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 5 of 19: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [Next]
Index 183 reviews in total 

9 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

A Jungian Dream

Author: Mychaelus from United States
22 September 2012

Reviews thus far have not mentioned Carl Jung, the psychoanalyst, or how Cosmopolis can be interpreted as a dream using Jungian symbology. Cronenberg's previous movie was about Freud and Jung, so it is no artificial stretch to assume that he would apply Jung to a story, or that De Lillo had also done the same.

In Jungian dream analysis, the limousine can be taken as a metaphor of one's self, one's course in life. Each visitor to the limousine ought to be considered an aspect of the occupant's personality, each separate and distinct. There is the intellectual who has been hired to "do theory,"the young one who has been hired to find patterns, the nervous security expert who has tested for system vulnerabilities, the visiting prostitute (profane) who is asked to help obtain "the chapel" (sacred). Each character represents an aspect of a single self. Throughout the journey to get a "haircut," (which is a Wall Street term for taking a loss), the outside security chief relays messages from "The Complex," which might be interpreted as the unified self.

I think this is clearly what Cronenberg intended. The fuller meaning of the movie resides in how the dream reflects the actual world, how it fits with the shared reality in which we all participate. How does this simple journey to get across the city reflect the pleasures and perils of existence? Can we really know the world, or can we only know ourselves? How is the main character a representation of the whole world, which has a kind of self, too? Does the ending of the movie reflect an outcome that is metaphorically plausible as an integration of macroeconomic, political, human forces shaping history?

Cosmopolis is an intellectual work, carefully crafted, and not at all pretentious, as some have said.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

5.4 ? Only in the bizarro world don't waste your time

Author: kidjay83 from United States
30 October 2012

I was put on to this movie after seeing and interview with the beautiful Sarah gadon.After hearing a lot about it i figured what the hell i had nothing else to do .Immediatly the feeling i got when watching this.Went from bad to just pit of my stomach horrible.Atrocious is usually a term used when describing a horrible wreck of some kind.Here it's just as befitting a term the same with the word wreck.

*Robert pattison's performance and acting were hands down thee worst acting i've ever seen in my life.He should seriously quit after he's done doing those silly twilight films.It truly does pay off to be a good looking face in Hollywood.Im considering getting some plastic surgery myself so i can look just as good as him.Maybe that will end all my poverty as and actor and i can be another rich talentless hack.

*Dialogue : hands down the dialogue was horrible it was like the writer didn't exert the slightest effort .Which left me scratching my head like what is the point of even making a movie like this .Just about all the actors ,acted as if they were trying to remember facts from a text book .It was unbelievable ,dry and filled with rhetoric that i don't think the writer himself as well as the cast .Could or ever would be able to understand in two life times. I don't know why sarah gadon agreed to do this film .It seems like no one even bothered to read to script.The excuse of croneberg directing was enough for these people? pathetic.Which is sad ,i'm and aspiring actor if i was offered a part in this movie.After i read the script i would of taken it into the bathroom.Made my business and wiped my ass with every page before handing it back.With a NO WAY IN HELL attached. I've seen college short films that blow this one out of the water .Please if you want to destroy brain cells in a more creative way.Drink the butane out of a lighter.Or drop some acid tablets at least you'll have a more fulfilling experience. AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS PLEASE. Its not worth it there are kids starving in this world.Who could use that $10 David cronenberg doesn't deserve it .Even donating it to robert pattison so he can enroll in legit acting course.Would be a better way of spending your hard earned cash.

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

What a Crock!!!

Author: loopylynn36 from United Kingdom
25 October 2012

Omg... So they use a newly accomplished teenage icon, to star in the most god awful film ever made!!! I am amazed the actors did not fall asleep making this movie... I am so relieved I did not pay to watch this in a cinema, I would most definitely have walked out after the first 30 minutes...

The only reason any one in there right mind would watch this film, is because of the lead actor... But what a disappointment. Are they seriously trying to kill his career before it has taken off...

One Major Hit Movie Saga, and Then this!!! Oh dear, the film industry must really be struggling, or there are some really bad screen writers out there!!

Was the above review useful to you?

16 out of 30 people found the following review useful:


Author: Saad Khan from Pakistan
26 September 2012

Cosmopolis – TRASH IT (C-) In recent times David Cronenberg has to come out of his so-called-art vision and present something more easy and understandable like A History of Violence. In his previous attempts, he tried to present the story in such tedious way that just like his characters you're also lost in translation. Eastern Promises, A Dangerous Method & now Cosmopolis are victim of his tedious presentation. Among these, "A Dangerous Method" works in parts only as under all that so-called-artistic presentation there was a harsh love story, infidelity and rivalry between three legends of sexual psychologist. Sadly this isn't the case in Cosmopolis, I'm personally fed up of watching movies about young rich people finding purpose of their lives. A loner billionaire goes across the town in his limo for a haircut in the mist of chaos on the streets as he intentionally sabotage his billion dollar empire maybe seemed like interesting in Don Delillo's book but on screen it's the most tedious & time wasting experience. David Cronenberg failed to make some sense of the whole concept as he made something not understandable by common minded people or even intellectuals. The movie which was hyped and promoted as Robert Pattison's most wild sex scenes has nothing except Rob lying and women riding him. Though I have to agree that prostate examination of Rob was appalling at first but the most sensual scene in the end. Rob's expression and vain on his forehead is simply priceless. Robert Pattison's performance is good but when the character just doesn't make sense it's just hard to appreciate. Shooting bullet through his hand has to be his most interesting scene in Cosmopolis. Sarah Gadon is sensual. Samantha Morton, Paul Giamatti & Kevin Durand are good. In the end if you see someone appreciating this movie on the name of art is just trying to come off as more smarter than you because let's be honest Cosmopolis don't make any sense at all.

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 38 people found the following review useful:

I am not Masochist, but I Saw This Awful Movie until the Very End

Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
15 November 2012

I am not masochist, but I saw "Cosmopolis" until the very end only because it is directed by David Cronenberg, who is among my favorite directors. What a deception I have had!

I usually begin my reviews in IMDb with a plot summary, but what can I say about this pretentious story? A billionaire crosses Manhattan in his limousine, in a day of protest against the president of his country, because he wants a haircut on the other side of the town in a dangerous neighborhood. Meanwhile he meets strange characters in weird situations that come and go, without any development of the characters, their motives or their relationships. To complete the mess, the wealthy guy apparently snaps. The lead character is performed by the weird Robert Pattinson with his face that recalls a character from "The Munster", a TV series from 1964 to 1966.

The most funny is to glance at reviews that have found some sort of intelligence in this film, as if it were a harsh criticism to the Capitalism: the Emperor has no clothes. My vote is one (awful).

Title (Brazil): "Cosmópolis"

Was the above review useful to you?

30 out of 58 people found the following review useful:

Not worth watching

Author: Dejan M from Slovenia
16 August 2012

I think this is one of the worst films that I watched. At least worst that I finished watching (just because I wasn't alone). On the end we all agreed that if someone would go out after 20 minutes we would all go.

There's no story... After 30 minutes I was asking myself if there is no story is there any hidden meaning in the dialog. I figured out that even if it is that I don't get it.

I hate that the movie is 90% shoot in one place. There are some scenes that come as a surprise. But you soon get the feeling that you're back in the same scene as before.

I really don't see the point of the movie.

I don't recommend the movie to anyone!

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Empty talk

Author: TheMarwood from United States
12 July 2014

I'm pretty sure Cronenberg's screenplay looks like he drunkenly slammed his fists on the keyboard, producing dialogue that looks like a jumble of letters.

Gibberish. 109 minutes of gibberish. Patterson tries here, so help the boy, he tries, but every line out of his mouth is unconvincing buzzwords and mumbo jumbo. It's a suffocating film, stuck inside the confines of a limo with a schmuck who picks up a cast of characters that blather on with this gobbledygook. DeLillo isn't the easiest author to adapt onto the screen and Cronenberg doesn't get this material to engage on any level. It's a test of will to sit through Cosmopolis - a stillborn bore that's damn near unwatchable.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

How sweet the down votes here are!

Author: thewakinghour from Japan
4 May 2014

I can't recall a film that so tweaked people. who may be nice enough most of the time but are utter drips and drabs when their emotions and presumptions (and EVERY thought in the craniums of the one-star reviews and the deliciously negative "comments" section is one presumed) are so nakedly un-catered to, off.

There are others who grok what I'm saying. Help put a pack of metaphorical matches in between the toes of these eyes-open-but-asleep bores and light it so that they may "bicycle" to the sky of a novel thought and an experienced emotion.

As artificial, unrealistic and absurd as the novel it closely follows - I liked this very much.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

near complete state of alienation

Author: christopher-underwood from Greenwich - London
15 March 2014

I have not read the Don DeLillo book this is based upon but this is undoubtedly an intelligent film based upon an intelligent book. This does not mean that the film will be and easy ride. It is not, partly because there are so many thought provoking notions to deal with and partly because Cronenberg is not interested in making things easy for us. The director is an old fashioned gent. He believes the more you put in the more you get out. It is in a way a mirror of the film itself in that we are confronted with a, possibly, not too far distant time when the very, very rich become so by playing with figures, barely understanding what they are doing as the currencies or commodities appreciate and then tumble. To achieve so much with so little physical or actual input can take away the very ability to feel at all. The narrative is briefly interrupted a few times with sudden bursts of sexual activity, soulless, physical bursts that accentuates the extent of the near complete state of alienation. Difficult, powerful and as others have indicated likely to be more rewarding on subsequent viewings.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:


Author: levynthevariant
21 December 2013

The script for this reminds me of the great abstract playwrights, which I must compare to such plays as Beckett's Waiting for Godot. It may seem like inane dialogue, but everything connects when you view it for more than face value.

VERY interesting concept.

Sidenote: it was almost uncomfortable watching some of the sexual scenes in this, but I think it made it all the more intriguing. While many Twilight fans likely watched this and had NO idea what Pattinson was thinking by doing it, from an actor's perspective, I can see why he would be drawn to this script. It is both difficult and confounding.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 5 of 19: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [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