Cosmopolis [Blu-ray]

Um... The intro seemed to be where the most money was spent. I mean reading the opening credits was way more fun than the rest of the movie.It's basically just cameras switching back and forth while these actors recite their lines as if they're reading them for the second or third time. The camera angles were more entertaining than the dialogue.Lots of sitting in a limo with obvious green screens, I guess they busted their budget with green screens and paying Robert Pattison ...to recite lines. I guess being a 1D character for the saga kinda ransacked his acting abilities.I'm not sure what the direction this movie was trying to go in but it's definitely stagnant and unstimulating.Do something else with your lives. Go outside instead. Take your kid fishing or eat your feelings at an ice cream shop. Don't do this movie.

...But not great. Fans of the DeLillo novel will enjoy it (or, at least, not actively dislike the film).Prophetic though it was, Don DeLillo’s 2003 novel—now a whip-smart film about meltdowns global and personal—gets one thing absolutely wrong. (So does the movie.) Consider some of cinema’s past greedmongers: Michael Douglas’s ravenous Gordon Gekko, his face strained with impure appetites, or Christian Bale in American Psycho, plenty active to burn off those extra calories. These beasts fit the rapacious moods of their day, extensions of the market.Cosmopolis, on the other hand, has too-cool Robert Pattinson as its 28-year-old billionaire about to fall (leap?) into the maw of economic collapse and OWS rage. Its hero should look a lot less collected, right? Shouldn’t his pulse be irregular, his exuberance more irrational? (One is reminded of an unflappable 007/Sean Connery, locked in a coffin, on a conveyor belt into a crematoriums firey maw - Diamonds Are Forever?) Anyway...During a daylong trip across a traffic-jammed Manhattan, hypervigilant Eric (Pattinson) is even visited by a prostate-probing doctor, who does the examination right there in the soundproofed limo—apparently, these checkups occur daily. (Were the housing market as lucky.) Pointing to a mole on his torso, Eric frowns. “Let it express itself,” says the doctor.Director David Cronenberg—who knows a thing or two about bodily functions/expressions and their physical manifestations—understands, finally, what to do with the as ageing tween star, turning his zombified handsomeness into a stark canvas upon which we can project our own anxieties. Undervalued as a subverter of A-list, H'wood stars, Cronenberg uses Pattinson’s own blankness as the visage of an unpersuasive godhead, surrounded by computer screens that don’t comfort him. Crawling through a city throbbing with unrest, Eric makes time for a dalliance or two—not with his wife, a brittle ice queen (Sarah Gadon), but with other women—and still, he doesn’t seem at ease. He communicates most with his tight-jawed security aide (Kevin Durand, fierce) who warns him of upcoming obstacles and vague messages from the “complex.” The pair could be miniaturized travelers in an updated Fantastic Voyage (or Innerspace), the dying body that of late capitalism.Where is Eric going? To get a haircut, we hear early on. Cosmopolis is close to experimental in its denatured, deceptively banal plot. (Cronenberg probably required his lead actor’s name just to get it made.) The movie grows, though, into something hypnotic and ominous. A parade of temporary companions makes its way through the backseat cabin: a nervous tech wizard (Jay Baruchel), an art-dealing sex partner (Juliette Binoche), a vice president of “theory” (Samantha Morton) and a pie-throwing terrorist (Mathieu Amalric). All of them raise alarms in their own way, pointing to Eric’s doom—his inability to understand his own potency, his blithe willingness to buy an entire chapel of Rothko oils just to keep them in his apartment.DeLillo’s novel isn't among his best - but, hey, it's DeLillo...(A high bar, indeed.) Cronenberg, who adapted the script himself (as he did with other "unfilmable" novels, Crash and Naked Lunch - J.G Ballard and William S. Burroughs, respectively), flatters the material into a sensual, propulsive thriller, the apocalypse as viewed from lush interiors and a hermetic remove. It’s more than spooky.Ultimately, Cosmopolis is a theory movie, one that’s made unusually accessible by filmmaking chops, rear-entry sex and rat-a-tat-tat stacato dialogue - a Delillo technique that Cronenberg nailed. It could have used more humor: When a hulking rap promoter shows up to mourn a dead celebrity—the saintly Brother Fez (K’naan)—Eric’s sympathies provide a rare moment of levity. (Howard Shore’s sinuous score, including the K’naan number “Mecca,” is tops.) It all comes down to a disgruntled 99 percenter with a gun—again, way too obvious—but until then, the cruise is slick as an oil spill.The bluray has a great feature -length (about 90 minutes) documentary that is highly recommended. I think it's called The Citizens of Cosmopolis. Cast, crew, director all participate. A very good doc - it qualifies as a "stand alone" film. Of course Don DeLillo wasn't on board. Oh, well - maybe next time. One can wish, after all he wrote/presented and "starred" (he might have even directed) in a fantastic BBC feature around the publication of Mao 2. It's on YouTube - a must see for Delillo's readers. But I digress...

David Cronenberg has probably the most radical and creative filmography of any living director. This is a unique, poetic and challenging film with great actors, brilliant dialogue and multiple perspectives. Much of what makes it great and defiantly a work of art are the very things that will antagonize many viewers. So what else is new? This is how it always has been. I'm just thankful that we have a David Cronenberg to push the envelope and help us remember what the term visionary really means. I found "Cosmopolis" fascinating throughout, leading up to a classic scene between Robert Pattinson and Paul Giamatti that, on its own, has the power of a brilliant one act play. There's no other movie like "Cosmopolis" and I'm thankful it was made.

I didn't care for this film. I forced my way through it for two days, in hopes there would be a tear in the fabric, a revelation. All the way to the end, begging for it to be over so I can remove it from my memory. Instead of thinking, maybe, just maybe if I finished the film it would be worth it.In the trivia section it states the director simply separated dialogue from the narrative and that took 6 days, well yeah and that's why this film fails miserably. None of the scenes have context or perception. As if taking the script of each individual scene, then cutting it to ribbons and then reciting it in the order that it's pulled out of a hat. "I know this", "There are books about holes", "I saw your toilet"...I enjoy most of Croneberg's films, I googled him in search and this movie came up in the results. It bordered on a similarity with Videodrome but that border was thin and never crossed. I simple could not wait for this film to end.

Not what I expected.When this movie appeared on Prime, I added it to my watchlist after watching the trailer.I kept scrolling over the thumbnail and debating whether I wanted to watch this movie or the one next to it.I finally watched it and while it took me a while to get into it (about 20 minutes), I stuck with it and ended up liking it.First thought, Robert Pattinson looks GOOD.Second thought, his acting in this movie is awesome.

I can truly believe Cronenberg wrote this script in 6 days. I suppose I'm just not sophisticated/intelligent enough to think the 50 minutes of watching and then random 10 second skips to the end was anything more stimulating than watching paint dry.I usually like Cronenberg's films (quirky as they are). For this one, I strongly recommend reading the one-star reviews, then read the trivia, and then watch 20 minutes (if you can get that far). It only gets worse.You have been warned!

This faithful adaptation of Don De Lillo's Cosmopolis is not going to be everyone's cup of tea - for most, it's clearly poison. I mean, who needs an intellectual film about the self destructive nature of modern greed instead of CGI spaceships, monsters and superheroes? All of those weird and boring dialogues between the heart throb and the men and women he confronts on the way cross town to get a haircut? (Perhaps the funniest pun - 'getting a haircut' means losing money and accepting loss in banker's terms). The mix of sex and self destruction is too much for the average viewer, both boring and perverse - which is exactly perfect De Lillo territory.This is an even less commercial film than eXistence - which it resembles slightly, so much French and Canadian money pumped in and not a drop of Hollywood. Our hero, Eric Packer, heads out into the near future rich, handsome, married and protected and ends up penniless, shot, humiliated and well... dead. It is cruel, funny, deadpan, ironic and a tad obvious. I mean, the rats - everywhere you see and hear about. OK Don, that's enough David - we get it.But the trip, while heavy going at times, is more than worthwhile. The leads are very good, especially the swivel eyed Paul Giametti and Eric's crazed assassin to be.The script is literate though very difficult, and it is as enigmatic as the novel at times. Not perfect, then, but a hell of a lot lore intriguing than the average multi-plex. A for effort, B+ for execution.Warning: you might hate it. I did not.

I watch a lot of film. And I mean a LOT. And without a doubt in the last 10 years this is the one film that I had high expectations of, being by David Cronenberg, that was a total disappointment. The film itself is very, very pretentious and very, very irritating and for the entirety of the film leaves you waiting for it to start and for something to happen. It is a bad film. Ok this is just my opinion, but in the opinion of a person who watches film as art this is both a bad film and bad art. Watch something else.

It's a dvd, which you can play, then you gets lots of blah, blah, blah (you may fall asleep), blah, then it's the end of the dvd.Now what is really cool, is that if you want, you may watch it again.Also really cool is that you can have multilingual sub-titles, which helps to learn a new language.Also cool is that it is a small silver coloured disk which has a film on it.

Not for everyone. If you enjoy Cronenber's first experimental films - Stereo - Crimes of the Future - etc - then you will find much to interest you in this higher budget return to his roots. However if the movies from Shivers onward - and particularly the later more commercial Cronenberg - with the exception of the Freud/Jung movie (!) are your sort of thing - keep well away from Cosmopolis. It's a curious and very uncommercial version of a complex novel which takes no hostages. I didn't really enjoy it - but I couldn't help admiring the directors's panache as well as his bravery in just "doing his thing' and showing he hasn't sold out to the Hollywood-style film making. That said its most favourable audience will be a small and very specialised one - so don't buy this beautifully transferred blu ray unless you know what your going to get...... It sure aint an easily view.... David Cronenberg is one of the most original and idiosyncratic 20th century directors. From the first he has pushed the boundaries of film-making and produced original and striking works - but works which at the same time are often uncomfortable, generally provocative, and always challenging. Cosmopolis is definitely one of these...

Quite boring and slow, the dialogue is awkward, the acting is stiff and the atmosphere is non-existent. I think it’s a book adaptation which would make sense; the book is probably pretty good given the plot of this is actually fairly interesting, so read that instead. if you want to watch a film set entirely in a car go watch Locke - now that’s a film.