Cosmopolis Reviews
cosmo313
Super Reviewer
April 25, 2012
His limo is tricked out and state-of-the-art. It's basically his own little microcosm he seals himself in to avoid the dregs of society outside. The story is rather surreal in tone, and feels otherworldly. Oddly though, it feels timely too, as some of the stuff Eric encounters parallel real world events. It seems odd that it would take him all day to get to his preferred barber, but the traffic jams he's caught in are the result of a presidential visit, the funeral procession of his favorite musician ( a Sufi rap artist), and anti-capitalist demonstrations by an Occupy-style group.
Along the way, besides encountering said traffic slowing obstacles, Eric also conducts business in his limo, including trysts with a few women, a meeting with his new, albeit frigid and bored wife, meetings with co-workers and, a prostate exam with odd results. He also sees his business dealings falter, and learns someone is apparently out to assassinate him.
This is all very troubling stuff, but he seems to be rather uncaring, if not welcoming of this ruin. The film concludes with a lengthy confrontation with the apparent assassin, highlighted by a very lengthy philosophical discussion.
This seems like pretty perfect material for writer/director David Cronenberg. It's odd, thought provoking, and a real head trip at times. Unfortunately, it's also largely dull, if not really boring, ends anti-anticlimactically, and feels really under cooked, which makes sense given that Cronenberg wrote the script in like 6 days. It at least is shot well, looks great, and tries to do something meaningful, even if it falls short.
I applaud Robert Pattinson for trying something different and ambitious, but I don't think this'll quite help him shed the long shadow cast by Twilight. He's backed by some interesting supporting players like Jay Baruchel, Mathieu Amalric, Samantha Morton, Juliette Binoche, and Paul Giamatti, but none of them really do anything spectacular or groundbreaking.
I wanted to like this. It seemed like it would be really intense and gripping, and, while it does have its moments, it goes on for way too long, and proves to be largely 'meh' more than anything else.
Adapted from a work by Don DeLillo, this is a story set in near-distant future New York about Eric Packer- a 28 year-old billionaire currency speculator/asset manager who callously watches his world crumble before him during a 24 hour odyssey as he slowly cruises across town in his limo on his way to get a haircut.
His limo is tricked out and state-of-the-art. It's basically his own little microcosm he seals himself in to avoid the dregs of society outside. The story is rather surreal in tone, and feels otherworldly. Oddly though, it feels timely too, as some of the stuff Eric encounters parallel real world events. It seems odd that it would take him all day to get to his preferred barber, but the traffic jams he's caught in are the result of a presidential visit, the funeral procession of his favorite musician ( a Sufi rap artist), and anti-capitalist demonstrations by an Occupy-style group.
Along the way, besides encountering said traffic slowing obstacles, Eric also conducts business in his limo, including trysts with a few women, a meeting with his new, albeit frigid and bored wife, meetings with co-workers and, a prostate exam with odd results. He also sees his business dealings falter, and learns someone is apparently out to assassinate him.
This is all very troubling stuff, but he seems to be rather uncaring, if not welcoming of this ruin. The film concludes with a lengthy confrontation with the apparent assassin, highlighted by a very lengthy philosophical discussion.
This seems like pretty perfect material for writer/director David Cronenberg. It's odd, thought provoking, and a real head trip at times. Unfortunately, it's also largely dull, if not really boring, ends anti-anticlimactically, and feels really under cooked, which makes sense given that Cronenberg wrote the script in like 6 days. It at least is shot well, looks great, and tries to do something meaningful, even if it falls short.
I applaud Robert Pattinson for trying something different and ambitious, but I don't think this'll quite help him shed the long shadow cast by Twilight. He's backed by some interesting supporting players like Jay Baruchel, Mathieu Amalric, Samantha Morton, Juliette Binoche, and Paul Giamatti, but none of them really do anything spectacular or groundbreaking.
I wanted to like this. It seemed like it would be really intense and gripping, and, while it does have its moments, it goes on for way too long, and proves to be largely 'meh' more than anything else.
blkbomb
Super Reviewer
February 13, 2013
I would have to say that enjoying this movie depends completely on your ability to understand Robert Pattinson's character. If you can't, it's going to be hard to like this film. Cosmopolis is a movie of immense potential and incredible setup. What it lacks in though are the things that make movies easy to watch and get into. I was fully engaged the whole film because the thin plot had a lot of great ideas and philosophical meanings behind them, but it was missing everything from dialogue that sounded real to actors that seemed real. The only saving grace as far as acting goes was Paul Giamatti's scene at the end of the movie. Everyone else was dull and boring, as was the dialogue that was coming from their mouths.
Cosmopolis follows a rich, young man who we assume works on Wall Street. The economy is beginning to collapse and all around the city are protestors who want blood. They want Eric Packers blood too. He is constantly being updated by his bodyguard of the impending situation. Eric doesn't seem at all fazed by it though, as he drifts around the city in his limousine, talking with other people, and just trying to make it to get his haircut. Like I said, the plot is thin. There's not much in the way of action either, as it is mostly weird, dull dialogue.
Cronenberg is still one of those directors that I fail to understand. As with Lynch, I love his ideas and I like his complete dedication to his projects, but he fails to present it in an interesting way at times. This wad the case here with Cosmopolis. It's not completely his fault though, as Pattinson made his character almost impossible to listen to, with a soft, boring voice and so little emotion, I wondered if he was alive at times when he wasn't talking.
This isn't something I liked, but I do have a certain respect for it. It has a feel all its own, as every Cronenberg film does. The cinematography is extremely well done and the movie is obviously made with the intent to make the audience think. It did manage to do that, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized; I didn't like what I was watching.
Elise Shifrin: Where is your office? What do you do exactly? You know things, I think this is what you do. I think you acquire information and turn it into something awful.
I would have to say that enjoying this movie depends completely on your ability to understand Robert Pattinson's character. If you can't, it's going to be hard to like this film. Cosmopolis is a movie of immense potential and incredible setup. What it lacks in though are the things that make movies easy to watch and get into. I was fully engaged the whole film because the thin plot had a lot of great ideas and philosophical meanings behind them, but it was missing everything from dialogue that sounded real to actors that seemed real. The only saving grace as far as acting goes was Paul Giamatti's scene at the end of the movie. Everyone else was dull and boring, as was the dialogue that was coming from their mouths.
Cosmopolis follows a rich, young man who we assume works on Wall Street. The economy is beginning to collapse and all around the city are protestors who want blood. They want Eric Packers blood too. He is constantly being updated by his bodyguard of the impending situation. Eric doesn't seem at all fazed by it though, as he drifts around the city in his limousine, talking with other people, and just trying to make it to get his haircut. Like I said, the plot is thin. There's not much in the way of action either, as it is mostly weird, dull dialogue.
Cronenberg is still one of those directors that I fail to understand. As with Lynch, I love his ideas and I like his complete dedication to his projects, but he fails to present it in an interesting way at times. This wad the case here with Cosmopolis. It's not completely his fault though, as Pattinson made his character almost impossible to listen to, with a soft, boring voice and so little emotion, I wondered if he was alive at times when he wasn't talking.
This isn't something I liked, but I do have a certain respect for it. It has a feel all its own, as every Cronenberg film does. The cinematography is extremely well done and the movie is obviously made with the intent to make the audience think. It did manage to do that, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized; I didn't like what I was watching.
boxman
Super Reviewer
March 22, 2013
Eric Packer (Robert Pattinson) is a mega-millionaire currency trader. He's got so much money he wants to outrightly buy a church just because. We travel with Eric over the course of one day as he travels through New York City in his stretch limo. Along the way, he hosts a colorful array of characters and fears that his high-stakes wagers will be adding up. He becomes more and more self-destructive and looks for new and exciting ways to waste money, talent, and time.
I hesitate to even use the term film with Cosmopolis because it's truly more of an endurance test in didactic, pretentious art house masturbation. The script is really a collection of self-indulgent scenes with very little to connect anything together. Each new scene feels like the movie is starting over. Worse, the dialogue is painfully elliptical, stilted, and monotone, reeking of pseudo intellectual intent, lingering in ambiguity like it's poetic. It's not, it's irritating and obtuse and character talk in circles without ever really saying anything. It's the kind of dialogue that reminds me of a pompous student play, something where the particulars involved think they're making Artistically Daring Statements about Things That Matter. It's such a mannered way of speaking, so labored in its affectations and superficially drawn to the mistaken belief that obtuse and redundant equals philosophical and thought provoking. The only thoughts I was thinking were of the murderous variety. I felt so pained that I had to check the time and only eleven minutes had passed. It felt like I had spent three times that amount. I stuck it out for you, dear reader, but otherwise I would have bailed. Here are a handful of dialogue samples to give you an idea:
"Why do they call them airports?"
"I have an asymmetrical prostate. What does that mean?"
"Try putting a stick of gum in your mouth and not chew it."
"Where do limos go to spend the night?"
I feel like I'm even doing a disservice to calling the people onscreen as characters. They?re really more just talking heads, mouthpieces for cluttered ideology. The plot introduces new characters but they only last for a scene and then it's time for someone knew. This would be acceptable if it ever appeared that these interactions had any effect, positive or negative, on our protagonist. As it stands, it's just a gloomy guy running into one meaningless encounter after another. Oh, and if that was the point of the whole exercise, then shoot me now. I literally cheered when the movie was over. Well, right after incredulously barking, "That's it?"
Plot is another term, much like characters, that has next to no meaning for Cosmopolis. The plot is a wealthy guy who wants to get a haircut. Yes, that is the inciting incident. He stays in his limo as it slowly drifts down the bumper-to-bumper New York City traffic. He has encounters with people, sure, but mostly it's the story of one man in his pursuit of a haircut. And you know what dear reader, spoilers be damned, but he gets that haircut too. The final half hour of the movie, almost a third of the whole running time, is spent with Paul Giamatti, an intense and angry man who wants to kill Eric. At least Giamatti's performance kept me awake. The plot, much like the characters, is really a vehicle for the script's ideas, so it becomes exasperating when the movie tries to pretend, at points, like now all of a sudden we should care about Eric and his journey. The ideas, as presented, are either on-the-nose or impenetrable. For every confusing conversation about death, you'll get a capitalism = rats metaphor.
Pattinson (Breaking Dawn Part 2) seems like an apt choice as well as a craven marketing ploy for Cronenberg to get his weird arty movie greater exposure and financing. Pattinson gives a rather cold and detached performance, which I'm sure is also the point but it's not exactly an outlet to showcase any potential range. I'm sure Pattinson leaped at the chance to work with Cronenberg, but he should have checked out his emotionally vacant character first. Oh I get it that Eric is a guy who seemingly has it all but now feels empty, and I get how it's meant to be an analogue for the Wall Street set that?s hijacked our capitalism markets (rats!). I get it. It's just lousy, and Pattinson could have been replaced with just about any young Hollywood hunk. The only enjoyable aspect of this whole movie, and this is simply a theoretical extension, is that plenty of diehard Twilight fans are going to watch this movie and be very very confused.
Cronenberg keeps us locked in that limo, at least for the first half of the film. We get to watch Eric host an array of guests. He gets serviced by a middle-aged woman (Juliette Binoche). He gets a prostate exam while conducting a meeting. He gets up-to-the-minute reports on the millions of dollars he?s hemorrhaging, and he doesn't care. Money has lost all known value when everything is given to you. Look, I can make vague, self-important statements too. I'll credit Cronenberg with finding creative ways to play around within the confined space of the limo, making the film less hermetic than it by all means should be. However, bad green screen effect work really proves distracting, so that you're given another reason to check out when characters drone on as they do.
Strictly put, this was not a story that needed to be turned into a movie. I'm sure DeLillo's novella has its own weight and power, but the big-screen adaptation of Cosmopolis is all flaccid pontification, empty verbal masturbation, and crushing dead weight. It was a Herculean effort for me to watch this meandering movie to the end and I know I can't be alone in this regard. If only the characters were really characters, or the plot had any minute sense of momentum, or that the dialogue was less purposely obtuse, or if the movie felt like it was at least going somewhere or had some small recognizable shred of purpose. I won't go as far to say you should be worried if any of your friends gush to you about how great this movie is, but you should probably keep an eye on them or see if they bumped their head. This movie is more like an insufferable lecture by the most boring people who confuse cerebral with impenetrable. If you're not going to supply me any significant means of entry to engage with your art, then I'll just go play with somebody else. Cosmopolis feels like the worst and most pretentious student film you'll ever see. The rub is that a great director like Cronenberg made it.
Nate's Grade: D
David Cronenberg is a director that's full of surprises. The biggest surprise about Cosmopolis, his new film based on the Don DeLillo novella, is how shockingly terrible it is. This may be Cronenberg's worst film. It's certainly one of the worst films of 2012.
Eric Packer (Robert Pattinson) is a mega-millionaire currency trader. He's got so much money he wants to outrightly buy a church just because. We travel with Eric over the course of one day as he travels through New York City in his stretch limo. Along the way, he hosts a colorful array of characters and fears that his high-stakes wagers will be adding up. He becomes more and more self-destructive and looks for new and exciting ways to waste money, talent, and time.
I hesitate to even use the term film with Cosmopolis because it's truly more of an endurance test in didactic, pretentious art house masturbation. The script is really a collection of self-indulgent scenes with very little to connect anything together. Each new scene feels like the movie is starting over. Worse, the dialogue is painfully elliptical, stilted, and monotone, reeking of pseudo intellectual intent, lingering in ambiguity like it's poetic. It's not, it's irritating and obtuse and character talk in circles without ever really saying anything. It's the kind of dialogue that reminds me of a pompous student play, something where the particulars involved think they're making Artistically Daring Statements about Things That Matter. It's such a mannered way of speaking, so labored in its affectations and superficially drawn to the mistaken belief that obtuse and redundant equals philosophical and thought provoking. The only thoughts I was thinking were of the murderous variety. I felt so pained that I had to check the time and only eleven minutes had passed. It felt like I had spent three times that amount. I stuck it out for you, dear reader, but otherwise I would have bailed. Here are a handful of dialogue samples to give you an idea:
"Why do they call them airports?"
"I have an asymmetrical prostate. What does that mean?"
"Try putting a stick of gum in your mouth and not chew it."
"Where do limos go to spend the night?"
I feel like I'm even doing a disservice to calling the people onscreen as characters. They?re really more just talking heads, mouthpieces for cluttered ideology. The plot introduces new characters but they only last for a scene and then it's time for someone knew. This would be acceptable if it ever appeared that these interactions had any effect, positive or negative, on our protagonist. As it stands, it's just a gloomy guy running into one meaningless encounter after another. Oh, and if that was the point of the whole exercise, then shoot me now. I literally cheered when the movie was over. Well, right after incredulously barking, "That's it?"
Plot is another term, much like characters, that has next to no meaning for Cosmopolis. The plot is a wealthy guy who wants to get a haircut. Yes, that is the inciting incident. He stays in his limo as it slowly drifts down the bumper-to-bumper New York City traffic. He has encounters with people, sure, but mostly it's the story of one man in his pursuit of a haircut. And you know what dear reader, spoilers be damned, but he gets that haircut too. The final half hour of the movie, almost a third of the whole running time, is spent with Paul Giamatti, an intense and angry man who wants to kill Eric. At least Giamatti's performance kept me awake. The plot, much like the characters, is really a vehicle for the script's ideas, so it becomes exasperating when the movie tries to pretend, at points, like now all of a sudden we should care about Eric and his journey. The ideas, as presented, are either on-the-nose or impenetrable. For every confusing conversation about death, you'll get a capitalism = rats metaphor.
Pattinson (Breaking Dawn Part 2) seems like an apt choice as well as a craven marketing ploy for Cronenberg to get his weird arty movie greater exposure and financing. Pattinson gives a rather cold and detached performance, which I'm sure is also the point but it's not exactly an outlet to showcase any potential range. I'm sure Pattinson leaped at the chance to work with Cronenberg, but he should have checked out his emotionally vacant character first. Oh I get it that Eric is a guy who seemingly has it all but now feels empty, and I get how it's meant to be an analogue for the Wall Street set that?s hijacked our capitalism markets (rats!). I get it. It's just lousy, and Pattinson could have been replaced with just about any young Hollywood hunk. The only enjoyable aspect of this whole movie, and this is simply a theoretical extension, is that plenty of diehard Twilight fans are going to watch this movie and be very very confused.
Cronenberg keeps us locked in that limo, at least for the first half of the film. We get to watch Eric host an array of guests. He gets serviced by a middle-aged woman (Juliette Binoche). He gets a prostate exam while conducting a meeting. He gets up-to-the-minute reports on the millions of dollars he?s hemorrhaging, and he doesn't care. Money has lost all known value when everything is given to you. Look, I can make vague, self-important statements too. I'll credit Cronenberg with finding creative ways to play around within the confined space of the limo, making the film less hermetic than it by all means should be. However, bad green screen effect work really proves distracting, so that you're given another reason to check out when characters drone on as they do.
Strictly put, this was not a story that needed to be turned into a movie. I'm sure DeLillo's novella has its own weight and power, but the big-screen adaptation of Cosmopolis is all flaccid pontification, empty verbal masturbation, and crushing dead weight. It was a Herculean effort for me to watch this meandering movie to the end and I know I can't be alone in this regard. If only the characters were really characters, or the plot had any minute sense of momentum, or that the dialogue was less purposely obtuse, or if the movie felt like it was at least going somewhere or had some small recognizable shred of purpose. I won't go as far to say you should be worried if any of your friends gush to you about how great this movie is, but you should probably keep an eye on them or see if they bumped their head. This movie is more like an insufferable lecture by the most boring people who confuse cerebral with impenetrable. If you're not going to supply me any significant means of entry to engage with your art, then I'll just go play with somebody else. Cosmopolis feels like the worst and most pretentious student film you'll ever see. The rub is that a great director like Cronenberg made it.
Nate's Grade: D
Everett J
Super Reviewer
February 26, 2013
I'm a fan of what my wife calls "weird movies". Ones that are very different, and offer something original compared to a lot of the regular Hollywood fare. But every now and then I watch something that just makes me scratch my head and say "damn that sucked". "Cosmopolis" is one of those films. Directed by David Croenberg("History of Violence", which is awesome) and starring Robert Pattinson, comes a movie that makes absolutely no sense. All I can say is it's about a rich asshole(Pattinson) in a limo on the way to get a haircut, and his day goes from bad to worse. He's completely un-relateable, and he speaks in these stupid monologues that are all over the place. At one point in the movie he is rambling about violence, and shoots himself in the hand. Made no sense, was out of nowhere, and didn't really have any impact on the movie whatsoever. Pattinson, to me, is a terrible actor. He's been in a couple decent movies("Remember Me" and "Water for Elephants" were both just ok), but he was bad in those also. He is wooden, has no charisma, and is overall boring. When the movie started I thought maybe, just maybe this would be the movie where I go "Ok, I get it. I see why people like him." But when it was over, I said "nope, he still sucks". Paul Giamatti shows up towards the end in another stupid role, where he just talks to Pattinson about a whole lot of nothing. I usually love Giamatti, but here, he is just as bad and looks like he doesn't wanna be in this movie whatsoever. This is easily one of the worst movies of 2012, and something I wish I could just forget. Don't waste your time on this. But if you do, and you like it, please let me know what you liked about it. Other than one song that is played between scenes, I can't think of anything I liked in this at all.
Emil K
Super Reviewer
September 4, 2012
Cosmopolis is a film which goes beyond definition. It is a experiment and experience that defies the word normal and work that only director like Cronenberg could have made. One thing is for sure. This film will divide audiences into half. It is one of those love it or hate it experiences which will not leave you cold. It is also a film that will most certainly shock the teenage fans of actor Robert Pattinson who are quite possibly not expecting their object from their wet dreams to give them a performance like he does here. Pattinson is fantastic in Cosmopolis and give us what must be considired as one of the most disturbing portrayals of young mentally confused man ever presented on a screen.
For his whole career Cronenberg has toyed with ideas which are all evident in Cosmopolis and you could say that in many ways Cosmopolis is his magnum opus. All of his trademarks can be seen here. Peter Suschitzky's icy and stylish cinematography, Howard Shore's dreamy and hypnotic score and most of all Cronenberg's ice cold approach to the source material by Don DeLillo. Underneath it's steely surface Cosmpolis is like a film on a verge of nervous breakdown. There is so much tension packed in it's dialogue and the conversations between characters feel as vibrant as they are eerie. At the first sight this film may seem like a stagnant piece of work but actually it is alive like not many film has been before. From it's opening moment till the very last ambitious seconds i was captivated of this film's oddly fascinating atmosphere and it's nightmarish vision of world turning rapidly into a chaotic hell.
Cronenberg has been flirting with horror and science fiction earlier in his career, still none of his earlier films has merged his trademark genres and themes so smoothly together as Cosmopolis does. For the first time it feels that Cronenberg does not need to actually show any violence or horror on screen to make his film violent or terrifying. He has found a fresh and completely unique way express this violence and horror through dialogue of his characters. But this does not mean that Cosmopolis is any easier film to sit through than his earlier works. Actually i find it at times much more claustrophobic and scarier experience than any of Cronenberg's earlier works.
Cosmopolis is a living creature itself. It is like one of those weird creatures from Cronenberg's earlier film Existenz. Fascinating but undefined. For the first time i simply don't quite find the words to describe it's foreign structure which is somekind of a hybrid of elements unknown to us. Like David Lynch's equally experimental Inland Empire or Lars von Trier's equally bold Antichrist, Cosmopolis is a film which you either follow through it's rabbithole or safely watch it's descent into that hole from the safe distance. I myself was not ready to plunge with it when i first went to see it. I consider myself lucky when i decided to give it a another chance. With that another chance i learnt that with Cosmopolis director/auteur David Cronenberg had created his most original cinematic achievement so far. Not for everyone, this genre defying experience is very much a curiosity and a must see for Cronenberg fans.
Cosmopolis for me is one of the most ambitious, boldest and bravest films made in past ten years and it took two viewings to fully understand it's intentions. I admit that the first time i saw it i was pretty confused about what i've just seen. I knew that this was a film which needed to be seen twice at least. So in the end what Cosmopolis actually is? Is it a statement against capitalism and money driven world? Is it a somekind of insight into a numb psyche of it's young protagonist or is it just director David Cronenberg's twisted vision of the near future we are headed for. In my opinion it is all those things mentioned earlier and none of them.
Cosmopolis is a film which goes beyond definition. It is a experiment and experience that defies the word normal and work that only director like Cronenberg could have made. One thing is for sure. This film will divide audiences into half. It is one of those love it or hate it experiences which will not leave you cold. It is also a film that will most certainly shock the teenage fans of actor Robert Pattinson who are quite possibly not expecting their object from their wet dreams to give them a performance like he does here. Pattinson is fantastic in Cosmopolis and give us what must be considired as one of the most disturbing portrayals of young mentally confused man ever presented on a screen.
For his whole career Cronenberg has toyed with ideas which are all evident in Cosmopolis and you could say that in many ways Cosmopolis is his magnum opus. All of his trademarks can be seen here. Peter Suschitzky's icy and stylish cinematography, Howard Shore's dreamy and hypnotic score and most of all Cronenberg's ice cold approach to the source material by Don DeLillo. Underneath it's steely surface Cosmpolis is like a film on a verge of nervous breakdown. There is so much tension packed in it's dialogue and the conversations between characters feel as vibrant as they are eerie. At the first sight this film may seem like a stagnant piece of work but actually it is alive like not many film has been before. From it's opening moment till the very last ambitious seconds i was captivated of this film's oddly fascinating atmosphere and it's nightmarish vision of world turning rapidly into a chaotic hell.
Cronenberg has been flirting with horror and science fiction earlier in his career, still none of his earlier films has merged his trademark genres and themes so smoothly together as Cosmopolis does. For the first time it feels that Cronenberg does not need to actually show any violence or horror on screen to make his film violent or terrifying. He has found a fresh and completely unique way express this violence and horror through dialogue of his characters. But this does not mean that Cosmopolis is any easier film to sit through than his earlier works. Actually i find it at times much more claustrophobic and scarier experience than any of Cronenberg's earlier works.
Cosmopolis is a living creature itself. It is like one of those weird creatures from Cronenberg's earlier film Existenz. Fascinating but undefined. For the first time i simply don't quite find the words to describe it's foreign structure which is somekind of a hybrid of elements unknown to us. Like David Lynch's equally experimental Inland Empire or Lars von Trier's equally bold Antichrist, Cosmopolis is a film which you either follow through it's rabbithole or safely watch it's descent into that hole from the safe distance. I myself was not ready to plunge with it when i first went to see it. I consider myself lucky when i decided to give it a another chance. With that another chance i learnt that with Cosmopolis director/auteur David Cronenberg had created his most original cinematic achievement so far. Not for everyone, this genre defying experience is very much a curiosity and a must see for Cronenberg fans.
Anthony L
Super Reviewer
November 14, 2012
Cosmopolis is now the third film I have watched and then watched all over again straight afterwards. Needless to say I'm dog tired this morning after staying up well past my bed time but it was worth it. Don DeLillo's post modern Jazz-like style of writing is pretty abstract but his exploration of modern themes; consumerism, corruption, the media and the diseases of society are brilliantly written and have been brilliantly visualised by Cronenberg. DeLillo's work has been criticised as being overly stylised and intellectually shallow but then not everybody likes Jazz. Cronenberg has been similarly criticised over the years, although in my opinion his best films have been overlooked and his worst has been shockingly overpraised. It's hard not to compare this film to Naked Lunch, a cult novel that also wasn't highly regarded upon release but soon gathered recognition. Cronenberg truly did film the unfilmable and yet the film remains a cult favourite and is relatively unwatched by younger viewers. The stories are different but they share similarities, existentialism, abstract expressionism and both provoke and manipulate. They certainly see the world in a different way, the only difference is that DeLillo wasn't on drugs, he knows what he's saying as does Cronenberg. Cronenberg has taken another brave step in adapting this film which was always going to be misunderstood and dare I say poorly marketed. I have no doubt it's a future classic and a strong piece of intellectual thinking. I'm going to be honest though, it's at times a little dull and at times a lot dull but perseverance is key, the explosive scene of brilliantly written dialogue between Robert Pattinson and Paul Giamatti is great cinema and worth watching for alone. It is abstract but at the same time it's a very savvy look at society that is hard,and would be stupid to ignore. I dig it but it's all about the book for me, my rating is based on good acting, some smart visuals but mainly because of Cronenberg's balls/guts and original cinema.
xXGiNoBiLiPRXx
Super Reviewer
October 19, 2012
Not a great movie!vUltimately, 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.
Riding across Manhattan in a stretch limo in order to get a haircut, a 28-year-old billionaire asset manager's day devolves into an odyssey with a cast of characters that start to tear his world apart.
Everything is barely weeks. Everything is days. We have minutes to live.
Not a great movie!vUltimately, 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.
Riding across Manhattan in a stretch limo in order to get a haircut, a 28-year-old billionaire asset manager's day devolves into an odyssey with a cast of characters that start to tear his world apart.
c0up
Super Reviewer
October 6, 2012
'Cosmopolis'. A day of gradually building self-destruction from the inside-out led commandingly by Robert Pattinson. A cold, off-beat film that takes on the GFC via a very different perspective.
Bill D 2007
Super Reviewer
August 19, 2012
Every scene is directed the same way. Two actors sit across from each other and have a conversation. The camera almost never moves; the actors almost never move. It is inert and monotonous.
This kind of material would normally be right up my alley. I loved Cronenberg's 'Naked Lunch' and 'Crash,' which were also based on avant-garde novels. I find De Lillo a very interesting writer and was very excited when I heard Cronenberg was going to take him on. If this film can't even reach its target audience (me), then I'm sure it will disappear very quickly.
I don't know what's going on with Cronenberg today. His last film, "A Dangerous Method," was pretty dull. And he follows that up with this crushingly lifeless piece of work, which it seems he directed in his sleep. Yikes.
I dozed off about 15 times during "Cosmopolis," which wins my vote for worst art-house film of 2012 so far. I'm sure there are interesting ideas somewhere in this film by director David Cronenberg (based on a novel by Don De Lillo). But the film is directed so poorly that it's almost impossible to listen to the dialogue.
Every scene is directed the same way. Two actors sit across from each other and have a conversation. The camera almost never moves; the actors almost never move. It is inert and monotonous.
This kind of material would normally be right up my alley. I loved Cronenberg's 'Naked Lunch' and 'Crash,' which were also based on avant-garde novels. I find De Lillo a very interesting writer and was very excited when I heard Cronenberg was going to take him on. If this film can't even reach its target audience (me), then I'm sure it will disappear very quickly.
I don't know what's going on with Cronenberg today. His last film, "A Dangerous Method," was pretty dull. And he follows that up with this crushingly lifeless piece of work, which it seems he directed in his sleep. Yikes.
TomBowler
Super Reviewer
August 14, 2012
What the hell just happened? Full review later.
Tracy K
Super Reviewer
July 21, 2012
Disorienting and mesmerizing; by no means an easy or user-friendly film, but this veneer suits it. Icy cold and nearly unlikeable, inspiring admiration rather than affection. A hypnotic downward spiral. And Robert Pattinson is pretty impressive.
Carlos M
Super Reviewer
May 26, 2012
A provocative journey into the lustful fever of post-modern cyber-capitalism, with a magnetic performance by Pattinson, whose character remains intriguing from one casual talk to another while keeping our interest in his bizarre universe - even if sometimes the talking is just cliché.
Kevin M
Super Reviewer
July 4, 2012
Cosmopolis addresses some interesting ideas such as the reasoning behind money and capitalism, and my personal favorite: the notion of destruction being a form of creativity. The performances here are strange: a lot of the lines seem like they were read off of paper and some of the actors sound monotone. I got used to this after a while, since the world in which we see in Cosmopolis is different and strange to begin with. Even some of the plot comes out of nowhere and goes completely unexplained. Although the ending was confusing, it was ambiguous and left me thinking, so it gets a whole lot of credit for doing something different. This is unconventional filmmaking in a bit sloppy, albeit good form.
"A man rises on a word and falls on a syllable."
Cosmopolis addresses some interesting ideas such as the reasoning behind money and capitalism, and my personal favorite: the notion of destruction being a form of creativity. The performances here are strange: a lot of the lines seem like they were read off of paper and some of the actors sound monotone. I got used to this after a while, since the world in which we see in Cosmopolis is different and strange to begin with. Even some of the plot comes out of nowhere and goes completely unexplained. Although the ending was confusing, it was ambiguous and left me thinking, so it gets a whole lot of credit for doing something different. This is unconventional filmmaking in a bit sloppy, albeit good form.
Glenn G
Super Reviewer
September 15, 2012
So it is with a heavy heart that I report that COSMOPOLIS is a torturous experience. Intentionally arch and mannered, we basically follow a 1 Percenter (a fascinating performance from Robert Pattinson nonetheless) as he rides in his limo through an increasingly hellish Manhattan. Facing everything from sex to riots to assassins, it's HEART OF DARKNESS WITH A MINIBAR AND A TON OF REARSCREEN PROJECTION. The artifice is a device which grows numbingly repetitive as things go along. Imagine SIN CITY without action or drive. We lurch from one overly-intellectualized conversation to the next about the failing economy, Wall Street trading, foreign, currency exchange, and sex. It's nihilistic and not a little boring. Every now and then, a scene takes fire, such as the one with Juliette Binoche rolling around on the limo floor post-sex as she discusses, of all things, Rothko paintings. It's all so random and diffuse...and just BORING. Did I mention it was boring?
There are a few moments of random violence, because, well, it wouldn't be Cronenberg without a little right? I think this would make a provocative play at some Equity Waiver 99-seater in Silver Lake, but beyond that, who would want to watch this? Oh, and just to evoke the repetitive nature of the film, I'll say it one last time. This movie is BORING.
As a huge fan of David Cronenberg's work over the years, it pains me to say that this is easily his worst film. A career low. Obviously a cinematic master who very rarely repeats himself, he has made an indelible impression on my psyche. From SCANNERS, to THE BROOD, to THE DEAD ZONE (along with DOLORES CLAIBORNE, this film is one of the most underappreciated adaptations of a Stephen King novel ever), to THE FLY, DEAD RINGERS, CRASH, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE, and EASTERN PROMISES, Cronenberg is a smart, versatile filmmaker who knows how to bring forth memorable images and moments.
So it is with a heavy heart that I report that COSMOPOLIS is a torturous experience. Intentionally arch and mannered, we basically follow a 1 Percenter (a fascinating performance from Robert Pattinson nonetheless) as he rides in his limo through an increasingly hellish Manhattan. Facing everything from sex to riots to assassins, it's HEART OF DARKNESS WITH A MINIBAR AND A TON OF REARSCREEN PROJECTION. The artifice is a device which grows numbingly repetitive as things go along. Imagine SIN CITY without action or drive. We lurch from one overly-intellectualized conversation to the next about the failing economy, Wall Street trading, foreign, currency exchange, and sex. It's nihilistic and not a little boring. Every now and then, a scene takes fire, such as the one with Juliette Binoche rolling around on the limo floor post-sex as she discusses, of all things, Rothko paintings. It's all so random and diffuse...and just BORING. Did I mention it was boring?
There are a few moments of random violence, because, well, it wouldn't be Cronenberg without a little right? I think this would make a provocative play at some Equity Waiver 99-seater in Silver Lake, but beyond that, who would want to watch this? Oh, and just to evoke the repetitive nature of the film, I'll say it one last time. This movie is BORING.
Harlequin68
Super Reviewer
September 9, 2012
A character so lacking individuality like Eric Packer is perhaps the perfect role for a limited actor like Robert Pattinson. Surprisingly, as the movie cruises along with its own idiosyncratic rhythm and pacing, that does not become a liability, as he holds his own even with Samantha Morton coming on board for a while. Sadly, I don't think the movie really knows how to end, before Paul Giamatti shows up and takes control, just pushing Pattinson to the side of his own movie which might be intentional. Or not.
"Cosmopolis" is the portrait of Eric Packer(Robert Pattinson), a 28 year-old business wunderkind who has all the money in the world but cannot control the world around him, except for the interior of his tricked out stretch limousine. The hint of a plot involves more of an emotional, than a physical journey, as he wants to go crosstown to get a haircut. As Torval(Kevin Durand), his head of security, points out, this might be impossible since the President is in town. Which president, asks Eric? As much as some people might have a problem with some of the purple prose, I love the bit where Torval mentions bits of the city disappearing, almost imagining it happening literally. Along the way, Eric stops to eat with his virginal wife Elise(Sarah Gadon) who knows what sex smells like and he first sees in a cab.
A character so lacking individuality like Eric Packer is perhaps the perfect role for a limited actor like Robert Pattinson. Surprisingly, as the movie cruises along with its own idiosyncratic rhythm and pacing, that does not become a liability, as he holds his own even with Samantha Morton coming on board for a while. Sadly, I don't think the movie really knows how to end, before Paul Giamatti shows up and takes control, just pushing Pattinson to the side of his own movie which might be intentional. Or not.
www.themoviewaffler.com
Super Reviewer
June 16, 2012
The script, adapted by Cronenberg himself, should have been immolated on completion. With constant dialogue it feels more like an adaptation of a stage play than a novel. It's hard to convey just how painful it is to listen to the series of quasi-leftist monologues delivered by a fantastic cast who are made to look like fools. Quality actors like Binoche, Morton and Giamatti pop in and out like guests on some hellish chat show hosted by a mid-coitus coupling of Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein.
Everyone speaks in a purposely stilted manner with more pregnant pauses than a relay race for expectant mothers. Not being a teenage girl, I've never seen Pattinson on screen before and I'm not going to judge him on this performance. His New York accent is perfect but like the rest of the cast he's hampered by Cronenberg's direction. I realise of course this is all meant to illustrate how inhuman and disconnected from reality these characters are but it doesn't make it remotely watchable. The only scene which didn't make me want to tear my ears off involved the barber, the one character who doesn't speak like a character from a fringe theater production.
Cronenberg's career seems to have deteriorated into pretension. While his early works cleverly used the horror genre to communicate a subtext, now he feels he no longer needs to disguise his message. For this reason his films, like his audience, are suffering.
Five minutes into Cronenberg's latest I began to have horrific flashbacks to my schooldays. This might be adapted from a Don DeLillo novel but it's protagonist's journey across a re-imagined city is straight out of that staple of the literary chancer's bookshelf, James Joyce's Ulysses, itself a retelling of Homer's Odyssey. The Coen Brother's did this ten years ago with "O Brother Where Art Thou?" which at least had a few good songs to keep you awake. "Cosmopolis" offers no such compensation.
The script, adapted by Cronenberg himself, should have been immolated on completion. With constant dialogue it feels more like an adaptation of a stage play than a novel. It's hard to convey just how painful it is to listen to the series of quasi-leftist monologues delivered by a fantastic cast who are made to look like fools. Quality actors like Binoche, Morton and Giamatti pop in and out like guests on some hellish chat show hosted by a mid-coitus coupling of Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein.
Everyone speaks in a purposely stilted manner with more pregnant pauses than a relay race for expectant mothers. Not being a teenage girl, I've never seen Pattinson on screen before and I'm not going to judge him on this performance. His New York accent is perfect but like the rest of the cast he's hampered by Cronenberg's direction. I realise of course this is all meant to illustrate how inhuman and disconnected from reality these characters are but it doesn't make it remotely watchable. The only scene which didn't make me want to tear my ears off involved the barber, the one character who doesn't speak like a character from a fringe theater production.
Cronenberg's career seems to have deteriorated into pretension. While his early works cleverly used the horror genre to communicate a subtext, now he feels he no longer needs to disguise his message. For this reason his films, like his audience, are suffering.
John B
Super Reviewer
April 15, 2013
Cronenberg is back making weird movies again. In this case, there are signs of life but too much left unexplained and unexplored.
Cameron W. Johnson
Super Reviewer
November 9, 2012
I've heard this film described as having little, if any narrative structure, and considering that David Cronenberg can dull out something fierce at times, I expected the worst, but really, one of the biggest reliefs I had with this film is the film's turning out to not be a meditative lyrical piece, like something along the lines of the exceedingly mediocre "Hunger", or the just plain terrible "Gomorrah", and yet, with that being said, while this film actually isn't the incarnation of tedium that I heard it was, this is still David Cronenberg we're talking about, so of coruse the film gets to be too meditative and slow for its own good, limping along ever so blandly. As I'll touch more upon later, the film has a certain amount of intrigue to it that keeps it going, and sometimes even makes it moderately entertaining, yet the film has plenty of slowness to spare, so you know that it's saying quite a bit to say that slowness is the least of this film's problem, with Cronenberg's script being the film's messiest misstep. Characterization is problematic, as there's not as much flesh-out as there should be to the characters, who are made even more problematic by questionable behavior, as well as the dialogue, for although the immense amount of snap to the dialogue actually helps in making this film as decent as it is, there come many points in which the dialogue gets too snappy for its own good, descending into difficult to buy levels of exhaustingly rather pompous over-sophistication, if not all-out strange poeticism. The level of total buyability within the dialogue is rather uneven, yet not as uneven as the film's thematic depths, which are hurt from the get-go by convolusion, and find themselves further damaged by the occasions in which realist sophistication within the theme deliveries is abandoned by the sake of imagery and story elements that are almost surrealistically over-the-top. Whether it be the weird rat rallies that reference the "a rat became the unit of currency" excerpt from Zbigniew Herbert's "Report from the Besieged City", or some dude who goes around throwing cream pies in the faces of figures of high stature and whose segment finds itself ever so bizarrely drenched in a serious tone, there are quite a few thematic aspects that are too overbearing to be subtle, which isn't to say that the limited subtlety ends with the imagery, for although this film certainly isn't broadly literal, it's an abstract piece with only so much subtlety, presenting philosophical depths that go tainted by so much overambition that the points in which the film leaves you to actually think go obscured. Still, no matter how much this film goes plagued by its overambition and occasions in which it ventures well over the top, David Cronenberg still taints the film with an air of arrogance that may not be so potent that frustrates you to no end and destroys this film, like it has with the overly meditative lyrical pieces that I feared this film was going to be, yet stands pronounced enough for the film to reek of self-pride that only brings more to attention the areas in which Cronenberg lets down his ambition, exacerbating the blandness that isn't as severe with this film as quite a few people say, but ultimately leaves this film to fall quite a ways behind when it comes to fulfilling potential. Of course, I'd be lying if I said that I didn't ultimately enjoy this film, for although I recognize that this film is not much more than mere critic bait that would have been much better if it didn't expect itself to be much better than it actually is, there are indeed aspects that back up this film's ambitions, particularly the stylistic ones.
A tightly scoped dialogue that often takes place in areas no larger than the back of a limo that may admittedly be awesomely expansive, yet remains the back of a limo nevertheless, this film leaves little room for Peter Suschitzky's full artistic tastes, yet that doesn't stop Suschitzky from delivering on cinematography that plays with as much scope as it can ever so cleverly, neatly, if not rather surrealistically delivering on slick shots that don't simply catch your eye, but immerse you in this environment, and on the occasions in which the photography actually finds an environment suited for the playing up of color and lighting, the film gets to looking pretty darn good. Stylistically, the film isn't too unique, yet remains pretty commendable, and when it comes to substance, the film slips up time and again, with bland unsubtlety and a bit of arrogance, yet not so much so that the bite of the story is rendered totally toothless, for although this story is so messily structured, partially because there's little structure to it to begin with, it's actually reasonably original, not so much so that it's all that much like nothing that you've ever seen, yet ultimately enough so to create a degree of immediate intrigue, made all the stronger by what David Cronenberg does, in fact, do right, at least as writer. Now, when I say that this film is dialogue-driven, I'm not kidding, so of course Don DeLillo had to have packed the original source material - which, in and of itself, was weakly recieved for a Don DeLillo novel - with much of the dialogue - both commendable and problematic - heard here, but rather they be by DeLillo or Cronenberg, the dialogue pieces that drive this film are actually kind of neat, or at least more often than not, because, make no bones about it, the dialogue gets to be too snappy for its own good. Still, the fact of the matter is that this dialogue is snappy, boasting about as much hardly relatable pompousness as enjoyable sophistication, but quite a bit enjoyable sophistication, nevertheless, that livens up the film's meditative intrigue and supplements the thematic depth that is so often so messily handled directorially that it falls flat, but not so much so that there aren't occasions in which the film does, in fact, present an aspect through all of the messy unsubtlety and convolution that leaves you with something to think about. The film is reliant on all kinds of ramblings, exposition and other various talkery, and all too often, that doesn't work, yet more often than expected, the dialogue is colorful enough to keep things livened up, if not, on a few occasions, - dare I say it? - kind of entertaining, thus the film is kept from plummeting into total mediocrity, let alone disaster, and the performers behind the dialogue help, or at least some of them, for although you can expect material to generally be so lacking that more than a few performances come out as kind of medicore, as well as for Juliette Binoche to seem as though she couldn't hold on to an American accent if it was trying to pull her from the edge of a cliff, and for Sarah Gadon to actually prove pretty shoddy, with a profound lack of presence and expressiveness, and shakiness in her line delivery, I found quite a few key players to be kind of charismatic, and when Paul Giamatti finally arrives in the final act, he steals the show as one of the best supporting performances thus far this year, delivering on a striking, if not engrossing range and intensity in his emotion, expressions and overall presence that effortlessly defines the Benno Levin character as a mysterious and tortured soul. If nothing else, Giamatti's performance makes the final act - or at least everything in the final act up until the eye-roll-worthy non-ending - the relatively considerable high point that it is, but Giamatti shows up fashionably late, thus nearly the entirety of the film truly rests upon the shoulders of Robert Pattinson, someone who I've actually considered for quite some time to be an actually pretty promising talent, so much so that one of the reasons why I was initially looking foward to this film was because I was eager to see what Pattinson would do with a critic-targeting dramatic character piece, so you can imagine my disappointment in finding that Pattinson really is given ever so little to do. That being said, regardless of what many people say, Pattinson is rather, to me at least, charismatic, confidently embodying the stature of a man as sophisticated and powerful as the Eric Packer character, and when it comes time for material - no matter how limited - to arrive, Pattinson subtly layers Packer enough to grace our lead with some kind of mystery that supplements what intrigue there is in the film, and further shows the potential within Pattinson, who remains in desperate need of more material and, certainly, a more respectable film, but still flaunt enough of his potential to keep the film going, though not enough for the film to be redeemed of its missteps, for although there is actually a fair bit to compliment about this film, the final product slips up in way too many areas, failing to be the rewarding effort that some critics claim it to be, though not to where it's the disaster that many others claim it to be, having enough going for it to keep the patient going, even if it fails to be all that rewarding.
When the ride finally, finally ends, the film is left flat, with many an overly meditative slow spell to make all the worse a problematic screenplay with flawed characterization and occasions of near-laughable strangeness that supplement the thematic depth's being uneven, yet still at least consistent in convolution and limited subtlety, though not at the expense of a moderate degree of self-congradulatory arrogance that intensifies the blandness that renders the final product all too improvable, though hardly a disaster, for although this film is not what it fancies itself, let alone what it should be, it boasts nifty stylistic touches, as well as a story with a reasonable degree of originality that creates mild immediate intrigue, expanded by what occasions of effectiveness there are within the sometimes problematic but generally colorful dialogue, as well as by a few charismatic performances, particularly that of the underwritten yet still promising Robert Pattinson, thus leaving "Cosmopolis" to cruise along as a, for the patient, reasonably interesting dramatic piece, even if it does fall short of potential quite tremendously.
2.5/5 - Fair
Starting to really take becoming a serious actor seriously, Robert Pattinson joins acclaimed filmmaking veteran David Cronenberg in this meditative exploration of the depths of class and the struggles within the modern business industry and financial conditions... or at least I think what these people are going on and on about, so I reckon that means that this film's ultimately being so underwhelming is even more disappointing than I thought. Granted, this film isn't as bad as quite a couple of people say, but man, Rob Pattinson just cannot catch a break, and considering that his girlfriend is having an affair with another English dude, he probably really needed this. Pattinson certain didn't need this film for financial reasons, because, say what you will about "Twilight", it's given Pattinson enough money to afford to travel to the finest barber in all of France. I can think of quite a few people who would say that such a trip would actually provide an excuse for Pattinson's limo for taking so long to get to a barbershop, but come on, people, we're talking about Manhattan traffic and a trip across town, so the Eric Packer's character actually getting to the barber at all would be most farfetched, especially considering that Pattinson doesn't appear to actually want a haircut in real life. It's hard for me to feel sorry for the Eric Packer character, even with his going on and on about how he's losing power, because he's actually on his way to have a haircut, the source of Robert Pattinson's power, or at least that's my attempt at giving Pattinson a reason for his hair being such a mess. I joke, but Pattinson's got a pretty slick do in this film, so I don't really know why exactly he's going to get a haircut in the first place, but then again, I don't really understand half of the weird, critic-targeted junk in this film. That being said, while this film is nothing short of messier than Pattinson's hair usually is, the final product is actually better than I feared, and yet, make no mistake, this film is messy something fierce, or at least when something actually happens.
I've heard this film described as having little, if any narrative structure, and considering that David Cronenberg can dull out something fierce at times, I expected the worst, but really, one of the biggest reliefs I had with this film is the film's turning out to not be a meditative lyrical piece, like something along the lines of the exceedingly mediocre "Hunger", or the just plain terrible "Gomorrah", and yet, with that being said, while this film actually isn't the incarnation of tedium that I heard it was, this is still David Cronenberg we're talking about, so of coruse the film gets to be too meditative and slow for its own good, limping along ever so blandly. As I'll touch more upon later, the film has a certain amount of intrigue to it that keeps it going, and sometimes even makes it moderately entertaining, yet the film has plenty of slowness to spare, so you know that it's saying quite a bit to say that slowness is the least of this film's problem, with Cronenberg's script being the film's messiest misstep. Characterization is problematic, as there's not as much flesh-out as there should be to the characters, who are made even more problematic by questionable behavior, as well as the dialogue, for although the immense amount of snap to the dialogue actually helps in making this film as decent as it is, there come many points in which the dialogue gets too snappy for its own good, descending into difficult to buy levels of exhaustingly rather pompous over-sophistication, if not all-out strange poeticism. The level of total buyability within the dialogue is rather uneven, yet not as uneven as the film's thematic depths, which are hurt from the get-go by convolusion, and find themselves further damaged by the occasions in which realist sophistication within the theme deliveries is abandoned by the sake of imagery and story elements that are almost surrealistically over-the-top. Whether it be the weird rat rallies that reference the "a rat became the unit of currency" excerpt from Zbigniew Herbert's "Report from the Besieged City", or some dude who goes around throwing cream pies in the faces of figures of high stature and whose segment finds itself ever so bizarrely drenched in a serious tone, there are quite a few thematic aspects that are too overbearing to be subtle, which isn't to say that the limited subtlety ends with the imagery, for although this film certainly isn't broadly literal, it's an abstract piece with only so much subtlety, presenting philosophical depths that go tainted by so much overambition that the points in which the film leaves you to actually think go obscured. Still, no matter how much this film goes plagued by its overambition and occasions in which it ventures well over the top, David Cronenberg still taints the film with an air of arrogance that may not be so potent that frustrates you to no end and destroys this film, like it has with the overly meditative lyrical pieces that I feared this film was going to be, yet stands pronounced enough for the film to reek of self-pride that only brings more to attention the areas in which Cronenberg lets down his ambition, exacerbating the blandness that isn't as severe with this film as quite a few people say, but ultimately leaves this film to fall quite a ways behind when it comes to fulfilling potential. Of course, I'd be lying if I said that I didn't ultimately enjoy this film, for although I recognize that this film is not much more than mere critic bait that would have been much better if it didn't expect itself to be much better than it actually is, there are indeed aspects that back up this film's ambitions, particularly the stylistic ones.
A tightly scoped dialogue that often takes place in areas no larger than the back of a limo that may admittedly be awesomely expansive, yet remains the back of a limo nevertheless, this film leaves little room for Peter Suschitzky's full artistic tastes, yet that doesn't stop Suschitzky from delivering on cinematography that plays with as much scope as it can ever so cleverly, neatly, if not rather surrealistically delivering on slick shots that don't simply catch your eye, but immerse you in this environment, and on the occasions in which the photography actually finds an environment suited for the playing up of color and lighting, the film gets to looking pretty darn good. Stylistically, the film isn't too unique, yet remains pretty commendable, and when it comes to substance, the film slips up time and again, with bland unsubtlety and a bit of arrogance, yet not so much so that the bite of the story is rendered totally toothless, for although this story is so messily structured, partially because there's little structure to it to begin with, it's actually reasonably original, not so much so that it's all that much like nothing that you've ever seen, yet ultimately enough so to create a degree of immediate intrigue, made all the stronger by what David Cronenberg does, in fact, do right, at least as writer. Now, when I say that this film is dialogue-driven, I'm not kidding, so of course Don DeLillo had to have packed the original source material - which, in and of itself, was weakly recieved for a Don DeLillo novel - with much of the dialogue - both commendable and problematic - heard here, but rather they be by DeLillo or Cronenberg, the dialogue pieces that drive this film are actually kind of neat, or at least more often than not, because, make no bones about it, the dialogue gets to be too snappy for its own good. Still, the fact of the matter is that this dialogue is snappy, boasting about as much hardly relatable pompousness as enjoyable sophistication, but quite a bit enjoyable sophistication, nevertheless, that livens up the film's meditative intrigue and supplements the thematic depth that is so often so messily handled directorially that it falls flat, but not so much so that there aren't occasions in which the film does, in fact, present an aspect through all of the messy unsubtlety and convolution that leaves you with something to think about. The film is reliant on all kinds of ramblings, exposition and other various talkery, and all too often, that doesn't work, yet more often than expected, the dialogue is colorful enough to keep things livened up, if not, on a few occasions, - dare I say it? - kind of entertaining, thus the film is kept from plummeting into total mediocrity, let alone disaster, and the performers behind the dialogue help, or at least some of them, for although you can expect material to generally be so lacking that more than a few performances come out as kind of medicore, as well as for Juliette Binoche to seem as though she couldn't hold on to an American accent if it was trying to pull her from the edge of a cliff, and for Sarah Gadon to actually prove pretty shoddy, with a profound lack of presence and expressiveness, and shakiness in her line delivery, I found quite a few key players to be kind of charismatic, and when Paul Giamatti finally arrives in the final act, he steals the show as one of the best supporting performances thus far this year, delivering on a striking, if not engrossing range and intensity in his emotion, expressions and overall presence that effortlessly defines the Benno Levin character as a mysterious and tortured soul. If nothing else, Giamatti's performance makes the final act - or at least everything in the final act up until the eye-roll-worthy non-ending - the relatively considerable high point that it is, but Giamatti shows up fashionably late, thus nearly the entirety of the film truly rests upon the shoulders of Robert Pattinson, someone who I've actually considered for quite some time to be an actually pretty promising talent, so much so that one of the reasons why I was initially looking foward to this film was because I was eager to see what Pattinson would do with a critic-targeting dramatic character piece, so you can imagine my disappointment in finding that Pattinson really is given ever so little to do. That being said, regardless of what many people say, Pattinson is rather, to me at least, charismatic, confidently embodying the stature of a man as sophisticated and powerful as the Eric Packer character, and when it comes time for material - no matter how limited - to arrive, Pattinson subtly layers Packer enough to grace our lead with some kind of mystery that supplements what intrigue there is in the film, and further shows the potential within Pattinson, who remains in desperate need of more material and, certainly, a more respectable film, but still flaunt enough of his potential to keep the film going, though not enough for the film to be redeemed of its missteps, for although there is actually a fair bit to compliment about this film, the final product slips up in way too many areas, failing to be the rewarding effort that some critics claim it to be, though not to where it's the disaster that many others claim it to be, having enough going for it to keep the patient going, even if it fails to be all that rewarding.
When the ride finally, finally ends, the film is left flat, with many an overly meditative slow spell to make all the worse a problematic screenplay with flawed characterization and occasions of near-laughable strangeness that supplement the thematic depth's being uneven, yet still at least consistent in convolution and limited subtlety, though not at the expense of a moderate degree of self-congradulatory arrogance that intensifies the blandness that renders the final product all too improvable, though hardly a disaster, for although this film is not what it fancies itself, let alone what it should be, it boasts nifty stylistic touches, as well as a story with a reasonable degree of originality that creates mild immediate intrigue, expanded by what occasions of effectiveness there are within the sometimes problematic but generally colorful dialogue, as well as by a few charismatic performances, particularly that of the underwritten yet still promising Robert Pattinson, thus leaving "Cosmopolis" to cruise along as a, for the patient, reasonably interesting dramatic piece, even if it does fall short of potential quite tremendously.
2.5/5 - Fair
Naughtia
Super Reviewer
May 4, 2013
I really tried to like this movie but it was not that interesting to watch. I can see that Robert Pattinson has the potential to be a good actor but his part in Cosmopolis did not do him well. He really needs to get better parts in movies in order to shine through as a good Hollywood actor and not only be seen as the guy from Twilight. A lot of my friends said that they did not want to watch Cosmopolis because he was a part of the movie but I gave it a chance and was somewhat disappointed. I was incredibly bored and the highlights did not excite me at all. I think that if the movie would have been edited in a different, more action filled way it might have been a better success, instead there were just a lot of monotonic conversations which made me not want to listen to the subjects they were talking about. Cosmopolis could have been a lot more in my opinion.
