|Page 17 of 18:||      |
|Index||172 reviews in total|
Having read the book, which is definitely not on my favorite books list, I didn't expect too much from this movie, but couldn't help wondering how it'd turn out, either. I also wanted to keep the number of my unseen Robert Pattinson films at zero. I always prefer the books to the movies based on them, however, Cosmopolis may well be an exception. David Cronenberg's storytelling is much more efficient than Don DeLillo and the movie is more interesting than the book. What's also good is that the quality of the film increases through the plot and leads to a satisfactory climax in the end. Speaking of that, I encourage all those who claim that RP cannot act to watch the last 30 minutes of Cosmopolis. Eric Packer was certainly a challenging role for Pattinson but he did one of the best jobs of his career so far. Obviously he can act, as long as he's given a good script and a good cast. His performance changes dramatically when he's not acting with an actress who delivers emotions and expressions only at the level of a potato (i.e., K. Stewart). This has been proved in Remember Me as well as Water For Elephants, and Cosmopolis is another solid proof that the guy has the potential & skills in addition to being drop-dead-gorgeous. Back to Cosmopolis, it starts rather slow and confusing, but particularly from the Barber's Shop scene on, it becomes more intriguing and the mounting tension reaches top level during the conversation between Paul Giamatti & Robert Pattinson. All in all, I found more than what I expected in this movie & I'm glad I gave it a shot.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I watched it in the presence of Robbert Pattinson and David Cronenberg,
it was the May 30 of 2012 in Paris. They told few words about the movie
and the making-of but the real excitement was to see the main actor and
the director for real.
The movie is really different from what i've played Robert Pattinson in the Twilight Saga, i remember there was many fans of him in the theater and many were disappointed of the movie because they didn't await so much dialogs.
The film talk about money and society at the end of the road. Peoples who expect actions will be very frustrated.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I don't even know where to begin.
The characters are dull and half dead, but there's not enough action for a zombie movie. Robert Pattinson doesn't bite anyone and I don't believe his character would have the willpower to do it. And even Carry from Sex and the City would have more reasons or, at least, make it more engaging, to drive to the other side New York for a haircut.
The movie is a huge monologue. Even though there's more than one character in each scene, they seem to be talking to themselves and about whatever they want, even if it's nothing to do with what the other's saying. The closest you get to a dialogue is when Mr. Twilight speaks to his posh wife, always over food, over the sex they'll never have.
There's enough sex (for no apparent reason), violence (for the same inexistent reason) and even rectal touch (just to spice things up).
I laughed hard at this pretentious, action packed (not) movie for all the wrong reasons. Why didn't I leave after the first 20 minutes as I should have? Well, I wouldn't have anything to write about on a Monday morning... or would I?
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Is one of the lines which pretty much talks to the spirit and substance
of David Cronenbergs's new movie, "Cosmopolis". A movie which is
decidedly a throwback to the hyper/fantastical realism Cronenberg was
known for, before veering a bit of course with great movies like "A
History Of Violence" and "Eastern Promises", and movies like "A
This movie is more in the vein of "Videodrome", "Existenz" and "Crash" than any of Cronenberg's aforementioned recent projects. If I had to compare this movie with any other it would be like a 21st century version of 1993's "Falling Down" with Michael Douglas, another flick which captured the zeitgeist of the nineties, the fragmentation of the world, the slow descent into the unknown and the degradation of humanity at the expense of the individual...
It is part sci-fi, part cyberpunk, part opera, a collage of styles and visuals speaking to what it means being alive in the 21st century, the age of anxiety and uncertainty. The movie basically covers one day in the life of a genius billionaire and his slow but steady downfall, and the cast of weird and strange characters who accompany him on that journey, of loosing everything, perhaps including himself.
The movie is as much a philosophical discussion of a variety of themes pertaining to the life and times we exist in, as it is a visual feast.
I gave this movie 6 out of 10, because the part that lags behind is Robert Pattinson...I just did not buy him in the lead role. I wonder, as was the case with Kristen Stewart in "Snow White And The Huntsman", what another actor could have done with that role. I can think of other actors who could have filled that role much better.
Throughout the movie Pattinson looks like he is passing kidney stones, and while I understand that perhaps the character must have that lost look on his face, being aware of the fact that Pattinson pretty much repeats that same look in all the movies he stars in, does not make it an endearing quality while watching "Cosmopolis".
I don't want to sound like a downer, or petty, due to me not liking Robert Pattinson, but casting is really crucial and can oftentimes make or break a movie. And in this case, in my opinion, the choice was not a good one. To me, he really deflated a movie that otherwise worked on all cylinders, except for him.
Katryn Bigellow's understated cyber-punk marvel "Strange Days" dealt in many ways with these same issues many years ago, but soo much better! "Cosmopolis" is a good movie, with a great cast (except one), undone by its lead actor...
useless, annoying, failed, desesperant, leave the room as you can. no story, no concept, no future. people were yelling at the end. most of them had already left. I wonder how the film director could have done not to bored himself. should be forbidden from the theaters. there's nothing to tell about this film. You just sit and watch the most terrible thing ever. I wonder how we could have the idea to dare show this in cinema nowadays. And lord knows that in France we have had our great pieces of failed art as well as sometimes it may be a bit talkative or useless. honestly, don't spend 10 euros to see that, there's nothing in that movie that can be used or think about or even be the subject of any conservation whatsoever.
David Cronenberg has a thing for the unconventional and if not coming
straight out of his imagination, he is certain to find it somewhere
else. But when it comes to atypical, not everything is bound to strike
you as the most interesting thing in the world.
"Cosmopolis" is in fact quite dull. I haven't read the book, but the story takes you through the life of an extremely rich man whose incessant search for something makes it a painful journey. The dialogues are extreme, where every single detail matters, making the conservation an unbearable boredom. I was almost sleeping through the scenes, waiting patiently for the end that would drag me out of the theater. I love movies about the meaning of life and it's numerous interpretations, but sometimes crossing the limits of your curiosity simply drowns you into an endless search without any results.
I found this movie incredibly boring, like a shot of tranquilizer in a hot summer day. That should give you a picture of how I felt during the screening. Not my favorite Cronenberg to date, who's always manage to catch my attention, one way or the other. I guess there's really a first time for everything.
There is always this big mistake made my some directors who think they
got it and stopped asking themselves questions. One of these questions
would be: How do I show (and make interesting) a nerd who acts like a
machine with no heart and no feelings, who is excited only by power,
sex, and money of course.
It's a dilemma: nobody's interested in the guy or his slaves, passing by, or his indifference to the world, his lack of empathy, his absence of sympathy, his emptiness and his void, in his cold and cynical thought supposed to dominate the world though mathematical formulas embedded in ultramodern computers.
So, even when he loses everything nobody cares. One nice thought for the actors who try to act with empty vampire eyes but do not succeed because there are no assets to deal, and speak "from the other room" as if they had some brain damage.
Not to mention their hearts, but you guessed it....
What a disappointment! I have no doubt: Cosmopolis is the worst film
directed by Cronenberg. Maybe, one of worst ever seen.
The script, wrote by Cronenberg, is a complete nonsense. However, he claims to make a sort of critical reflection on capitalism and global society, but it seems that the Canadian director wrote the script using a particular program that randomly selects words and puts them together.
There are no characters in this film. There are actors who play (in some cases read) a poor script.
Pattinson is expressionless, and not as it was Eastwood in Sergio Leone's dollar trilogy or Gosling in Drive, he is just inexpressive.
The problem is that even great actors like Juliette Binoche, Mathieu Amalric and Paul Giamatti seemed horrible.
The real guilty is Cronenberg.
Although David Cronenberg tried, he failed when he tried to make a film
adaptation of the eponymous novel.
I had huge expectations for this film mainly because the trailers made the film look interesting but I was completely disappointed after managing to watch it in its' entirely despite wanting to leave about halfway through.
I have no problem with dialogue-heavy films but this one was commonly filled with pretentious, and obvious phrases uttered by Pattinson while speaking in a clichéd tone with a clichéd expressionless face which has no character development to justify his lack of expression to a bunch of people he meets in his limo.
Oh, how frightening an expressionless billionaire who lacks emotion because...oh...wait...he's just being expressionless for sake of it with little to no character development. In reality, most people won't go along with believing a film character is evil because we're EXPECTED to believe he/she is evil without any character development.
It's also filled with lots of sensationalised violence for all those violence-loving fanatics who love it for whatever sickening reason(s).
What a shame. Try again, Mr. Cronenberg.
I like David Cronenberg and have seen all of his movies.
People started leaving about twenty minutes after the movie began, when it became clear that nothing was going to happen. The exodus only picked up steam as the movie went on. I was quite close to leaving myself when it ended. I have no idea how such a non-story could ever have existed as a book. I kept waiting for a twist that never came. The dialogue was stilted. Nothing happens.
I can't believe how bad this film is. It's incoherent. It's an absolute artistic failure.
Don't go see it.
|Page 17 of 18:||      |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|