4 of 4 people found the following review helpful
on 11 November 2014
Manhattan billionaires quest to get a haircut from his father's old barber complicated by the presidential motorcade, a gang of violent anarchists, and a funeral procession for a famous hip-hop star.
But the wealthy 28-year-old's vast fortune rests on the value of the yuan, which he continually monitors from the comfort of his stretch limo......
If you can get one positive from this movie, it's the fact that Pattinson can actually carry a film and won't be remembered as that guy from Twilight. He could have so easily chosen the Hollywood blockbuster path, but he chose the more risqué path, and to work with Cronenberg would be an actors dream.
Its a shame then that their first collaboration is this piece of pretentious tosh. Its hilarious when you read others comments on how intellectual the film is, and how one mustn't appreciate cinema if one doesn't get it.
Having read the original source, one realises that the story should be read, not viewed, this is why the film is incoherent, it's as if Pattinson is moving from one bizarre scene to the next, and if you haven't read the source, instead of seeing this again, read it how it was meant to be read.
Great performance from Pattinson, very poor film.
Watch Maps To The Stars instead....
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful
Rarely I write one-star reviews, but "Cosmopolis" pushed my limits where I did not want them to be pushed. What a bore. And who would have thought the story of a young billionaire's (played by Robert Pattinson) life disintegrating just before your eyes while he rides around New York City in his limo could be so uninspiring. Short but enjoyable appearances by Samantha Morton, Paul Giamatti and Juliette Binoche could not save the film. There is a lot of deep and enigmatic dialogue, and yet I could not really grasp what anybody really tried to communicate?
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
on 3 May 2014
What can I say? When the cinema started emptying out within half an hour into the....er, movies, I thought 'give it a minute, people are making very hasty decisions.
I held on for as long as I could until reality hit me squarely in the face,
This film was THE PITS!!!!
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
on 26 January 2015
Hmmm, Cosmopolis... watched it tonight, rented it on DVD, had been on the list for some time... Well I don't mind things a little arty, alternative and weird sometimes, I'm a big David Lynch fan, but this one just was just all style and no substance, and ultimately that was its undoing. Almost incomprehensible dialogue (and very quiet, thank goodness for subtitles), I came to the conclusion that what was being said and acted out were stream of consciousness-like thoughts, all the stuff that normally goes unspoken and we get glimpses of reading between the lines but can never really be 100% certain about. Either that or that perhaps all the people in it were different aspects of the main character's mind / personality... This intrigued me a little at first, but the the slow pacing and lack of any substance started sending me off to sleep, try as I might to stay awake! It definitely had a kind of smug 'pleased its being so clever with itself' vibe going on, but the viewer wasn't deemed worthy enough to be allowed in on the amusement. Anyway... apparently the book is much better and nothing at all like the film, so maybe some day I might give it a read.
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful
A film that leaves you feeling, "WTF?" This avant-garde work oozes with symbolism and metaphors. The first one you should pick up on is the rat. The rat symbolizes a universal currency when society is at its lowest point. Toward the end of the film, Eric's barber comments "You're hair is ratty." Investor Eric Packer (Robert Patterson) represents all rich people whose world must be destroyed to make way for the new. This is your basic Phoenix or Shiva philosophy. Eric is being driven through NYC as all kind of events are happening outside of his limo. Eric is shielded from these events as his financial world goes to ruin. The world outside passes by almost in a surreal fashion and at times he blocks it out altogether.
We have the destruction idea as Eric has bet against the Yuan, Chinese currency. The theory implies that China is the new empire built upon the ashes of our American empire. Don't bet against it.
The people who enter Eric's cab appeal to be bits and pieces of his psyche. This is brought out when one woman who prattles on about philosophy (some key metaphor points) and claims she is his "Chief of Theory." Sarah Gadon plays Eric's trophy wife, a woman he knows nothing about and hasn't slept with. Their whole relationship was odd and clearly symbolic of...God knows what. Eric builds his world on formula and balance when life has neither.
For people who like their films straight forward, forget it. Good luck with this one.
Parental Guide: F-bomb, sex, full frontal nudity (Patricia McKenzie). Perhaps the longest "finger wave" in film history.
on 14 August 2013
This is a dreadful, dreadful film. I have an English degree; I've studied Delillo. Although I can't always claim to understand everything, I enjoyed White Noise. I've tried some of his other books and haven't really enjoyed them as much, with the exception of The Body Artist. I can't help but think, though, that mr Delillo doesn't know what he is talking about. I didn't think much of the novel upon which this movie was based. I'd heard bad things about the adaptation, but I was bored one day and picked it up for a few quid. I can safely say that is one of the worst films I have seen since Flubber. In fact, Flubber might be a bit better. I'm no expert on cinema, but I do have a film studies a-level, so I know what a good film looks like.
The acting is terrible (even that Paul Giamatti couldn't save it), the dialogue is impenetrable and unnatural (if it's done intentionally, it doesn't work), the plotting is haphazard and barely non-existant (with some scenes given too much weight and others not enough), the lighting is bad, and the scenes are badly shot. If I was the author I would be embarrassed to put my name to it. It might explain why his name is nowhere to be seen on the cover. I'm sure that mr Delillo has something very clever to say that I don't understand, but whatever it was it is lost here. People come and go without motive or warning on cue like a bad stage play. The whole film reeks of amateurishness. It's almost camp in the disparity between its serious earnestness and its execution. If it's meant to be intentionally highly artificial it failed abysmally.
There is one point in the movie where the lead sleeps with a prostitute. Ambiguously he asks her how she can do it. She answers with something along the lines of being paid a lot of money. I think this says a lot about all involved in this film. There is another key scene where the lead meets with his wife after a theatre performance and asks her how the performance was. She intimates that she could tell when the curtain went up that it was going to be bad. Another comment on the film perhaps? The limitations of the limousine setting didn't work. Scenes seen through the windows of the vehicle look stagey and are obscured. You get no sense of what is going on outside and the vehicle doesn't look like it is in motion. The scenes outside of the vehicle are badly blocked. The sex scenes are gratuitous and cringewothy to watch. The prostate examination scene is ridiculous. I've had one; they take a matter of seconds. This was farcical in the movie. The scene with the rat throwing in the bar was like a college play gone wrong. The music made by the so-called rapper was appalling and was also embarrassing. The accents were diabolical. The guy pretending to be a barber clearly didn't know what he was doing. There is a reason why there are no real a-list stars in this movie.
The final scene with the disgruntled employee is probably the strongest part, but that isn't saying much. The whole mis en scene is weak in particular the clumsy framing, and, again, it is badly blocked. I'm sure a deep and meaningful dialogue was exchanged between the actors but it was so poorly delivered I couldn't make out a word they were saying. When Mr Giamatti wasn't mumbling his lines I was distracted by the ridiculous towel across his head. That Twilight guy sucked big time. I can't even be bothered to look up his name to criticise him. I got the sense that he barely understood his lines. The best thing about this film is the poster. I swear the people who praised this film so much were watching a different one to me. David Cronenberg should be ashamed. To think that Spider was a good film. I was captivated throughout just to see if it could get any worse and boy did it. It's so bad it's almost worth seeing for that reason, but, be warned, you won't get that time back.
14 of 17 people found the following review helpful
on 18 October 2012
There is plenty to admire in this film, but I couldn't really describe it as an enjoyable experience to watch. Unlike other reviewers I though Pattinson seemed out of his depth - he looks pretty expressionless and his dialogue can be hard to hear at times - but he does suit the sickly palor that seems to be the norm throughout. Other performers make a better fist of their roles, particularly Giamatti.
I guess this is a film where you should probably read the book first. I didn't, but had read other Don Delilo books, so I wasn't expecting the nonsense that is the script. All the major characters spend their time making pseudo-intellectual observations about life, money, love, and the markets, which I quickly tired of. In some cases the conversations seem to be more like two seperate soliloquys with occasional pauses for breath. Samantha Morton's deranged rantings about the past, present, and future of the markets was a particular low, although to be fair the film begins to improve after this and the second half could almost be described as enjoyable as you at least get some plot worth following.
There is some humour in places, and the film looks fantastic throughout - the limo at times could be the control deck of a spaceship, and there is a cold sense of isolation and even claustrophobia - so full marks to Cronenberg in that respect. Even the sex scenes are curiously repulsive, like the characters are enduring rather than enjoying themselves.
But in no way could I actually recommend that anyone give up more than 90 minutes of their evening to watch this, because while the events unfold before you it is hard to feel gripped by them. I expected much more, and I think you probably will too.
on 12 December 2012
Okay so we know David Cronenberg likes to make weird films. Add into the mix Rob Pattinson, the vampire that sparkles in sunlight and what do you get? On first seeing it, I was dazzled by the complexity of the dialogue but like the look. I came out of the cinema confused but intrigued.
Second time round. I enjoyed it much more, I was able to really pay attention to the complex dialogue. Well done Rob for nailing that part. I think it was Rob's cold, almost disinterested character that I liked. He was really believable as Eric Packer.
This film will not suit everyone, you must be prepared to see it more than once to get the best out of it and get past the whole Twilight thing. Give the guy an opportunity to prove he is more than a teen heartthrob. I personally think it was very brave of him to take on a role like this. Well Done. I understand his next few roles are equally far removed from Twilight.
Now after watching the dvd multiple times I am still unsure what it was really about but do not let that put you off watching. Critics seem to either love or hate it. I can understand why.
25 of 31 people found the following review helpful
The previous reviewer, and Amazon`s own rundown above, will eloquently tell you the plot of this latest film by Cronenburg - surely one of America`s two or three best contemporary directors now - so I will simply give a personal response to what is a unique and impressive piece of work.
The opening shot is perfect: the radiator grill of an implausibly long white stretch limo, its metal bars like bared teeth. We sense we are in for as bumpy a ride as the smoothness of a limo will allow.
I had never seen Robert Pattinson before (really!) so his central performance as financial whizz-kid billionaire Eric was a pleasant surprise, his American accent pretty much faultless, and his assumption of the role of a 28 year-old washed-out capitalist beautifully realised. Cronenburg is no fool, and Pattinson`s `vampiric` past must have weighed in the balance as much as his box office value. He doesn`t disappoint, with his pasty pallor and weary eyes, though his diction is occasionally as blurry as his jaded gaze. In fact, one or two of the actors could have done with articualting their words more clearly. This is no mere pedantry since the movie depends on its precise, word-heavy script, each word there for a reason, so each word must count. Oddly enough, two who do speak, as well as act, with a lucidity that is pitch-perfect, are the brilliant British actress Samantha Morton and French legend Juliette Binoche, who play two `visitors` to his luxurious stretch limo as it inches its ominous way through the troubled streets of a faintly dystopian New York, a car in which Eric is insulated by its cork-lined, bullet-proof walls and windows.
He`s on his way to get a hair-cut at his onetime regular barber`s, a journey which becomes, for Eric and for us, an odyssey fraught with the unpredictable, the challenging, and the very strange.
Sarah Gadon is superb as his unsmiling, chilly wife - their marriage appears to be unconsummated, a situation which drives(!) Eric into the embraces of a string of women. Gadon and Morton in particular cope with the highly stylised, almost Pinteresque dialogue with aplomb.
Paul Giamatti has a scene with Pattinson towards the end of the film in which he plays a bedraggled ex-employee of Eric`s who holds something of a grudge against the would-be wonderboy. It is a mark of Pattinson`s immersion in the role that he holds his own with the superb Giamatti, an actor virtually incapable of a less than fine performance.
It`s a film that is more like the old Cronenburg - of Crash, for example - than his recent efforts. I don`t think it is anywhere close to being the near-flawless movie that A History Of Violence (his masterpiece?) was, but it is without doubt worth two hours of your time. It`s a claustrophobic film, especially at the start, and the director uses the confined spaces of the limo, as well as cafes and bars, to memorable and compelling effect. On the rare occasions we do leave the womb of the limo, he generally keeps his actors in close-ups to emphasize and preserve the sense of confinement.
I emerged into the light glad to see it again and glad to breathe the air.
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
on 23 October 2014
Although I love all of Robert Pattinson's movies, unfortunately, I had to turn this one off. I couldn't understand what on earth was going on, let alone understand everything being said - couldn't hear it all as it all seemed a little mumbled. Very disappointed.