User ReviewsAdd a Review
I'm willing to concede that I might have missed the point of this film, but my life minutes/hours, I felt after 15 minutes, were better spent concentrating on the clothes ironing that I was doing rather than on this self indulgence.
As the stupidly rich young man rides across the city, things happen. He has his daily doctor appointment right there in his limo, he argues with his wife about sex, has sex with just about every other woman he meets, talks with his business associates, hires bodyguards (one of them being a woman he eventually bangs), and so worth. None of this really moves the plot forwards, none of this really connects with anything else. The movie tries to rely on mood and an interesting situation to hook you in, but it lacks the core structure. Plus it tries to make economics into a philosophy, which only reminds me how much I hate the whole subject. At least a film like The Big Short, which is also about economics, makes the whole subject interesting by talking about the people behind it. This tries to elevate economics into an art form, if not a religion in its own right, but it just doesn't have the depth to pull it off.
The film has a couple of merits to its name. The story is artsy garbage, but at least the film looks really good and director David Cronenberg's touch is clearly visible across the board. Plus the final scene, where two mentally ill people sit in a trashy low-end apartment and try to make their personal neuroses resonate with one another, is pretty cool. It's still artsy, but in an entertaining manner.
All in all I'm sure the film has its fans because it throws enough stuff at the screen that some of it has to stick with certain people. Personally I didn't get enough out of it to be satisfied, but perhaps the fault lies with me.
If I had to sum "Cosmopolis" in a few words, I'd say (perhaps unfairly) that it was a Harold Pinter play filtered through a Walter Gibson scenario (the closest parallel being "New Rose Hotel") and through Cronenberg's own desire to challenge our ideas about what is "real". All of these influences aregood things, but I can't say that they go well together in a film format.
On the positive side: the film looks great, in spite of the seemingly claustrophobic setting, where 80% of the film takes place inside a stretch limo. I really enjoyed being in that limo. And the actors look great. And the screenplay tries to discuss some big, challenging ideas.
On the negative: the film comes to an ambiguous, unsatisfying end. And the characters don't seem to have any real meat to them - every last one of them (except the bodyguard and the driver and maybe the barber) are so vacant, so bloodless, so postmodern and anemic, that you want to throw them outside, make them go for a walk, maybe get into a fistfight or something. I know these are deliberate choices,probably stemming from the Delillo novel this is based on - but it still makes it hard for me to care about what happens to these twits. And I hate Delillo's pseudo-profundity anyway, which poses intellectual and philosophical dilemmas that really don't matter to anyone but maybe a devotee of Derrida.
In the end, a Cronenberg movie is always worth watching at least once, maybe twice to see if you caught all the subtexts. Go into this with an open mind and maybe a beer or bottle of wine to relax, and you'll probably be fine.
Cosmopolis is not an easy ride and certainly not for everyone, resembling a dream-like feeling this is a visually beautiful film, the performances are great and the dialogue is weird and complex which is obvious it didn't please a lot of people. (5.0 rating is laughable, what the hell is going on?).
It's one of those films that may require more than one viewing to fully understand the meaning of each conversation but it's totally worth it since you're always gonna discover something new and interesting that will make you think for days (you can find quotable lines everywhere in this movie).
The final confrontation might have hypnotized me in some kind of way, Paul Giamatti and Robert Pattinson deliver one of the best climactic dialogues i've ever seen.
Cronenberg gives us the vision of the 1% of our society and he creates a masterpiece that can be thought-provoking and funny at the same time, i feel sorry for those who didn't get it.
Next day I enjoyed it more and was able to use the IP TV functions to go back to the most compacted wording scenes and was able to better follow the plot. I was fascinated by the surrealistic and exaggerated character of Eric Packer. Compare it to "The Wolf of Wall street" - Cosmopolis is the dark and ugly side of it.
The pacing in the first part and after meeting (the character) Benno Levinis, cutting the world of Eric in two. Just like when I lost my job as a senior finance manager and had to stay 11 month at home - the change in pace is breathtaking and mind blowing. You have to experience to believe it possible!
A film packed with existential quotes ... a truly European film.
Do not let Yourselves get fouled by opinions of those who do Not Know, do Not Follow and therefore do Not Understand...
After accidentally watching one of the Twilight Saga flicks with my younger sister I did not expect much of Robert Pattison, imho he really is Not a bad actor at All, Juliette Binoche pretending to be 41 is an oll'Pro, all others keep it real cool paranoid, the security guy always listening in is probably the best gem, really creepy ex-post modern fun that delivers spine-shivers for those of U out there who regularly watch somewhat-conspiracy-oriented Utube channels etc. Ol'Cro knows very well what's today's Buzz about...
So far the Best Cronenberg's Piece of Art up 2 date.
The movie is simple and complex at the same time.
The film focuses on the personal (and private) life of the main character. Through his life we can see the uncontrolled capitalism which brings a tremendous lack of values of our era, and how is unstoppably growing.
Eric Parker is a Wall Street billionaire who does not care anything but money. But the movie, in a smart and not evident way, shows that ultimately Our indifference to our neighbor's sorrow brings suffering to our door . And the result is: emptiness and loneliness and absurd.
IMPORTANT: The structure, pace and concept of the movie are not the usual. The plot is not obvious, but the feeling it leaves is subtle yet clear.
Just for independent movie goers
The world depicted in the movie is not dystopian: we are already living in it.
I think it hearkens back to the New Wave in cinema of the late 50s/60s (and more than just French, for it is very Fellini-esque). I love Robert Pattinson as Eric Packer. Cronenberg tried this style of abstraction in Crash, but how can you view James Spader or Holly Hunter without emotion? They are too well known for it, it didn't fit, and in the end, could not pull it off due to their strong personalities (esp Holly Hunter). Here, Cronenberg finishes what he started there with this disembodied style. Thus Pattinson is the exact right casting, even in appearance. As Cronenberg himself says, which encapsulates most of the zeitgeist of the movie, which is that high intensity computer trading is abstracted from production, products, commerce, from anything. Thus Packer is reflecting that as a completely abstract person who has no idea of the world and how to be human, so he sounds and appears as an alien dropped into real life on Earth (on the day he finally realizes all this).
Character IS valued in films, and I value it, and judge them on it, but here the lack of it works since it goes along with the whole abstraction concept. The complete silence in the limo, when the windows are up, creates a dreamlike tone that pervades the movie, even though it is not realistic, it is not meant to be. Limo as uterus, coffin, tomb, video game, spaceship, sex toy, and on and on. The movie really is not about a financial crisis, but of Packer's stubbornness and attempt to destroy himself by going against his advisers and becoming his own worst enemy. His problems are limited to *his* life; the world has not been affected by his issues, although of course he thinks it has, as a 1%er.
The protesters represent the Occupy Wall Street movement, according to Cronenberg, and I thought the "rats" as commodities thing hilarious, but the more serious metaphor is that you can abstract anything and trade it and Pattinson drinks far too much from that cup, even as his primary relationship reflects it. So I think Pattinson is abstracting life and trading it and his relationships as commodities.
If you don't care for really arty, stylized films or massively metaphoric films, you will not like this one, but I think if it is thought of as Pattinson's journey from isolation to gritty attempts to join real life then it will go down better. It is as if he is living in the digital world along with his commodities, then has an epiphany during which he realizes there is more outside his tiny world (represented by the limo), both physically and emotionally. So he stumbles his way out of it, creating havoc for himself in an unconsciously suicidal way as he tries to get back to his roots, although it doesn't seem like he quite knows what they are. The guy is so abstract and above it all, from his billionaire throne, that he commits immoral acts without a thought, so desperate is he to get 'home'. He truly needs a pair of ruby slippers to click to go home, and when he finds the next closest thing (people from his past or a chance to right himself) he blows it.
Of course there are all the obvious things we hate about the rich, the extreme self-centerdness, the narcissism, the arrogance, and the social commentary (although Cronenberg seems to be less about that here; it is obvious anyway to anyone who is not living under a rock today).
The other actors must, for the film to work, at least Packer's advisors, wear the same mask of abstraction and speak in the same disembodied way. I love Samantha Morton, who can do anything, chewing up the scenery. She is right in there with him, as are the other actors for whom it is appropriate. His wife is just a reflection of his narcissism, since narcissists find relationships that mirror themselves. Her skin doesn't even look real, more like an avatar's in a virtual world. She is farther gone than he is, but is more resigned to it and aware of it.
All in all, I grew to really like the film and appreciate its perfections. Again, this is Crash done right, in many ways. This film is much less about entertainment than anything else; so fair warning. However I was entertained in a strange way and enthralled by most of the aspects of it. It has wonderful production values that add to the theme perfectly and the other things that make a film deserve a rating of 8/10. I recommend watching at least twice and finding some Cronenberg interviews/commentary. Yes, there is some work to this film, but that is another thing that makes it great art and a viewer that is not spoon fed will be a more well rounded fan of cinema.
"Cosmopolis" is a strange film, though not as strange as the other David Cronenberg films. In one of the early scenes where Juliette Binochet has a rendezvous with Robert Pattison, it reminds me of Holly Hunter in "Crash". The scenes when Robert Pattison meets his wife are interesting because the wife is always very distant. In fact, all Homan relationships in "Cosmopolis" is unusual because they interact in a matter of fact manner that is devoid of emotion. They use words and sentence structures that is far from everyday usage that makes me unable to connect with any of the characters. Towards the ending, the story gets increasingly incomprehensible and inexplicable, which further frustrates me in addition to boring me. I didn't enjoy watching "Cosmopolis".
As the limo very slowly rolls and stops on it's interrupted journey through the mean, nasty city which is bursting into revolutionary madness the protagonist, a surprisingly compelling Robert Pattinson, manages to keep my gaze averted from all the increasingly ugly things occurring outside the tinted power windows and focused upon his sincerely fascinating face. I felt as though I was being invited. emphatically, to pay attention to the man behind the curtain, except in the case of this profoundly disturbing film the Wizard is not a loud mouthed little phony. No, this Master of this Universe is a genuinely powerful and twisted fellow.
If you hate to have to think or ponder or even consider for a moment what anything means in a film--or in life--you're sure to really, really hate this deliberately annoying and confrontational film. But if you're anything like me and you don't mind being asked to contemplate the bizarre nature of our ever more devolving, collapsing society then you, too, should find this deeply unusual cinematic stunt to be quite worthwhile. It's not always fun or pleasant to watch, but it's extremely original and undeniably haunting. And it has some neat surprises from some very good supporting players, especially a superb Paul Giamatti as an especially ominous and unpleasant sort of Angel of Death.
Turns out Robert Pattinson is still as clueless as ever, but his lack of acting talent is more than aided and abetted here by a dull, empty, directionless plot and very pretentious direction from David Cronenberg. This movie would have been crap even without Robert Pattinson in it (though probably not as crap...)
There is a never ending dialogue about all kinds of things. That could have been interesting, except it's all said in the most monotone voices possible, without any emotion.
There are "action" scenes if you can call them that. Because the "action" scenes are super boring! Believe it or not the "action" in this movies is more boring than the endless monotone dialogue.
There are sexual encounters of the boring kind thrown in that don't really add to the story.
Well, I've warned you. If you still feel like watching, drink lots of coffee.
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.
The entire film consists of a bored super-rich businessman, played by Robert Pattinson, who rides around a city in his limousine and comes into contact with a number of diverse people, most of whom are played by cameoing guest stars. So Juliette Binoche turns up as a hooker, Paul Giamatti as a psycho, Mathieu Amalrice as a reporter, and so on. Unfortunately, the characters then spend the entire running time spouting pseudo-intellectual nonsense, and everyone who's not of the same mindset will quickly tune out.
Cronenberg does his best to appeal to his dedicated fan base by throwing in some random scenes of explicit violence and sexuality, but the dialogue is so arty-farty, so untrue to life, that the film just sinks because of it. Pattinson was also an extremely poor, charisma-free choice for lead actor; you feel like you're looking into the dead eyes of a male model here, instead of a proper 'actor'. COSMOPOLIS? Count me out - this is Cronenberg's worst as far as I'm concerned.
The performances seem on point, I say seem because I'm not sure what the direction was. Cosmopolis feels like a dream, but the weird kind, I thought I was tripping. I don't take drugs or often drink to excess but it felt like I took something bad, some kind of drug that had turned bad that I shouldn't taken. I want to say Cosmopolis and lack of sleep do not mix but really I don't think it was a good movie. Despite the really cool underlying themes the film was not very good. I may have understand where Cronenberg was going with it and what it was about but I struggled to watch this movie to the end. It's a rich people problem movie that will resonate with very few of us. The megalomania of the rich, the economic crisis, creed I did get all that but the film was still poorly handled. In 10 or 15 years when everything will have gone to sh** maybe it would look like a master piece but for now it's not.
Sometimes, when watching a film I want to read the book for broader experience of the story, well with Cosmopolis that is not the case.
Eric Packer: The logical extension of business is murder.
The whole film is something difficult to put into words, as usual from Cronenberg,. It's an experience, an uncomfortable, awkward and mesmerizing experience.
Vija Kinsky: The more visionary the idea, the more people it leaves behind.