Cosmopolis

Cronenberg's Cosmopolis is an adaptation of Don DeLillo's novel. The Novel is accepted as unfilmable an as one of the few novels which composes a precise image of our zeitgeist. The movie is not just based on Cronenberg's clever written script that could be a marvellous play for theatres but also a well directed movie with a talented cast and gets the audience into the atmosphere of a Japanese surreal anime. Nonetheless the movie is a marketing mistake of its kind. The negative reviews that emphasis the main actor Robert Pattinson's ex-sanguine performance are not to understand, since he is exactly as vampire as his character Eric Packer, a 28 years old egoist with a lot of money. However the reason of the box-office flop can be understood. First reason is the difference of target groups: It is possible that neither real Cronenberg fans (because of the poster of Pattinson on the foreground) nor Pattinson fans (since it's not a teenage movie) had the intention to see the movie. Second reason is he wrong advertisement: The audience watches an action trailer but finds out it is a Japanese surreal anime. This masterpiece of art proves us that even sci-fi legend David Cronenberg can flop on box-office.

My main reason for watching 'Cosmopolis' was David Cronenberg, a very interesting and unique director, who may have originated the body horror genre but his films are much more than that. They do disturb and makes one feel uncomfortable, but his daring explorations of challenging themes intrigues me and there are films of his that do move me (especially 'The Fly' and 'Dead Ringers'). His films are always extremely well made and he always did get good or more performances out of talented casts/actors (i.e. Jeff Goldblum, Jeremy Irons, James Woods etc.)

'Cosmopolis' also had a good cast going for it. May not be a fan of Robert Pattinson, but have seen and liked/loved a lot of Paul Giamatti's and Juliette Binoche's work. Howard Shore is Cronenberg's most frequently used composer and have seldom been less than impressed with his work for Cronenberg, 'The Fly' being his greatest achievement, his work unsettles but also really stirs the emotions. The source material is an interesting one, a challenging and fascinating subject depicted accurately and almost frighteningly so, but extremely difficult to adapt. Almost unfilmable.

Really do appreciate Cronenberg's effort here, and he certainly did do his best, but 'Cosmopolis' struck me as an interesting semi-failure with a number of fine things but an equal amount of glaring problems. Do agree with those that have said that the book should have been left alone, the subject is one worth exploring and addressing but there should at some point be a more accessible way of doing it.

As said, 'Cosmopolis' does have good things. As always with Cronenberg, it does look great. The photography is stylish and a good job is done trying to make a mostly single and confined location interesting, and at least the location itself doesn't look cheap. While nowhere near a top-tier effort from him, Shore's score is suitably darkly metallic and emotional, one of his more accessible experimental score endeavours, and the same goes for the healthy dose contribution from the collaborating Metric.

The cast, or at least most of them, do a good job with what is given to them. The best performance coming from Paul Giamatti, who is a powerhouse in the last twenty minutes. Those last twenty minutes are the highlight of the film and the most involving it gets. Cronenberg does laudably in the adapting stakes and it is a faithful adaptation, one can see influences of his previous work too, such as 'ExistenZ' and 'Videodrome'.

In my mind, and for others too, it is somewhat too faithful and the whole thing felt too verbose, too cold, too bloated and lifeless. This is particularly apparent in the script, which was in serious need of a re-write and trim, it is far too rambling and wordy that one loses track of what is being said and feels the need to rewind and loses interest too early. It didn't always flow very well either and did not always find it easy to follow with its use of over-complicated language that is going to, and has gone, over the heads of some. The story plods badly (with the first 10 minutes alone wanting one to bail), only coming properly to life in the last twenty minutes, and feels emotionally empty and at times coherence is an issue. Did not find any of the characters interesting really either, one never really gets to know them.

With this emotional emptiness, 'Cosmopolis' is one of the few Cronenberg films that has left me completely cold or found it hardest to engage with. The drama felt very stagy and the interaction between the characters was rather static, no matter how much gratuitous elements are thrown in to try and spice things up. One cannot accuse 'Cosmopolis' of not trying, or so in my mind that is, if anything it tries too hard. It did feel to me like it tried to include too many ideas and themes and didn't do enough or anything with them, any of them really. Like it was trying to say a lot in its ideas but doesn't really say anything on an emotional level. Cronenberg's direction is technically sound and precise but it felt like his heart wasn't in it or that he was out of his depth with the material. Could tell here that Robert Pattinson had come on as an actor, but still found him bland and in parts expressionless.

On the whole, a bit of a strange one. Interesting conceptually but the way it was handled was underwhelming, for me this was lesser Cronenberg. 5/10

I'm convinced Cronenberg simply had a string of semi-conscious fever dreams and strung them together. I'm really unsure what was meant to be accomplished with this movie other than telling the audience: rich people are just like us- miserable people who are unsatisfied with their lives.

Let's say that for every 10 "Twilight" fans, at least one is guaranteed to give "Cosmopolis" a go for no other reason than Robert Pattinson. And among those "Twilight" fans dumb enough to mindlessly try the film out, at least 9 of 10 will despise what they see.

David Cronenberg rather faithfully (from what I understand) adapts Don DeLillo's socio- economic commentary rolled into a film about young billionaire Eric Packer, who goes on a long limo ride across New York City for a haircut. What he fails to recognize, however, is that he was completely wasting his time; "Cosmopolis" has no business being a movie.

Cronenberg's clean and tight approach to the film can't be denied its technical kudos, but everything he films is emotionally anemic. "Cosmopolis" has no story; its characters are talking heads and its scenes just a collection of political gospel and esoteric ideologies.

Not an ounce of this film goes into giving its characters souls, and the more you hunt in search for just a sliver of one, the less attention you pay to the themes so fundamental to the film's core. If you can focus long enough in any given scene, you'll pick up some thought- provoking nuggets, but our natural curiosity as an audience is to look for the story behind the highbrow dialogue. Doing so, however, distracts from paying attention to all that can be praised about this material.

Therein lies the reason Cronenberg should have left the novel alone. Ideas like the ones presented in "Cosmopolis" deserve time to simmer. If I had read the book, I certainly would have taken the time to re-read portions of it to process the commentary on capitalism rather than thinking at multiple times throughout the film "oh, there are rats, that's a symbol for what this film is trying to say about capitalism!"

With the exception of Packer's newly made wife (Sarah Gadon), the cast of supporting characters suffers a similar fate in spite of some big names in Juliette Binoche, Paul Giamatti and Jay Baruchel. By the time you can begin to so much as chew on the ideas raised in one of any of the several scenes in which Packer meets with a new character in his limo and talks about big-time stuff, that character is gone from the film completely. You never get a moment to catch up so that you can be in step with what's going on.

Providing further distraction from understanding anything that's said in this movie is how Cronenberg — as he always does — charges this film with sexual and violent tension. He's not adding any that's not already in the story, but he accentuates it. Consequently, moments in the film will yank you out of your perpetual state of philosophical processing and snap you back into the moment of the film, usually a violent outburst or a quick cut to a sex scene. That's part of what makes Cronenberg a revered director, but in this case it's what makes "Cosmopolis" such a tough watch.

For those hoping to see what Pattinson does as a top-billed star given weighty material, "Cosmopolis" proves to be an unfair judge. He seems comfortable with the bizarre style of dialogue, but the character and the story are so empty that the film can hardly be considered a fair judgment of his would-be dramatic prowess.

As with any work of art steeped in its ideas, the more you sit with it or re-experience it, the more you're likely to warm up to it, and I have no reason to believe that will not be true of "Cosmopolis." At the same time, a majority of viewers will likely not be equipped with the experience of processing this language as the film necessitates, and the first run-through (obviously the most important) suffers drastically as a result.

~Steven C

Thanks for reading! Visit moviemusereviews.com

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.