Cosmópolis

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

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.

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

Eric Packer, a 28-year-old billionaire asset manager, crosses the city of NY in his limo to get a haircut.

All great artists, in this case, directors, have a bad work, and for me, this film is a splinter impossible to remove in Cronenberg's career.

There's no story here to follow, the dialogues are empty and sometimes pretentious, without substance that can be extracted from them, leaving the message of political and economic criticism completely distorted.

The characters have no soul, I simply couldn't connect and create empathy with them.

The photography made me scratch my head and thinking "why you did this?", I didn't see any credible reasons for using so many close-ups shots, or the sly CGI in the limo scenes.

Even Robert Patinson cannot save a scene from this film.

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.