
In my mind, and for others too, it is somewhat too faithful and the whole thing felt too verbose, too cold, too bloated and lifeless. This is particularly apparent in the script, which was in serious need of a re-write and trim, it is far too rambling and wordy that one loses track of what is being said and feels the need to rewind and loses interest too early. It didn't always flow very well either and did not always find it easy to follow with its use of over-complicated language that is going to, and has gone, over the heads of some. The story plods badly (with the first 10 minutes alone wanting one to bail), only coming properly to life in the last twenty minutes, and feels emotionally empty and at times coherence is an issue. Did not find any of the characters interesting really either, one never really gets to know them.
With this emotional emptiness, 'Cosmopolis' is one of the few Cronenberg films that has left me completely cold or found it hardest to engage with. The drama felt very stagy and the interaction between the characters was rather static, no matter how much gratuitous elements are thrown in to try and spice things up. One cannot accuse 'Cosmopolis' of not trying, or so in my mind that is, if anything it tries too hard. It did feel to me like it tried to include too many ideas and themes and didn't do enough or anything with them, any of them really. Like it was trying to say a lot in its ideas but doesn't really say anything on an emotional level. Cronenberg's direction is technically sound and precise but it felt like his heart wasn't in it or that he was out of his depth with the material. Could tell here that Robert Pattinson had come on as an actor, but still found him bland and in parts expressionless.
On the whole, a bit of a strange one. Interesting conceptually but the way it was handled was underwhelming, for me this was lesser Cronenberg. 5/10
"We All Die Every Day!"...
azathothpwiggins17 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
COSMOPOLIS follows ultra-rich global financier, Eric Packer (Robert Pattinson) as he tries to get to the barber shop. Riding slowly in a stretch limousine with an interior not unlike the Starship Enterprise, Packer encounters several of his business associates and acquaintances.
Not much takes place, other than brief sexual encounters, a riot, a prostate exam (!!), a senseless murder, half a haircut, an attempted assassination, and a .38 caliber hand-piercing.
No, the power of COSMOPOLIS lies not in action, but in words. The dialogue consists of various philosophical conversations concerning life, death, commerce, technology, and other subjects.
Packer is a vastly empty man. He has reached a point in his "life" where absolutely nothing matters. To call him "bored" would be like calling the sun "warm". Packer has no real reason to go or to be anywhere. His mammoth wealth is worthless to him. His property, like his position, is without value.
Packer is a demigod who has attained so much that he has nothing left to do, say, or even think. He's a well-dressed, well-versed corpse. What happens when a man reaches such a level of "success"? At twenty eight years old, Packer has seen and done it all, using up the whole earth in his pursuits. Where else can he go?
One of the most fascinating films of Director David Cronenberg's career...
Not much takes place, other than brief sexual encounters, a riot, a prostate exam (!!), a senseless murder, half a haircut, an attempted assassination, and a .38 caliber hand-piercing.
No, the power of COSMOPOLIS lies not in action, but in words. The dialogue consists of various philosophical conversations concerning life, death, commerce, technology, and other subjects.
Packer is a vastly empty man. He has reached a point in his "life" where absolutely nothing matters. To call him "bored" would be like calling the sun "warm". Packer has no real reason to go or to be anywhere. His mammoth wealth is worthless to him. His property, like his position, is without value.
Packer is a demigod who has attained so much that he has nothing left to do, say, or even think. He's a well-dressed, well-versed corpse. What happens when a man reaches such a level of "success"? At twenty eight years old, Packer has seen and done it all, using up the whole earth in his pursuits. Where else can he go?
One of the most fascinating films of Director David Cronenberg's career...
Worst David Cronenberg film I've seen
whyprod28 September 2012
There are some films you watch and pretty much immediately you know it's not enjoyable. But you stick with it. You hope that there will be some big pay off at the end and then you'll think, wow, must watch that again now I know where it's going.
Well I'm sorry to say, this is not quite one of those movies. True, it started off with me instantly being bored by it. Maybe five times I nearly gave up, but waited for the big pay off at the end. But instead, it was just the end.
Rarely have I been so happy a movie was over.
Considering I'm a David Cronenberg fan, this movie surprised me, it really is awful. It's like your watching some cheap movie made on a cam from someone just out of college.
The dialogue is laboured. It doesn't sound in any way natural and Robert Pattinson seems to be doing his best Christopher Walken impression, but it just doesn't work.
I don't usually write a review of films, but sometimes, people just need a warning.
Well I'm sorry to say, this is not quite one of those movies. True, it started off with me instantly being bored by it. Maybe five times I nearly gave up, but waited for the big pay off at the end. But instead, it was just the end.
Rarely have I been so happy a movie was over.
Considering I'm a David Cronenberg fan, this movie surprised me, it really is awful. It's like your watching some cheap movie made on a cam from someone just out of college.
The dialogue is laboured. It doesn't sound in any way natural and Robert Pattinson seems to be doing his best Christopher Walken impression, but it just doesn't work.
I don't usually write a review of films, but sometimes, people just need a warning.
Pretentious and self indulgent
snodlander21 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Let me nail my colours to the mast. I don't like car chase, big explosion, CGI obsessed films. On occasion I even like art house films (last night I watched and enjoyed The Man Who Fell To Earth). But this film was simply two hours of pseudo-intellectual reverie on the meaning of life. I attend the cinema on average twice a week. I cannot recall a film where so many people got up and walked out. Even those that braved it to the end (and I was so close to leaving myself) discussed amongst themselves afterwards why they'd wasted their time.
The dialogue was stilted and unnatural. No fault of the actors, it was the writing. The plot (not that this was ever intended to be a plot-driven film) is subtly drip-fed, hinted at, which i quite liked. There were moments of dark humour, such as when Eric converses with a female employ, all the while wincing and straining as at the other end a doctor gives him a rectal exam. These lifted my score to a three.
That aside, avoid this film. Spend two hours talking to a drugged out philosophy student instead. It will make more sense and be more entertaining.
The dialogue was stilted and unnatural. No fault of the actors, it was the writing. The plot (not that this was ever intended to be a plot-driven film) is subtly drip-fed, hinted at, which i quite liked. There were moments of dark humour, such as when Eric converses with a female employ, all the while wincing and straining as at the other end a doctor gives him a rectal exam. These lifted my score to a three.
That aside, avoid this film. Spend two hours talking to a drugged out philosophy student instead. It will make more sense and be more entertaining.
Philosophical and poetic
p_v_dshoi4 January 2013
If you are going to watch this movie, you need to give yourself adequate space to do so. This is a philosophical movie and not exactly easy to watch. It comes across more as visual poetry than anything else and therefore won't appeal to a mass audience. Which is partially the reason for a rather low score on this site. In my opinion it deserves more; the reason for this is that I firmly believe a movie has to be critiqued on the basis of it's type - you shouldn't judge this movie on the basis of all movies, but other movies of this sort, which are close adaptations of novels packed with dense dialogue and philosophical themed subject matter. The question you're looking for the answer to is "should I watch this movie?" And yes, you should, but curb your expectations to what type of movie it is. In it's genre, I find it thoughtprovoking and streamlined; It's a limo slowly being covered by graffiti; Something cold, perfect and seamless being torn apart from within. You will find no typical storyline and no lovable characters; at several times I thought to myself that these characters are in fact portraying computers assessing and processing information and various symptoms of the human condition. People do not talk like they do in this movie. The movie is very well executed and absolutely worth your time. If you are interested in this type of movie that is - and if that's the case it will likely leave you inspired in some way because you are constantly thinking throughout.
Dialogue-driven and emotionally empty, "Cosmpolis" requires an intense desire for philosophical discourse
Movie_Muse_Reviews21 September 2012
Let's say that for every 10 "Twilight" fans, at least one is guaranteed to give "Cosmopolis" a go for no other reason than Robert Pattinson. And among those "Twilight" fans dumb enough to mindlessly try the film out, at least 9 of 10 will despise what they see.
David Cronenberg rather faithfully (from what I understand) adapts Don DeLillo's socio- economic commentary rolled into a film about young billionaire Eric Packer, who goes on a long limo ride across New York City for a haircut. What he fails to recognize, however, is that he was completely wasting his time; "Cosmopolis" has no business being a movie.
Cronenberg's clean and tight approach to the film can't be denied its technical kudos, but everything he films is emotionally anemic. "Cosmopolis" has no story; its characters are talking heads and its scenes just a collection of political gospel and esoteric ideologies.
Not an ounce of this film goes into giving its characters souls, and the more you hunt in search for just a sliver of one, the less attention you pay to the themes so fundamental to the film's core. If you can focus long enough in any given scene, you'll pick up some thought- provoking nuggets, but our natural curiosity as an audience is to look for the story behind the highbrow dialogue. Doing so, however, distracts from paying attention to all that can be praised about this material.
Therein lies the reason Cronenberg should have left the novel alone. Ideas like the ones presented in "Cosmopolis" deserve time to simmer. If I had read the book, I certainly would have taken the time to re-read portions of it to process the commentary on capitalism rather than thinking at multiple times throughout the film "oh, there are rats, that's a symbol for what this film is trying to say about capitalism!"
With the exception of Packer's newly made wife (Sarah Gadon), the cast of supporting characters suffers a similar fate in spite of some big names in Juliette Binoche, Paul Giamatti and Jay Baruchel. By the time you can begin to so much as chew on the ideas raised in one of any of the several scenes in which Packer meets with a new character in his limo and talks about big-time stuff, that character is gone from the film completely. You never get a moment to catch up so that you can be in step with what's going on.
Providing further distraction from understanding anything that's said in this movie is how Cronenberg — as he always does — charges this film with sexual and violent tension. He's not adding any that's not already in the story, but he accentuates it. Consequently, moments in the film will yank you out of your perpetual state of philosophical processing and snap you back into the moment of the film, usually a violent outburst or a quick cut to a sex scene. That's part of what makes Cronenberg a revered director, but in this case it's what makes "Cosmopolis" such a tough watch.
For those hoping to see what Pattinson does as a top-billed star given weighty material, "Cosmopolis" proves to be an unfair judge. He seems comfortable with the bizarre style of dialogue, but the character and the story are so empty that the film can hardly be considered a fair judgment of his would-be dramatic prowess.
As with any work of art steeped in its ideas, the more you sit with it or re-experience it, the more you're likely to warm up to it, and I have no reason to believe that will not be true of "Cosmopolis." At the same time, a majority of viewers will likely not be equipped with the experience of processing this language as the film necessitates, and the first run-through (obviously the most important) suffers drastically as a result.
~Steven C
Thanks for reading! Visit moviemusereviews.com
David Cronenberg rather faithfully (from what I understand) adapts Don DeLillo's socio- economic commentary rolled into a film about young billionaire Eric Packer, who goes on a long limo ride across New York City for a haircut. What he fails to recognize, however, is that he was completely wasting his time; "Cosmopolis" has no business being a movie.
Cronenberg's clean and tight approach to the film can't be denied its technical kudos, but everything he films is emotionally anemic. "Cosmopolis" has no story; its characters are talking heads and its scenes just a collection of political gospel and esoteric ideologies.
Not an ounce of this film goes into giving its characters souls, and the more you hunt in search for just a sliver of one, the less attention you pay to the themes so fundamental to the film's core. If you can focus long enough in any given scene, you'll pick up some thought- provoking nuggets, but our natural curiosity as an audience is to look for the story behind the highbrow dialogue. Doing so, however, distracts from paying attention to all that can be praised about this material.
Therein lies the reason Cronenberg should have left the novel alone. Ideas like the ones presented in "Cosmopolis" deserve time to simmer. If I had read the book, I certainly would have taken the time to re-read portions of it to process the commentary on capitalism rather than thinking at multiple times throughout the film "oh, there are rats, that's a symbol for what this film is trying to say about capitalism!"
With the exception of Packer's newly made wife (Sarah Gadon), the cast of supporting characters suffers a similar fate in spite of some big names in Juliette Binoche, Paul Giamatti and Jay Baruchel. By the time you can begin to so much as chew on the ideas raised in one of any of the several scenes in which Packer meets with a new character in his limo and talks about big-time stuff, that character is gone from the film completely. You never get a moment to catch up so that you can be in step with what's going on.
Providing further distraction from understanding anything that's said in this movie is how Cronenberg — as he always does — charges this film with sexual and violent tension. He's not adding any that's not already in the story, but he accentuates it. Consequently, moments in the film will yank you out of your perpetual state of philosophical processing and snap you back into the moment of the film, usually a violent outburst or a quick cut to a sex scene. That's part of what makes Cronenberg a revered director, but in this case it's what makes "Cosmopolis" such a tough watch.
For those hoping to see what Pattinson does as a top-billed star given weighty material, "Cosmopolis" proves to be an unfair judge. He seems comfortable with the bizarre style of dialogue, but the character and the story are so empty that the film can hardly be considered a fair judgment of his would-be dramatic prowess.
As with any work of art steeped in its ideas, the more you sit with it or re-experience it, the more you're likely to warm up to it, and I have no reason to believe that will not be true of "Cosmopolis." At the same time, a majority of viewers will likely not be equipped with the experience of processing this language as the film necessitates, and the first run-through (obviously the most important) suffers drastically as a result.
~Steven C
Thanks for reading! Visit moviemusereviews.com
Not for Everybody
tgooderson15 June 2012
Young billionaire Eric Packer (Robert Pattinson) decides to take his stretch limo across New York City for a haircut. Along the way he conducts business, meets friends, family and acquaintances before being mobbed by anarchists and confronting someone who has malicious intent to harm him. This film reminded me of a good Shakespearean play; I only understood about half of it but enjoyed it a lot. There are long elongated stretches of duelling dialogue which are spoken in a half alien language of metaphors and double meanings. The word 'this' takes on new meanings and is used in it feels like almost every sentence. Much like a Shakespearean play there are odd comic moments and in keeping with Director David Cronenberg's cannon, brief scenes of extreme violence. These few instances ignited some of the more drawn out and dare I say duller scenes to keep the audience on tenterhooks. Despite these flashes this wont be a film for everyone and a man next to me in an early afternoon screening fell asleep while a couple on the row in front left about half way in. Robert Patz' character reminded me a little of Michael Fassbender's in Shame. Both felt like they were on a path to destruction which they both sort of wanted or at least drew themselves towards. R-Pattinson defies the advice of his security to actively search out trouble and seems to show no emotion in doing so. In fact there is very little emotion in any scene and the whole cast seem to live in a world of robots. Sarah Gadon plays Robbie-P's wife as an android with almost no movement or signs of feeling. Equally The Robster's bodyguard played by Kevin Durand is focused solely on his employer's safety and shows no signs of living in a world outside of the film. This and also the cinematography lead me to wonder if the film was set inside a dream. It certainly had a dreamlike quality to it. Pattinson is surprisingly excellent in this film, playing a character that is sealed off from the outside world in such a way that he barely notices when it is crumbling in front of him. He has stoicism and magnetism that is rarely matched on film. As I said a couple of paragraphs ago I didn't understand a lot of what was actually going on. There is a lot of financial talk and discussions on a metaphysical level which went over my head. None of this stopped me enjoying myself though and I only felt bored once, in a long scene featuring Rob-Patz and Paul Giamatti. The scene was livened up though by a wonderful creeping score which slowing increased in volume as the tension racked up as well as a short sharp burst of violence. This film definitely won't be for everyone but I do hope hordes of young Twilight fans go and get bitterly disappointed and confused. Personally I thought it was very good but felt perplexed at times. Unlike the source novel the ending is slightly ambiguous which I felt was a good thing. This is a film I'd recommend to hardcore Cronenberg fans and anyone who doesn't mind having to think a little but if you're only interested in Rizzle-Patz cos' he's super hunky then stay away.
Unending verbal masturbation
katwmn6-120 June 2012
So bad, it's not even worth wasting my time writing a detailed review.
The film is a long, uninteresting, verbal masturbation session. It's two hours of proselytizing from characters you don't care about, who don't say anything you couldn't have read off an Occupy Wall Street protest sign.
Don't believe anyone who tells you it's genius.
I would have walked out of the cinema after 30 minutes if I hadn't been with a friend's family. I honestly considered feigning illness so as to have a valid excuse to leave. Hands down one of the worst films I have ever seen (this coming from someone who's seen "Weekend at Bernie's 2").
The film is a long, uninteresting, verbal masturbation session. It's two hours of proselytizing from characters you don't care about, who don't say anything you couldn't have read off an Occupy Wall Street protest sign.
Don't believe anyone who tells you it's genius.
I would have walked out of the cinema after 30 minutes if I hadn't been with a friend's family. I honestly considered feigning illness so as to have a valid excuse to leave. Hands down one of the worst films I have ever seen (this coming from someone who's seen "Weekend at Bernie's 2").
"When he died he would not end. The world would end." (Don DeLillo)
blackbeanie28 May 2012
Eric Packer, genial asset manager, sitting in his limo, contemplating about himself and his visions while playing with numbers that represent an immense fortune, behaving almost in an autistic way once he tries to connect with the real world outside. Eric Packer also as the symbol of the small financial elite that rules our planet, arrogant, shameless and above all what's common and human.
What happens when you have all you want? When there's no challenge, no real desire anymore? When the last goal you want to pursue is, like a real Icarus, to fly so close to the sun that you can't but let melt the wax of your wings and fall, very deep?
This is, IMO, the essence of the story in Cosmopolis, with that difference that the protagonist in DeLillo's novel caused his downfall intentionally, while the financial disaster we live in the last few years was caused by the megalomania of the 1%.
When I first read the novel, I felt confused and a bit dumb too. DeLillo tried to send messages that I didn't understand at all. Then happened Occupy Wall Street and the pie into the face of Rupert Murdoch, so I gave the novel a second chance. I got hooked by the very complex character of Eric Packer, cold and emotionless on the outside and in his actions, but so vulnerable and lonely once you got to know him better. He's a very sad example of how far people can go in our society, just for the sake of money. I've read the book 2 times more, just to enjoy the countless, thoughtful quotes and one liners, weaved into stylistic dialogues as only DeLillo can pull off.
So, why have I written about the novel in a review about the film adaptation of this novel? Because I think that David Cronenberg did a fabulous job in trying to bring this book on screen. As a real master he has chosen to stay true to the dialogues, taking the risk that people, just like me when I first read the book, couldn't get the meanings of them.
He took from the novel what could work on screen and left scenes out, that he thought could disturb or change the mood of the movie. In the first part of the movie, he focused more on the little world of Eric into his limo rather than to shift the emphasis also outside the car. Not that I don't feel sorry some scenes didn't make it on screen (the famous street scene at the end) and for me the reality outside, in the streets of New-York, could've gotten more attention, but I can see his POV and I can live with it.
In this daring exploit Cronenberg made sure of the presence of an excellent cast, with remarkable performances of the supporting actors/actresses for the short time they appeared in the movie. The biggest challenge of course was the casting of Eric Packer, the doomed capitalist, who appears in almost every scene. Once again, David took a risk in hiring Robert Pattinson, but he was confident and he was right. Pattinson nailed this character to perfection. Especially when Eric (as his world) starts falling apart, Rob showed how able he is to bring out the psychotic, insane aspects of human being.
This is a movie that makes you think, that can give you an uncomfortable feeling and mirrors what's going on in some levels of our society. I understand that it is a difficult watch for people who haven't read the book, that they are disappointed but never was promised that this movie was going to be easy. The biggest issue IMHO isn't the movie itself but the fact that, in theatre, you haven't a button to pause and rewind so you can hear the dialogues again and again. Once the words are spoken, they're gone and I can imagine people reacting like WTH?? Though the movie stands on its own, it can only improve your experience if you go a bit prepared to the screening. With my review, I've tried to help those who're interested enough to give it a try. For those who didn't understand and by that didn't like the movie: even Cronenberg and Pattinson didn't understand the story quite well, but they went for it and created a masterpiece. There's nothing wrong with not understanding everything. It doesn't make the audience dumb, it doesn't make the movie bad and it doesn't make a brilliant performance less brilliant.
Sorry for mistakes as English isn't my first language.
What happens when you have all you want? When there's no challenge, no real desire anymore? When the last goal you want to pursue is, like a real Icarus, to fly so close to the sun that you can't but let melt the wax of your wings and fall, very deep?
This is, IMO, the essence of the story in Cosmopolis, with that difference that the protagonist in DeLillo's novel caused his downfall intentionally, while the financial disaster we live in the last few years was caused by the megalomania of the 1%.
When I first read the novel, I felt confused and a bit dumb too. DeLillo tried to send messages that I didn't understand at all. Then happened Occupy Wall Street and the pie into the face of Rupert Murdoch, so I gave the novel a second chance. I got hooked by the very complex character of Eric Packer, cold and emotionless on the outside and in his actions, but so vulnerable and lonely once you got to know him better. He's a very sad example of how far people can go in our society, just for the sake of money. I've read the book 2 times more, just to enjoy the countless, thoughtful quotes and one liners, weaved into stylistic dialogues as only DeLillo can pull off.
So, why have I written about the novel in a review about the film adaptation of this novel? Because I think that David Cronenberg did a fabulous job in trying to bring this book on screen. As a real master he has chosen to stay true to the dialogues, taking the risk that people, just like me when I first read the book, couldn't get the meanings of them.
He took from the novel what could work on screen and left scenes out, that he thought could disturb or change the mood of the movie. In the first part of the movie, he focused more on the little world of Eric into his limo rather than to shift the emphasis also outside the car. Not that I don't feel sorry some scenes didn't make it on screen (the famous street scene at the end) and for me the reality outside, in the streets of New-York, could've gotten more attention, but I can see his POV and I can live with it.
In this daring exploit Cronenberg made sure of the presence of an excellent cast, with remarkable performances of the supporting actors/actresses for the short time they appeared in the movie. The biggest challenge of course was the casting of Eric Packer, the doomed capitalist, who appears in almost every scene. Once again, David took a risk in hiring Robert Pattinson, but he was confident and he was right. Pattinson nailed this character to perfection. Especially when Eric (as his world) starts falling apart, Rob showed how able he is to bring out the psychotic, insane aspects of human being.
This is a movie that makes you think, that can give you an uncomfortable feeling and mirrors what's going on in some levels of our society. I understand that it is a difficult watch for people who haven't read the book, that they are disappointed but never was promised that this movie was going to be easy. The biggest issue IMHO isn't the movie itself but the fact that, in theatre, you haven't a button to pause and rewind so you can hear the dialogues again and again. Once the words are spoken, they're gone and I can imagine people reacting like WTH?? Though the movie stands on its own, it can only improve your experience if you go a bit prepared to the screening. With my review, I've tried to help those who're interested enough to give it a try. For those who didn't understand and by that didn't like the movie: even Cronenberg and Pattinson didn't understand the story quite well, but they went for it and created a masterpiece. There's nothing wrong with not understanding everything. It doesn't make the audience dumb, it doesn't make the movie bad and it doesn't make a brilliant performance less brilliant.
Sorry for mistakes as English isn't my first language.
Genius
encorespod-730-8513316 March 2015
I recently saw this movie and loved it, I came onto to IMDb and was surprised to see it had some very unflattering reviews, I think that's because some people just didn't get it.
Yes the dialogue is contrived and strange, until you realise why.
The whole movie sounds like a poem because it is, the characters are inside out, instead of hearing their boasts we hear their thoughts and if you don't get that point, I can see how you would think this is a bad movie.
However when when you see the genius behind this creative device it all starts to make sense, thats why I'm giving this a decent score.
All in all the movie itself could be any other like it, the underlying theme rather wreaks of 'Collateral' but the turning of the whole movie into a poem and the way the characters introversions are extroverted, genius.
I liked it for that alone, it was a refreshing break from the staleness of forumlaic sensory diversion.
I didn't know it was a Cronenberg until I saw the credits at the end but when I saw that name, it made sense, he always had a thing for the weird and twisting the boundaries of perception.
In this he truly succeeded, even if the storyline itself doesn't stand up to scrutiny, the creativity of the concept has to be admired.
Yes the dialogue is contrived and strange, until you realise why.
The whole movie sounds like a poem because it is, the characters are inside out, instead of hearing their boasts we hear their thoughts and if you don't get that point, I can see how you would think this is a bad movie.
However when when you see the genius behind this creative device it all starts to make sense, thats why I'm giving this a decent score.
All in all the movie itself could be any other like it, the underlying theme rather wreaks of 'Collateral' but the turning of the whole movie into a poem and the way the characters introversions are extroverted, genius.
I liked it for that alone, it was a refreshing break from the staleness of forumlaic sensory diversion.
I didn't know it was a Cronenberg until I saw the credits at the end but when I saw that name, it made sense, he always had a thing for the weird and twisting the boundaries of perception.
In this he truly succeeded, even if the storyline itself doesn't stand up to scrutiny, the creativity of the concept has to be admired.
rubbish rubbish rubbish rubbish
paul-wedel21 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
David, Videodrome was a very long time ago!
Dialog: terrible / unbelievable / pretentious
Narrative: unclear / not present
Performances: Giamatti pretty good / all others, terrible / Pattinson: did you read this script before agreeing to the part? Juliet Binoche + Samatha Morton, why are you in this movie? Your parts are terrible! There is no way you can perform well with such lousy poetry.
Sex scene(s): both scenes awkward and terrible (and I really enjoyed Crash)
Visual FX: pretty good actually
Ending: what ending?
Dialog: terrible / unbelievable / pretentious
Narrative: unclear / not present
Performances: Giamatti pretty good / all others, terrible / Pattinson: did you read this script before agreeing to the part? Juliet Binoche + Samatha Morton, why are you in this movie? Your parts are terrible! There is no way you can perform well with such lousy poetry.
Sex scene(s): both scenes awkward and terrible (and I really enjoyed Crash)
Visual FX: pretty good actually
Ending: what ending?
I Got Through Forty-five Minutes
chicagopoetry19 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Okay, I see a lot of movies, and I know the difference between a weird masterpiece like El Topo and boring, pretentious crap like Cosmopolis. Did something happen after I turned it off, like some Transformers came down and blew up the city, because honestly I'm wondering how they spent twenty million dollars filming in the back of a stretched limo. Almost all of the dialogue is spoken in a monotone and is not natural language but a forced attempt at poetry that is so bad it isn't even funny. It's just one sequence after another with this flaky billionaire head of a company having ridiculously unnatural conversations with characters who are never formally introduced and who act like they are on Quaaludes or have had lobotomies. Imagine going to some off-Broadway play that is going way too far in its attempt to be weird for two entire hours with the worst actors possible who just say random things that make no sense. Okay, I only watched forty five minutes of it, granted, sooner or later I'll try to watch the rest of it and if by some miracle a plot or something develops, I'll come back here and edit my review, but, somehow, I highly doubt that's going to be the case.
The worst movie ever
as0101012 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
What a waste of time Too much dialogue. The dialogue would be fun in a book, but all that dialogue in a film is too much. All characters babble on for far too long. At least 50% of the dialogue should have been ditched. (I kept pace with all the dialogue, but found it too lengthy and was often bored during this movie.) When a Shakespeare play is made into a movie they intersperse other scenes to make use of the visual nature of the cinema. I found Robert Pattinson not up to the task. Looked like he was just saying his lines, and he missed the nuance of the meaning that could have been presented. In particular the double-meaning that could be placed on many important moments.
The blue-screen out the windows of the cars was terrible. The whole thing felt like a shoddy production. The dialogue actually mentions that the car has cork soundproofing that doesn't screen out all the background noise of the streets, but inside the car it is dead silent, and there is no movement, no juddering, no change in the light reflections on the windows, no feeling of the car moving. This makes it feel staged and fake. The sex scenes are awful, especially the 2nd one. They are just trying to remember their lines and there is no chemistry between the two. I usually enjoy Cronenberg films and think I can see what he likes, so (SPOILER ALERT) it's clear to me this character is devastated by his mis-calculation and the massive losses his company will suffer. He doesn't have the balls to kill himself so he's hoping to run into someone else who will kill him. Paul Giamatti does a nice job and it's clear Paul's character won't kill Robert's character. Though I found the religious overtones with the towel over Paul's head too heavy-handed.
I see why this story appeals to some now. But recently there have been so many govts bailing out finance companies, if anything such a character these days would really not have to worry too much. Furthermore, many of the super rich have declared bankruptcy, but kept their personal wealth and gone back into remake themselves. So no, this is not a story for today. I would not recommend this film to anyone. Not even Robert Pattinson fans. Pattinson fans can see him with his shirt off. The character talks about working out and yet Pattinson has a puny body, not worth looking at. His body looks like that of a patient who is terminally ill.
The blue-screen out the windows of the cars was terrible. The whole thing felt like a shoddy production. The dialogue actually mentions that the car has cork soundproofing that doesn't screen out all the background noise of the streets, but inside the car it is dead silent, and there is no movement, no juddering, no change in the light reflections on the windows, no feeling of the car moving. This makes it feel staged and fake. The sex scenes are awful, especially the 2nd one. They are just trying to remember their lines and there is no chemistry between the two. I usually enjoy Cronenberg films and think I can see what he likes, so (SPOILER ALERT) it's clear to me this character is devastated by his mis-calculation and the massive losses his company will suffer. He doesn't have the balls to kill himself so he's hoping to run into someone else who will kill him. Paul Giamatti does a nice job and it's clear Paul's character won't kill Robert's character. Though I found the religious overtones with the towel over Paul's head too heavy-handed.
I see why this story appeals to some now. But recently there have been so many govts bailing out finance companies, if anything such a character these days would really not have to worry too much. Furthermore, many of the super rich have declared bankruptcy, but kept their personal wealth and gone back into remake themselves. So no, this is not a story for today. I would not recommend this film to anyone. Not even Robert Pattinson fans. Pattinson fans can see him with his shirt off. The character talks about working out and yet Pattinson has a puny body, not worth looking at. His body looks like that of a patient who is terminally ill.
What was the point?
jens-wegar6 September 2012
Simply put, this has got to be one of the weirder films I've seen. Like an American version of a French art film. The film builds absolutely no momentum at all. There is exactly one surprising moment. Surprising because, like with a lot of the film, the action made no sense. Yes, you can argue that the film is about the dialog and I'll admit there is probably some profound insights to be found. But what good does insightful dialog make if you're about to fall asleep constantly. Besides, if you argue that the dialog is at the center, then there are plenty of scenes of graphic nature which do absolutely nothing to further the story in itself. As far as the dialog is concerned, those scenes could just as well have been placed in a coffee shop.
Paul Giamatti's performance, although short, was a small highlight of the movie. Even though it also dragged on, it once again showed why this guy stays on the radar all the time. For those that are only interested in the movie due to Pattison's torso, there is some material for you. His acting though is not that good. Not sure if that's because of the script or because of other reasons.
In short, if you're keen on watching a dialog for 109 minutes, then this might be for you. Don't expect anything but weird, and somewhat pointless action scenes though.
Paul Giamatti's performance, although short, was a small highlight of the movie. Even though it also dragged on, it once again showed why this guy stays on the radar all the time. For those that are only interested in the movie due to Pattison's torso, there is some material for you. His acting though is not that good. Not sure if that's because of the script or because of other reasons.
In short, if you're keen on watching a dialog for 109 minutes, then this might be for you. Don't expect anything but weird, and somewhat pointless action scenes though.
A Jungian Dream
Mychaelus22 September 2012
Reviews thus far have not mentioned Carl Jung, the psychoanalyst, or how Cosmopolis can be interpreted as a dream using Jungian symbology. Cronenberg's previous movie was about Freud and Jung, so it is no artificial stretch to assume that he would apply Jung to a story, or that De Lillo had also done the same.
In Jungian dream analysis, the limousine can be taken as a metaphor of one's self, one's course in life. Each visitor to the limousine ought to be considered an aspect of the occupant's personality, each separate and distinct. There is the intellectual who has been hired to "do theory,"the young one who has been hired to find patterns, the nervous security expert who has tested for system vulnerabilities, the visiting prostitute (profane) who is asked to help obtain "the chapel" (sacred). Each character represents an aspect of a single self. Throughout the journey to get a "haircut," (which is a Wall Street term for taking a loss), the outside security chief relays messages from "The Complex," which might be interpreted as the unified self.
I think this is clearly what Cronenberg intended. The fuller meaning of the movie resides in how the dream reflects the actual world, how it fits with the shared reality in which we all participate. How does this simple journey to get across the city reflect the pleasures and perils of existence? Can we really know the world, or can we only know ourselves? How is the main character a representation of the whole world, which has a kind of self, too? Does the ending of the movie reflect an outcome that is metaphorically plausible as an integration of macroeconomic, political, human forces shaping history?
Cosmopolis is an intellectual work, carefully crafted, and not at all pretentious, as some have said.
In Jungian dream analysis, the limousine can be taken as a metaphor of one's self, one's course in life. Each visitor to the limousine ought to be considered an aspect of the occupant's personality, each separate and distinct. There is the intellectual who has been hired to "do theory,"the young one who has been hired to find patterns, the nervous security expert who has tested for system vulnerabilities, the visiting prostitute (profane) who is asked to help obtain "the chapel" (sacred). Each character represents an aspect of a single self. Throughout the journey to get a "haircut," (which is a Wall Street term for taking a loss), the outside security chief relays messages from "The Complex," which might be interpreted as the unified self.
I think this is clearly what Cronenberg intended. The fuller meaning of the movie resides in how the dream reflects the actual world, how it fits with the shared reality in which we all participate. How does this simple journey to get across the city reflect the pleasures and perils of existence? Can we really know the world, or can we only know ourselves? How is the main character a representation of the whole world, which has a kind of self, too? Does the ending of the movie reflect an outcome that is metaphorically plausible as an integration of macroeconomic, political, human forces shaping history?
Cosmopolis is an intellectual work, carefully crafted, and not at all pretentious, as some have said.
"Everything is barely weeks. Everything is days. We have minutes to live."
patryk-czekaj22 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Cosmopolis, based on Don DeLillo's bestseller of the same name, is the first feature film both directed and written by David Cronenberg's since eXistenZ. That, in a way, explains why the movie may be recognized as a very decent adaptation and an exceptional film in itself.
Cosmopolis comes as an utterly spellbinding, eye opening, perversely expressive and philosophically challenging evaluation of the 21st century's economic crisis, placed in juxtaposition with a precise look at the main character's gradually imploding life. It's easy to notice that, in the finance-related sphere, this insightful neo-noir movie is also like a more ideological and, thus more enjoyable, version of Margin Call. The movie flows like an odyssey, without changing its well-balanced pace, focusing mostly on long, single takes.
Eric Packer (Robert Pattinson), a manipulative, emphatic, vainglorious, and filthy rich power broker from New York, decides he needs a haircut on one sunny and seemingly peaceful morning. He gets into his shiny, luxurious limousine (equipped with everything money can buy) and goes for a ride that will eventually turn his whole world upside down, in less than 24 hours. It's so ridiculous that Eric spends the entire day stuck in a huge traffic, and, when he eventually gets to the barber shop (during the night), he gets only half of his hair cut.
The film's conversation-driven narrative has Packer involved in various philosophical and overly perplexing encounters. Most of the time they are connected to very serious notions, such as existence, death, pain, money, future. In all the engaging, and sometimes mind numbing, dialogues we hear many incoherent one-liners that may definitely cause some disputes over their actual significance.
What's interesting is that the limo seems like it's some sort of a peculiar entity, totally detached from the human world, a kind of futuristic spaceship, taken straight out from a science fiction picture. Most of the time the viewer isn't able to see what's happening on the streets, but at one particular moment the barrier between the inside and the outside is suddenly broken, due to the violent riots caused by anarchists. 'And a rat became the unit of currency' – this illusory quote gets an entirely different meaning, as the protesters roam around town holding dead rats in their hands, signalizing the forthcoming political and financial collapse. The, so-called, cyber capitalism is abruptly coming to and, and Packer becomes one of the victims of its downfall. What's more, he is also effectively creating his own demise in a very subtle manner.
Cronenberg did only a few slight changes to the book (the Japanese Yen is now the Chinese Yuan; Parker doesn't have sex with his wife, like he wanted to so badly in the book), which truly enhance the director's auteur approach to the film.
A surprisingly proper and convincing performance by Robert Pattison makes him look like an adequate choice for future roles in more ambitious production than Twilight or, lately, the overly dull Bel Ami. With his handsome looks, unmet sexual needs, self-conceit and arrogance, he reminds of two other well-known, fictional rich men – Patrick Bateman from American Psycho and Don Draper from Mad Men.
All in all, even though the movie might seem too complex or a bit boring, it still is definitely worth a watch, as it is both a great adaptation of the novel, and an interesting character study of not only the protagonist (antagonist?), but also all the limo passengers that appear on- screen for brief periods of time. And the tense final scene ('duel' between Parker and the assassin) makes the viewer realize that in our contemporary world two contradictory points of view may actually have more in common then one might expect.
Grade: B
Cosmopolis comes as an utterly spellbinding, eye opening, perversely expressive and philosophically challenging evaluation of the 21st century's economic crisis, placed in juxtaposition with a precise look at the main character's gradually imploding life. It's easy to notice that, in the finance-related sphere, this insightful neo-noir movie is also like a more ideological and, thus more enjoyable, version of Margin Call. The movie flows like an odyssey, without changing its well-balanced pace, focusing mostly on long, single takes.
Eric Packer (Robert Pattinson), a manipulative, emphatic, vainglorious, and filthy rich power broker from New York, decides he needs a haircut on one sunny and seemingly peaceful morning. He gets into his shiny, luxurious limousine (equipped with everything money can buy) and goes for a ride that will eventually turn his whole world upside down, in less than 24 hours. It's so ridiculous that Eric spends the entire day stuck in a huge traffic, and, when he eventually gets to the barber shop (during the night), he gets only half of his hair cut.
The film's conversation-driven narrative has Packer involved in various philosophical and overly perplexing encounters. Most of the time they are connected to very serious notions, such as existence, death, pain, money, future. In all the engaging, and sometimes mind numbing, dialogues we hear many incoherent one-liners that may definitely cause some disputes over their actual significance.
What's interesting is that the limo seems like it's some sort of a peculiar entity, totally detached from the human world, a kind of futuristic spaceship, taken straight out from a science fiction picture. Most of the time the viewer isn't able to see what's happening on the streets, but at one particular moment the barrier between the inside and the outside is suddenly broken, due to the violent riots caused by anarchists. 'And a rat became the unit of currency' – this illusory quote gets an entirely different meaning, as the protesters roam around town holding dead rats in their hands, signalizing the forthcoming political and financial collapse. The, so-called, cyber capitalism is abruptly coming to and, and Packer becomes one of the victims of its downfall. What's more, he is also effectively creating his own demise in a very subtle manner.
Cronenberg did only a few slight changes to the book (the Japanese Yen is now the Chinese Yuan; Parker doesn't have sex with his wife, like he wanted to so badly in the book), which truly enhance the director's auteur approach to the film.
A surprisingly proper and convincing performance by Robert Pattison makes him look like an adequate choice for future roles in more ambitious production than Twilight or, lately, the overly dull Bel Ami. With his handsome looks, unmet sexual needs, self-conceit and arrogance, he reminds of two other well-known, fictional rich men – Patrick Bateman from American Psycho and Don Draper from Mad Men.
All in all, even though the movie might seem too complex or a bit boring, it still is definitely worth a watch, as it is both a great adaptation of the novel, and an interesting character study of not only the protagonist (antagonist?), but also all the limo passengers that appear on- screen for brief periods of time. And the tense final scene ('duel' between Parker and the assassin) makes the viewer realize that in our contemporary world two contradictory points of view may actually have more in common then one might expect.
Grade: B
This is the worst movie I've ever seen. There's nothing redeeming or Good about this film and anyone who says they like it has jumped through multiple mental hoops to get ther
wisdomwasp11 December 2022
This is the worst movie I've ever seen or you will ever see. Given the IMDB word minimum and someone who reads this doubtless will be wanting to know why, let me expand:
-it's BORING. SO INCREDIBLY BORING
-the acting, particularly of Robert Pattinson who does his no emotion thing especially badly here
- a scene of out of nowhere of crude violence to shock but adds absolutely nothing to the film or reactions of the characters
- the characters make no sense at all and act in silly ways
- Paul Giamattis appearance is so incredibly lame and stupid I couldn't watch him in a film for years (Pattinson too)
Weird and lack explanations but still somewhat intriguing and enthralling
KineticSeoul12 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This seemed more like a David Lynch film than a David Cronenberg film but it's still a intriguing flick that is weird but intriguing never the less. This is a weird movie about a 28yr old billionaire named Eric Packer(Robert Pattinson) who has a major ego and is self-obsessed and yet bored with everything going on a ride on his limousine which is most of the setting for this movie takes place in. In order to get a hair cut which takes him on a road where he meets weird and yet theological characters that are poetic in a way. And that is what mainly sums up this movie, with Eric Packer on a ride on his limousine meeting people that have their own ideologies and theories when it comes to money, society and life and what they are all or Eric is heading into. It's a surreal and enthralling flick but it does have flaws like how some aspects of this movie is incoherent. Robert Pattinson's acting is passable or good but not all that great. Every scene he just seemed to just wait for his part where he talks without much expressions. But maybe that is the way Cronenberg wanted it. In fact just about all the characters in this movie act and talk like cyborgs. The dialogue is challenging and to be honest I would have been lost if I didn't see this movie with subtitles. Eric Packer is somewhat of a interesting character but his motive doesn't make sense sometimes and why he does the things he do, because it just doesn't explain it in this movie. He is a ego maniac on a trip to self-destruction intentionally. It doesn't even explain why he solely believes "talent is more erotic when it's wasted". In the book it even says he believed when he dies the world will end to show his ego. I give a bit of credit to this movie for it's anti-Hollywood direction, which is ballsy. It's a strange movie where most of the movie takes place in a limo that is intriguing and yet can be confusing and weird to the point nothing is natural and probably needed more explanation. It's understandable if some audiences are bored with this movie though.
7.3/10
7.3/10
Casey's Movie Mania: COSMOPOLIS (2012)
caseymoviemania23 September 2012
Talky movies are always hard to pull off, especially those which deals with complex or dense subject matter. To make them interesting, it's always important to engage the viewers with captivating performance(s) and strong dialogues. This is no doubt a difficult test for director David Cronenberg. He's hardly known as a director who relies heavily on dialogue to tell his story. Actually he did attempt such approach before in last year's A DANGEROUS METHOD, but he failed miserably with his static direction. This time, he hits an all-time low in COSMOPOLIS -- a lifeless and painfully boring motion picture that even a die-hard art-house fans might find this a monumental waste of time.
Based on Don DeLillo's novel of the same name, the movie centers on a 28-year-old billionaire named Eric Packer (Robert Pattinson) who wants a haircut from his father's old barber. Even though his head of security, Torval (Kevin Durand) has warned him about the streets are currently jammed due to a visit by the President of the United States, an anti-capitalism riot and a funeral march of a famous hip-hop star, Packer insists on going ahead no matter what. And so he hops on his stretch limo and begins his long-winded journey. En route, he finds himself in a series of complications and meet some of the peoples he knows including his colleague Shiner (Jay Baruchel), distant wife Elise (Sarah Gadon), mistress Didi Fancher (Juliette Binoche), financial adviser Vija Kinsky (Samantha Morton) and many others. As the world is slowly collapsing around him, Packer eventually finds himself face to face with his own destined assassin, Benno Levin (Paul Giamatti).
Judging from the source material and especially the trailer that promotes the movie, it looks as if die-hard fans are in a treat for the good old David Cronenberg's bizarre trademark. Unfortunately what is shown in the entire movie is a different story altogether. Despite its timely plot that touches on the current financial crisis and many other topical subject matters, Cronenberg's adapted screenplay is all heavy dialogue but no substance. Seriously, this movie is a very frustrating movie to watch for. Characters are spend all the time talking, talking and talking but everything wanders around in the same circle aimlessly. The pace is so awfully slow to a standstill, that its 109-minute running time seems like forever.
No doubt David Cronenberg's typically cold direction doesn't fit well for this kind of talky movie. He's clearly out of his element here. Meanwhile, lead actor Robert Pattinson is fatally miscast as well. Originally intended for Colin Farrell (really?) but forced to withdraw because of scheduling conflicts, Pattinson's performance is as wooden as a piece of plank. There's hardly any personality behind his dead-eyed expression that makes him at least a worthwhile character to pay attention for. If Pattinson fares the worst, same goes to the supporting actors as well. Even with the presence of some highly-reliable actors like Juliette Binoche, Samantha Morton and Paul Giamatti, their performances are as uninteresting as they goes.
Visually, Cronenberg does insert a few moments of violence and strong sexual contents, but they are all gratuitous and feels patchy altogether.
Ultimately, I understand that Cronenberg tries to make a lot of statements here but unfortunately, the message doesn't get across. It's the kind of movie that drags on and on, but doesn't accomplish a single thing. Easily one of the worst movies of all-time.
http://caseymoviemania.blogspot.com
Based on Don DeLillo's novel of the same name, the movie centers on a 28-year-old billionaire named Eric Packer (Robert Pattinson) who wants a haircut from his father's old barber. Even though his head of security, Torval (Kevin Durand) has warned him about the streets are currently jammed due to a visit by the President of the United States, an anti-capitalism riot and a funeral march of a famous hip-hop star, Packer insists on going ahead no matter what. And so he hops on his stretch limo and begins his long-winded journey. En route, he finds himself in a series of complications and meet some of the peoples he knows including his colleague Shiner (Jay Baruchel), distant wife Elise (Sarah Gadon), mistress Didi Fancher (Juliette Binoche), financial adviser Vija Kinsky (Samantha Morton) and many others. As the world is slowly collapsing around him, Packer eventually finds himself face to face with his own destined assassin, Benno Levin (Paul Giamatti).
Judging from the source material and especially the trailer that promotes the movie, it looks as if die-hard fans are in a treat for the good old David Cronenberg's bizarre trademark. Unfortunately what is shown in the entire movie is a different story altogether. Despite its timely plot that touches on the current financial crisis and many other topical subject matters, Cronenberg's adapted screenplay is all heavy dialogue but no substance. Seriously, this movie is a very frustrating movie to watch for. Characters are spend all the time talking, talking and talking but everything wanders around in the same circle aimlessly. The pace is so awfully slow to a standstill, that its 109-minute running time seems like forever.
No doubt David Cronenberg's typically cold direction doesn't fit well for this kind of talky movie. He's clearly out of his element here. Meanwhile, lead actor Robert Pattinson is fatally miscast as well. Originally intended for Colin Farrell (really?) but forced to withdraw because of scheduling conflicts, Pattinson's performance is as wooden as a piece of plank. There's hardly any personality behind his dead-eyed expression that makes him at least a worthwhile character to pay attention for. If Pattinson fares the worst, same goes to the supporting actors as well. Even with the presence of some highly-reliable actors like Juliette Binoche, Samantha Morton and Paul Giamatti, their performances are as uninteresting as they goes.
Visually, Cronenberg does insert a few moments of violence and strong sexual contents, but they are all gratuitous and feels patchy altogether.
Ultimately, I understand that Cronenberg tries to make a lot of statements here but unfortunately, the message doesn't get across. It's the kind of movie that drags on and on, but doesn't accomplish a single thing. Easily one of the worst movies of all-time.
http://caseymoviemania.blogspot.com
Revise your expectations
donaldgilbert13 January 2013
I'm not sure if I'm more amused or more disappointed by the reaction by so many reviewers here of this film. No, it's not your Hollywood production, it contains few digital effects, no action, not even your standard "Cronenberg gore". This is a novel, and is presented in a way that's similar to the novel; with characters and dialog. As these elements are revealed, and the story unfolds as it does, I was left with a very interesting and satisfying experience.
I wonder if many of the folks giving this a poor review, saying it's boring or confusing, are simply unprepared for what they're renting, and they blame the movie for not meeting expectations. This happened to me. I started the movie while tired and impatient for distraction. After 15 minutes, I shut the film off and waited a couple of days for the right mood to kick in (awake, curious, searching for intellectual stimulation) before starting "Cosmopolis" from the beginning. Some movies are an escape from the work, and/or from thinking. This is not one of them.
I don't like to give spoilers in my reviews, so I will only say to anyone reading, rent this if you're in the mood for a unique movie that gives you cause to reflect and think. And be patient- despite what some have said, I think the ending is exactly right.
I wonder if many of the folks giving this a poor review, saying it's boring or confusing, are simply unprepared for what they're renting, and they blame the movie for not meeting expectations. This happened to me. I started the movie while tired and impatient for distraction. After 15 minutes, I shut the film off and waited a couple of days for the right mood to kick in (awake, curious, searching for intellectual stimulation) before starting "Cosmopolis" from the beginning. Some movies are an escape from the work, and/or from thinking. This is not one of them.
I don't like to give spoilers in my reviews, so I will only say to anyone reading, rent this if you're in the mood for a unique movie that gives you cause to reflect and think. And be patient- despite what some have said, I think the ending is exactly right.
The Currency of Rat
ferguson-62 September 2012
Greetings again from the darkness. David Cronenberg is a brilliant filmmaker. Brilliance doesn't necessarily translate into popular or even accessible. He tends to make movies that force a level of discomfort while viewing, while also stretching our intellect as we attempt to follow. Even his films that come closest to mainstream (A History of Violence, The Fly) refuse to allow us to just sit and be entertained. His more esoteric films (Naked Lunch, Crash) will cause your thoughts to swim and your gut to churn.
This latest is based on the Don DeLillo novel and there is no known group of film lovers for whom this can be recommended, save Cronenberg fans. Even that doesn't reduce its brilliance. Robert Pattinson plays Eric Packer, the ultimate example of the 1% that is receiving such notice these days. Packer is a young, billionaire, who rides around in his mobile ivory tower (you might call it a white stretch limo), taking meetings while on his mission to get a haircut. The meetings are vignettes designed to grow increasingly abstract and dialogue heavy as the film progresses.
The meetings feature Jay Baruchel as his Chief of Technology, Philip Nozuka as an Analyst, Emily Hampshire as his Chief of Finance, Samantha Morton as his Chief of Theory ... oh, and a special meeting with his mistress Juliette Binoche. He also manages to continually run into his new wife played by Sarah Gadon, and work in his daily doctor's exam which is extremely thorough. All of these occur while he is being protected by his security chief played by Kevin Durand.
This film is not plot driven, but rather ideal and theory driven. From the discussions we can tell that the financial systems are collapsing and Packer is losing millions by the minute. His fortune is vanishing and there are threats on his life. The most interesting threat comes from his true polar opposite in life - Benno Levin played by Paul Giamatti. This sequence is the film's longest and most dialogue heavy. Understanding every sentence is not necessary to realize it's a comment on the faceless many vs the evil privileged. The paranoia has boiled over to the point where anarchy and violence somehow make sense.
Twilight fans will not be pleased with Pattinson's performance, but he is absolutely perfect as Packer. His cold, arrogant nature and monotone voice are anything but emotionless. He apparently realizes his path is leading to the Village of the Damned, and he seems to have designed his own purgatory. One of the funniest, yet still odd, moments arrives in the form of Mathieu Amalric, who will generate recollections of a Rupert Murdoch incident.
Howard Shore provides an extremely subtle score that fits with the mood changes a the film progresses. Again, this is a bit like watching a philosophical laboratory experiment and certainly won't appeal to a wide audience. If you are a Cronenberg fan, have at it. If not ... the risk is yours.
This latest is based on the Don DeLillo novel and there is no known group of film lovers for whom this can be recommended, save Cronenberg fans. Even that doesn't reduce its brilliance. Robert Pattinson plays Eric Packer, the ultimate example of the 1% that is receiving such notice these days. Packer is a young, billionaire, who rides around in his mobile ivory tower (you might call it a white stretch limo), taking meetings while on his mission to get a haircut. The meetings are vignettes designed to grow increasingly abstract and dialogue heavy as the film progresses.
The meetings feature Jay Baruchel as his Chief of Technology, Philip Nozuka as an Analyst, Emily Hampshire as his Chief of Finance, Samantha Morton as his Chief of Theory ... oh, and a special meeting with his mistress Juliette Binoche. He also manages to continually run into his new wife played by Sarah Gadon, and work in his daily doctor's exam which is extremely thorough. All of these occur while he is being protected by his security chief played by Kevin Durand.
This film is not plot driven, but rather ideal and theory driven. From the discussions we can tell that the financial systems are collapsing and Packer is losing millions by the minute. His fortune is vanishing and there are threats on his life. The most interesting threat comes from his true polar opposite in life - Benno Levin played by Paul Giamatti. This sequence is the film's longest and most dialogue heavy. Understanding every sentence is not necessary to realize it's a comment on the faceless many vs the evil privileged. The paranoia has boiled over to the point where anarchy and violence somehow make sense.
Twilight fans will not be pleased with Pattinson's performance, but he is absolutely perfect as Packer. His cold, arrogant nature and monotone voice are anything but emotionless. He apparently realizes his path is leading to the Village of the Damned, and he seems to have designed his own purgatory. One of the funniest, yet still odd, moments arrives in the form of Mathieu Amalric, who will generate recollections of a Rupert Murdoch incident.
Howard Shore provides an extremely subtle score that fits with the mood changes a the film progresses. Again, this is a bit like watching a philosophical laboratory experiment and certainly won't appeal to a wide audience. If you are a Cronenberg fan, have at it. If not ... the risk is yours.
I am not Masochist, but I Saw This Awful Movie until the Very End
claudio_carvalho15 November 2012
I am not masochist, but I saw "Cosmopolis" until the very end only because it is directed by David Cronenberg, who is among my favorite directors. What a deception I have had!
I usually begin my reviews in IMDb with a plot summary, but what can I say about this pretentious story? A billionaire crosses Manhattan in his limousine, in a day of protest against the president of his country, because he wants a haircut on the other side of the town in a dangerous neighborhood. Meanwhile he meets strange characters in weird situations that come and go, without any development of the characters, their motives or their relationships. To complete the mess, the wealthy guy apparently snaps. The lead character is performed by the weird Robert Pattinson with his face that recalls a character from "The Munster", a TV series from 1964 to 1966.
The most funny is to glance at reviews that have found some sort of intelligence in this film, as if it were a harsh criticism to the Capitalism: the Emperor has no clothes. My vote is one (awful).
Title (Brazil): "Cosmópolis"
I usually begin my reviews in IMDb with a plot summary, but what can I say about this pretentious story? A billionaire crosses Manhattan in his limousine, in a day of protest against the president of his country, because he wants a haircut on the other side of the town in a dangerous neighborhood. Meanwhile he meets strange characters in weird situations that come and go, without any development of the characters, their motives or their relationships. To complete the mess, the wealthy guy apparently snaps. The lead character is performed by the weird Robert Pattinson with his face that recalls a character from "The Munster", a TV series from 1964 to 1966.
The most funny is to glance at reviews that have found some sort of intelligence in this film, as if it were a harsh criticism to the Capitalism: the Emperor has no clothes. My vote is one (awful).
Title (Brazil): "Cosmópolis"
Boring film. So dramatic.
XueHuaBingYu16 February 2022
I know that a lot of people will disagree with me. But I'm going to say it anyway. I'm so sorry to say that.
This film is so boring. I couldn't continue to watch it after 10 minutes. I only watched it because of Robert Pattinson. I still can't believe that he was in this film. Totally awful.
One star only.
This film is so boring. I couldn't continue to watch it after 10 minutes. I only watched it because of Robert Pattinson. I still can't believe that he was in this film. Totally awful.
One star only.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
