IMDb > Cosmopolis (2012) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Cosmopolis More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 2 of 19:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 190 reviews in total 

29 out of 36 people found the following review useful:

Revise your expectations

Author: donaldgilbert from Seattle, WA
13 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

62 out of 103 people found the following review useful:

Not for Everybody

Author: Tom Gooderson-A'Court ( from United Kingdom
15 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

39 out of 65 people found the following review useful:

The worst movie ever

Author: Angela Stone from Australia
12 August 2012

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

16 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

Philosophical and poetic

Author: p_v_dshoi from Denmark
4 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

66 out of 122 people found the following review useful:

What was the point?

Author: Jens Wegar
6 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

24 out of 43 people found the following review useful:


Author: wullers from Germany
2 July 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Why does a grossly overpaid Hollywood person bother with portraying the (apparently eagerly awaited) downfall of capitalism? He has nothing of value to add. This movie was not even entertaining.

Why Robert Pattinson? Paul Giamatti: Why?

Regarding the plot, the movie is about Robert Pattinson who reads lines off que cards while driving a futuristic limousine. One after another his employees, who portray different parts of society, enter the limo and the discussion. Over the course of the next few hours, Pattinson loses his money, clothes, wife(some curious self portrait of the arts), security detail, and limo. In the final scene, the maimed Pattinson confronts his assassin for a lengthy dialogue. This scene should vibrate off the intensity. However, the camera is too sloppy and Pattinson is too incompetent. Giamatti tries but there is only so much one can do when faced with such adversity. Besides, as stated above, there is not much substance to the dialogue. The viewer is stunned and stoned by all the hints as to what the right interpretation should be. The clothes, the car, the excessive and repetitive dialogue sequences, and so on and so on. Cronenberg tries to make a masterpiece by force - and fails.

Was the above review useful to you?

24 out of 43 people found the following review useful:

"Everything is barely weeks. Everything is days. We have minutes to live."

Author: Patryk Czekaj from Warsaw
22 June 2012

*** This review may contain 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

Was the above review useful to you?

26 out of 48 people found the following review useful:

Only Metric saved this film from a 0

Author: Darren Laurence
23 July 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I've seen some absolute pretentious rubbish in my time but this will take some beating.

The characters are hideously unlikeable with no depth what so ever. And why the hell does Juliette Binoche get equal billing, she's in the film for 5 minutes, even then she's just get's a good seeing to in the back of the limo.

This is like a really bad version of the most pretentious David Lynch film ever made. It's so far up it's own a** that you're thinking is this a joke?

It's uninteresting, tedious, dull, dreary, mind-numbing, tiresome, lackluster, unexciting, monotonous, repetitive, wearisome, humdrum, uninspiring, bland, insipid, weak, tasteless,lat, flavorless, wishy-featureless, ordinary, dull, lackluster, boring, flat, nondescript, unappealing, vapid, banal.

There you go, I don't want to waste words on reviewing this film because it doesn't deserve any.

The only reason this film gets 2 marks is because my fav band did the soundtrack. The soundtrack actually sounds better without the visuals from the film, which is a first.

Was the above review useful to you?

51 out of 98 people found the following review useful:


Author: Lara J. from Germany
16 July 2012

I have no words for how bad this movie is. It bored me stiff. I never saw so many people leave the theatre in the middle of a movie. That should say it all.

The director seems to have mistaken movie for radio. This "movie" is nothing but a never-ending, pointless verbal diarrhea. None of the monologues (for there aren't really any dialogues) made sense. None of the characters made sense. Actually, the movie didn't have any characters. Just some more or less famous actors (what on earth was Juliette Binoche thinking when she decided to appear in this piece of c**p?) appeared randomly out of nowhere, talked a lot of nonsense, then disappeared into the nowhere. I couldn't detect the whiff of a story. After a short while - I couldn't leave, because my friend wanted to stay - I quite simply wanted to die.

Unless you want to accidentally end your own life because you still prefer suicide over sitting through this movie for a second longer, DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE!

Was the above review useful to you?

74 out of 144 people found the following review useful:

Casey's Movie Mania: COSMOPOLIS (2012)

Author: caseymoviemania from Malaysia
23 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 2 of 19:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history