|Page 10 of 19:||              |
|Index||190 reviews in total|
Yes. Sure. Message of the movie: do not be rich, because you will lose your emotions. And in the end, life itself. Who seeks sold quasi pseudo metaphysical message and to whom? Before you go to the movies to look at this film, ask yourself: if I go there and strapping himself from mouth to contribute to the rich are more and more? Support the thesis that the rebellion and protest just pathetic attempts mindless and illiterate mobs to destroy the God-given order? That the world in which there is only love and compassion Archean (something that has long since lost its function and have gone into oblivion), which should once and for all wipe off the face of the earth? If you have answered YES, and you do not know what to do with yours 100 minutes, yes, go to the movies. Pale attempt to make a movie that has some depth, does not break the monotony nor sex nor nudity, even beautifully fabricated Venus crest Kendra (Patricia McKenzie), just after the scene in the 46th minute you can indulge in the benefits of sleep and dreams. Quasi artistic work, a more appropriate title: forget after viewing.
This film is shot in an interesting manner, albeit with limitations.
The theme is current, and is treated as some sort of parable. This is a
film full of symbols and its characters are mere projections, mere
pretexts to make the main character speak his mind.
My main problem with Cosmopolis are the dialogues which feel stilted and unnecessarily unnatural. They feel like the early stages of an acting exercise where actors have to make sure the dialogue goes back and forth like a tennis ball during a match, where their only worry is that there is no pause or gap, where the rhythm, given by an unnatural metronome is never broken. Now this exercise helps dialogues become tighter, more compact but it is only an exercise and the actors should (or should be allowed to) breathe life into what they are saying eventually. Yet here they seem to be saying things just for the sake of saying them. Granted the director probably wants those words to resonate in your minds and for us to colour them in, but after half an hour it already started to grate on me. I just couldn't help it. One character did manage to speak the dialogue convincingly in my opinion: the main bodyguard/driver, the text was clearly in the same style as everyone else and it I believed in what he said. Juliette Binoche was also more believable than the rest...but (again in my opinion) the rest was so poor it didn't take much. see for yourselves and share your thoughts on the matter.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
COSMOPOLIS is based on a Don DeLillo novel, and boy is that obvious. The plot, such as it is, concerns a twenty-something billionaire who decides to cross town in order...to get a haircut. Most of the film takes place in his limo as various 'guest stars' - Juliette Binoche, Paul Giamatti, Mathieu Amalric - pop up in order to have a boring, pseud-ish conversation and then disappear. There's a little violence and some sexuality but it's all pointless. Everything is, of course, supposed to be loaded with symbolism and meaning but comes across instead as pretentious and silly. Nobody could believe these are real people or genuine conversations and any 'insights' don't add up to much. Casting Robert Pattison as the lead was also a disastrous decision as he displays all the charisma of a fridge magnet. Read a book instead.
Wow, Cronenberg really dropped the ball on this one. I guess the source
novel appealed to his intellectuality, given that he adapted it for
this film's screenplay as well as directing, but this is the kind of
stuff that leaves me absolutely cold. I'll make no bones about it: I
hated COSMOPOLIS through and through.
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.
Seriously, you would have more fun poking your own eyes out with red
I get the poetic messages that Cronenberg is trying to focus on, but alas the execution leaves the audience with a sex maniac character who you honestly can't wait to see killed.
What appalls me the most about this movie is that it cost around 20.5 MILLION dollars. That left me screaming: "HOW???". I've seen many movies from the 70's and early 80's that did the same as this movie and cost a fraction of this amount. It's final earnings at the box office of not even 1 Million, show just how much of a waste of money this movie truly was. The actors must have been paid ridiculous amounts of money because that's the only area I could envisage all that money going to. Even the car which is the main stage for the whole movie wouldn't have cost more than 300K, so many people got rich off Cronenberg's name on this movie.
What's annoying me even further is that I purchased this one as I have enjoyed all of Cronenbergs movies. Compare this to: The Brood, The Fly, The Naked Lunch, Existenze or even 'Crash' and this movie will simply leave you wondering what happened to Cronenberg when he was making this festering turd of a film. Alas like many of my favourite movie makers I'll now be extremely careful before I purchase another new Cronenberg film.
Go watch any of Cronenberg's other fine films but what ever you do, leave this one in the bargain bin which is one step from where it truly belongs and that's of course the rubbish bin with batteries leaking acid on top.
Seriously pathetic film and all involved should be ashamed at the horrific cost for a film like this, which could have been done for about 10K max and just a rented limo. It would have been the same movie, had the same pace and not been a complete waste of frivolously spent money like this film was. Perhaps that was the ultimate show of ridiculously rich and shameless, the actual over the top cost of the film itself?
Parents all over the world dream those terrible words coming from the
back seat of the car during long distance road trips: "Are we there
yet?" Those four little words make every car journey just that little
Or at least they used to.
Since David Cronenberg teamed up with Robert Pattinson, a new word has been invented to describe long, tedious, depressing car journeys. And that word is 'Cosmopolis.' Pattinson hangs up his Twilight fangs to spend twenty-four hours in the back of a limousine where he's driven round New York. I didn't time the film, but it certainly felt like I'd been watching it for twenty-four hours (or possibly longer).
Believe it or not, I was looking forward to this film. I'm no fan of vampires who sparkle in sunlight (oh dear), but I do like Cronenberg's work. Or at least I did until I saw Cosmopolis. This is seriously one hell of a misfire. Long, dull, nothing that interesting happens and should be avoided at all costs.
I'm guessing about the only entertaining thing about Cosmopolis would be to invite loads of die hard Twilight fans to watch their immortal, love-sick idol in his latest role, only to laugh at them for being totally disappointed and shocked at how he never looks longingly at any sour-faced pale teenage waif; neither does he wrestle werewolves or run up trees.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
"With Robert in the lead not even the directing style that Cronenberg
gives to the film can make the film any bit interesting or worth the
watch in his whole filmography up to this date"
David Cronenberg is one of the most interesting directors working today because of how ambitious he is when he takes on a new project. Eric Packer (Robert Pattinson) is a young billionaire who rides in a limo slowly through Manhatton using the limo as an office allowing many people to talk to him in his limo with him. The point of Eric travelling in this limo is him going to get a hair cut but the film seems to be about this confused young person who talks a lot about assassinations and all the people rebelling around him.
David Cronenberg is interesting because his films are a mix of loved ones but also ones that people do not like. This film is an example of a film in his career that I found so hard to watch because the film moved almost as slow as the limo did around the town. The film is not about the images Cronenberg is known for because the film seems to focus mostly on the dialogue all these characters share. The character of Eric Packer was so insufferable to watch because of how much of a sad sack he was written as he seems to just have the same expression throughout the film. Based on the novel of the same name I could blame the book for some of pacing problems but Cronenberg's adaptation stays very slow and the build up it try's to have is just not a good pay off or not at all interesting in my mind.
Robert Pattinson plays Eric Packer and once again he shows that when he is given the chance to break away from Twlight movies I see that he has no talent to be called a good actor. He does not fit the universe of a Cronenberg film because he is not able to sell the dialogue in a way that is as believable as other actors who have worked with Cronenberg. Also another complaint about Pattinson's performance is how boring it comes off because he added no depth or interest to a character that when done by an actor with much more talent could come off as a great performance. The film having the limo as an office makes most of the actors that appear only come onto the screen for small amounts of time and the great thing was all these actors do so much better jobs when acting opposite Pattinson. Some of the better actors are Juliette Binoche, Samantha Morton, Paul Giamatti and Sarah Gadon who step all over Pattinson in their small scenes.
The film is not that long but still everything that happens in the film is boring. Not much happens and unlike other films with a simple story line present interesting visuals but this film contains none of those visuals that Cronenberg has done in the past. A weak effort by Cronenberg does not make me happy but it is one of his worst I have seen.
MOVIE GRADE: D- (MVP: Paul Giamatti)
I really tried to like this movie but it was not that interesting to
watch. I can see that Robert Pattinson has the potential to be a good
actor but his part in Cosmopolis did not do him well. He really needs
to get better parts in movies in order to shine through as a good
Hollywood actor and not only be seen as the guy from Twilight.
A lot of my friends said that they did not want to watch Cosmopolis because he was a part of the movie but I gave it a chance and was somewhat disappointed. I was incredibly bored and the highlights did not excite me at all. I think that if the movie would have been edited in a different, more action filled way it might have been a better success, instead there were just a lot of monotonic conversations which made me not want to listen to the subjects they were talking about. Cosmopolis could have been a lot more in my opinion.
Based on Don DeLillo's novel of the same name, the movie centers on a
28-year-old super billionaire named Eric who wants a haircut. He is
warned that many complications lay in wait but he insists on going
ahead. Along this staggeringly original odyssey, Eric hops in his
seemingly indestructible Andover the top futuristic limo and begins the
day long ride. Along the way he meets some extremely unique characters
including his economically obliged but very distant wife Elise, his
mistress, a doctor who gives him a prostate exam in the limo and his
financial adviser as well as a group of insane anarchists and his own
destined assassin, a psychotic man played expertly by Paul Giamatti.
This epic journey for an every day task becomes extremely complicated and at some points is very hard to follow. The plot is completely dialogue based and the dialogue is poetically complex and takes a little bit of thought to figure out just what they're talking about, defiantly a movie that you should watch with a dictionary or thesaurus nearby.
It really is an extremely original and very entertaining movie with several original characters. I enjoyed it but once it was done I didn't feel compelled to buy it. It lacked a certain gripping power but it was fun to watch through once and maybe I'll get it form the library again in the future.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
First, I thought that naming was an allusion with "Metropolis".
I found two characters, which are mostly negative. First, Financial. She is a personification of mechanical spirit. I think of her as evil robot from Metropolis. As evil robot does, she denies every human spirit at all, even in humans. All can be predicted, with enough knowledge about. With the same sense, machines are killing people in all sci-fi universes. I hate humanity, for my own reasons, but not as she.
Second, Bride. Bride is denying humanity completely, but in her own manner. She denies every part of human needs - food, drink. Bride denies Christ for same reasons, Bride denies every word of "eat me, drink me", so Bride is a personification of Satan. Bride tells Hero that she was like to hide. Bride is also metaphor for Revolutionaire, Bride wants Revolution that will change every human to _human_ from her imaginary world. Good part of Hero is he do not want to "change" someone. Only once Hero want to "change" mind of man, that is a Benno's case, unsuccessful. Bride is a personification of communism, epoch "before capitalism" according to film universe.
Destruction of "world" is passing through various stages, anarchist movement looks like march of destruction from Metropolis. But mechanical robot, Financial, is not leading destruction herself. Instead, Financial tells about duality of creation, supporting anarchism in perpetuating manner.
Hero cannot win Executioner (lets name killer like that), because he broke logic at first, making illogical decision. According to logic, if you step from truth, you cannot return back. Time holds very specific position in plot, because that is what distinguishes time - irreversibility. Hero names more little time periods, to associate with mathematical limit, but Financial doesn't respond, because mathematical limit lies in apparatus of mechanisticism. All differential equations of mechanisticism meaningless without limit and continuity of all fields and functions used in.
Asimmetry is a special case. This combines Hero and Financial - their belief in complete symmetry. At the end, Hero dies as dies capitalism, but not in our view, it means capitalism will die continually.
|Page 10 of 19:||              |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|