|Page 18 of 18:||     |
|Index||176 reviews in total|
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.
I gave it a 4 but I don't even think it deserves that much. People were leaving the theater halfway through. What's it about: We follow Pattinson, a successful businessman, who's intelligence is a burden, in his limo going though New York wanting to take a haircut while there are protests around town. His company's losing money, his new wife hasn't slept with him yet and isn't planning to, he's having sex with prostitutes and someone wants to kill him but who. The dialogue is good, but each scene is weaker than the other as new characters are introduced. And all to show ho Pattinson has a rich life but he's depressed and in fact doesn't have it. Very slow and very depressing with no resolution, or with a resolution that is like the movie is... boring. I don't recommend it.
Is it possible that I am having the privilege of writing a first review
for IMDb? I can hardly believe it! Too bad the film I just saw this
evening does not deserve the fuss at all. Here it goes.
I think this is the movie which made me feel worst at least since I had the misfortune to see Dick Tracy back in 1991. The whole thing is plain nonsense. Nothing but cockeyed, unjustified violence and ugliness,with the nastiest jerks you could possibly think of populating the screen and trying to awe the audience with their commonplace gimmicks and stuffy talk. I hate to say, for I once had her acting in good esteem, but Ms Binoche is in 2012 like Norma Talmadge in 1930, that is to say, on her way down, down. AND WHAT ABOUT GOD'S PERFORMANCE??? You know who I mean, the Pattinson guy. For goodness sake! Who in the universe does he think he is? Come on! Couldn't you bite someone so at least we have a laugh? Never mind. I guess you have to be posh, dimwit and less than 21 to understand the guy's pull.
There's no merit in showing off you master the technique of filming almost a whole movie inside a car (much less given the fact it is a limousine), in a sink, wherever, if you have no story at all to tell. I'm afraid I've crossed out the people involved in this swindle for good.
|Page 18 of 18:||     |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|