Cosmopolis

It’s not exactly an enjoyable watch, but Cosmopolis is definitely worth seeing. For its differentness at least. Also to see Pattinson (just how many horrified fans left the theater in disgust? :D) who gives the best performance of his career so far. I must admit that I found myself nodding off a bit during the first half, some of the theorizing dialogs were tiresome, but that soon stopped. Basically non-existent relationships (except for the wide and that grampa) rule out any sympathy for the characters. The music, combining Shore’s abilities with the electronic project Metric, is almost hypnotizing in places. This isn’t a satisfying picture and that’s on purpose. Maybe that’s why I rather liked it. I’ll certainly play it again, the more I think about it, the more interesting that proposed journey to the barber’s seems. (01/10/2012)

The day in the limousine passes in a way that makes you think about where society is actually heading. Eric is an example of how indifferent others are to us. Everyone is free to him, just like their own destiny. He has reached a stage where he doesn't really care about anything. Peeing in the limousine is as big of a problem for him as killing someone. Does he actually care about anything? What do we care about? Can we still talk together? And when we talk together, does it have any meaning? I think this is another excellent Cronenberg study that deserves attention, just try to endure it and contemplate about it. If the film doesn't say anything to you anyway, I'm sorry, that can also be its result. But does it really matter? It can affect everyone differently. (22/11/2013)

My feelings about this movie are very well illustrated by a monologue from one of the main characters in the movie, when she describes how she went to the theater to see a play that was poorly attended, and five minutes after the curtain was raised, she found out first-hand why it was poorly attended, and then she left during the break really annoyed. I felt the same way watching Cosmopolis, except I stayed until the end. (17/03/2019)

It is not enough to describe book dialogues and film them with the stereotypical method of “shot x counter-shot". There are a few eccentric moments and they feel more self-parodying, while the ending is explicitly verbal diarrhea. Although I basically like what the film says, it does not defend Cronenberg's form. Not even the desperately un-charismatic Pattinson, whose decadent boredom one can't even take seriously. (08/07/2012)

The film captures the nearly twenty-four-hour-long self-destructive descent of one man, one archetype, and one mental world. The desire to obtain and understand abstract pure power, passing through wealth itself, the desire to predict, control, and live in the future, enjoying a primitive sense of superiority and strength without sympathy for the surroundings due to one's position. All of this collapses upon realizing that the future cannot be controlled and that death awaits everyone indiscriminately. In the end, it did indeed catch up with Eric Packer not only for how he lived but mainly for how he thought. The film is an above-average faithful adaptation of its source material, which is both a positive and a negative. The disadvantage is for those who have not read the book - then the film will probably turn into a series of scenes that are only understood by chance, or rather, or not at all... I cannot overly criticize that the film did not capture all the thoughts of the printed source, as that is simply a limitation of almost all films based on any book. I had not seen R. Pattinson in any major role before this, so I can objectively say that he does not (particularly) detract from the quality of the film. (05/09/2012)