Cosmopolis

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.

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.

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!

Do you want more? Why? Cronenberg in my opinion made a full read of our times showing the most respect for DeLillo work. Two genius supported by a secure representation of the actors who were most certainly instructed to bring some charisma of their own (Pattinson and Giamatti). The objects used in the movie give us a real sense of possession and every one of them are there for a reason (limo,gun,etc). The man and what he creates is a well known issue. But What can we do when at the end of the day all we want is just some...more? Why? With the chewing gum trash movies that come out every day we just need to be thankful for a real statement movie like this. Tank you.

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.

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.

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.

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'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.

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.