Cosmopolis

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)

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)

I don't count myself among the die-hard fans of David Cronenberg, and although I’ve been keeping an eye on hims since the days of Crash, but I've never been particularly fond of him. So what is Cosmopolis like? Ordinary. In the context of Cronenberg's work, not particularly alarming, not particularly revelatory. But his collaboration with Robert Pattinson apparently appealed to him, and so we got even more of it with Maps to the Stars... (29/10/2016)

In Time for intellectuals. A hard-to-digest criticism of capitalism, full of incomprehensible dialogue, most of which is not supposed to tell us anything meaningful and is there only to bring us to a film universe we have never seen before. After Crash, David Cronenberg tries to defend his position as a director able to film the unfilmable. Cosmopolis is a visually aesthetic trip with a disturbing atmosphere, playing with the audience’s expectations so that you don’t know what a character’s next words are going to be, nor what the next scene will bring (a great episode with a gun at a basketball court). Robert Pattinson, whose casting I originally shook my head at in disbelief, is the main asset of the film and turns in a flawless performance. Juliette Binoche, Mathieu Amalric and Paul Giamatti have fun in smaller roles and their performances are pleasantly refreshing. It is a pity that the film itself remains depersonalized at all levels in order to portray the depersonalization of cosmopolitan society, with the exception of Pattinson’s relationship with his wife. Together, the pair have the best scenes in the movie with the only relatable dialogue. Cosmopolis is a playful, if slightly insipid film that I enjoyed thanks to its otherness. And also thanks to the image of the look on the faces of all those teen Pattinson fans when they watch this :-D (10/07/2012)