Cosmopolis
Tags: entertaining, violence, boring, murder

Plot synopsis:
Twenty-eight-year-old billionaire currency speculator/asset manager Eric Packer rides slowly across Manhattan amid traffic jams, in his state-of-the-art luxury stretch limousine office, to his preferred barber. Various visitors discuss the meaning of life and inconsequential trivia. The traffic jams are caused by a visit of the President of the United States and the funeral of Eric's favorite musician, a rap artist whose music he plays in one of his two private elevators. Despite devastating currency speculation losses over the course of the day, Packer fantasizes about buying the Rothko Chapel.
He meets his wife, Elise, in her taxi, for coffee, in a bookstore, as well as outside a theater. She declines sex with him. Packer has sex with two other women. When after a day of poor trading he destroys a large part of his wealth, his wife takes this as a reason to dissolve their union.
Anti-capitalist activists demonstrate on the street. They wave rats and declare "A spectre is haunting the world: the spectre of capitalism". They spray-paint Packer's limo and later one subjects him to a pieing. Packer learns that an assassin is out to kill him, but seems curiously uninterested in who the person might be.
In his car, his doctor performs his daily medical checkup. Eric worries about the doctor's finding that he has an asymmetrical prostate. As the currency speculation wipes out most of his fortune, Eric's world begins to disintegrate. Eventually he kills his bodyguard. At the destination, the barber, who knew his father, cuts Eric's hair on one side. The barber and limo driver discuss their respective careers driving cabs. The barber gives Eric his gun because he had thrown away the bodyguard's gun.
Eric follows a path of further self-destruction, visiting his potential murderer, former employee Richard Sheets a.k.a. Benno Levin. Eric seems ready to commit suicide, but instead deliberately shoots himself in the hand. Sheets/Levin, who feels adrift in the capitalist system, explains that Eric's mistake in speculating was looking for perfect symmetry and patterns in the currency market: he should have looked for the lopsided—his body with its asymmetrical prostate was telling him this. The film ends with the potential murderer holding a gun to Eric's head threatening to kill him, but does not show a final shot. As Sheets points the gun to Eric's head, Eric seems to have overcome the fear of death and waiting for it.

Review: I recently saw this movie and loved it, I came onto to IMDb and was surprised to see it had some very unflattering reviews, I think that's because some people just didn't get it.Yes the dialogue is contrived and strange, until you realise why.The whole movie sounds like a poem because it is, the characters are inside out, instead of hearing their boasts we hear their thoughts and if you don't get that point, I can see how you would think this is a bad movie.However when when you see the genius behind this creative device it all starts to make sense, thats why I'm giving this a decent score.All in all the movie itself could be any other like it, the underlying theme rather wreaks of 'Collateral' but the turning of the whole movie into a poem and the way the characters introversions are extroverted, genius.I liked it for that alone, it was a refreshing break from the staleness of forumlaic sensory diversion.I didn't know it was a Cronenberg until I saw the credits at the end but when I saw that name, it made sense, he always had a thing for the weird and twisting the boundaries of perception.In this he truly succeeded, even if the storyline itself doesn't stand up to scrutiny, the creativity of the concept has to be admired..
When the last goal you want to pursue is, like a real Icarus, to fly so close to the sun that you can't but let melt the wax of your wings and fall, very deep?This is, IMO, the essence of the story in Cosmopolis, with that difference that the protagonist in DeLillo's novel caused his downfall intentionally, while the financial disaster we live in the last few years was caused by the megalomania of the 1%.When I first read the novel, I felt confused and a bit dumb too.
I've read the book 2 times more, just to enjoy the countless, thoughtful quotes and one liners, weaved into stylistic dialogues as only DeLillo can pull off.So, why have I written about the novel in a review about the film adaptation of this novel?
As a real master he has chosen to stay true to the dialogues, taking the risk that people, just like me when I first read the book, couldn't get the meanings of them.
Not that I don't feel sorry some scenes didn't make it on screen (the famous street scene at the end) and for me the reality outside, in the streets of New-York, could've gotten more attention, but I can see his POV and I can live with it.In this daring exploit Cronenberg made sure of the presence of an excellent cast, with remarkable performances of the supporting actors/actresses for the short time they appeared in the movie.
Especially when Eric (as his world) starts falling apart, Rob showed how able he is to bring out the psychotic, insane aspects of human being.This is a movie that makes you think, that can give you an uncomfortable feeling and mirrors what's going on in some levels of our society.
For those who didn't understand and by that didn't like the movie: even Cronenberg and Pattinson didn't understand the story quite well, but they went for it and created a masterpiece.
As these elements are revealed, and the story unfolds as it does, I was left with a very interesting and satisfying experience.I wonder if many of the folks giving this a poor review, saying it's boring or confusing, are simply unprepared for what they're renting, and they blame the movie for not meeting expectations.
It doesn't sound in any way natural and Robert Pattinson seems to be doing his best Christopher Walken impression, but it just doesn't work.I don't usually write a review of films, but sometimes, people just need a warning..
How funny it is people related to his Complex company just happen to see his limo and jump in for a long convo.Robert Pattinson is a captivating actor to watch, and the camera is transfixed to his face even when it's cream-pied later on thanks to an anarchist protester or "pastry assassin" played by Mathieu Amalric (Quantum of Solace, Diving Bell and the Butterfly).
Samantha Morton as Eric's "Chief of Theory" talks about stuff you won't understand on first watch, and is emblematic of how the film's dialog gives more than you can handle, which is why I can see Cosmopolis being ripe for rewatchability.
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.
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 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 CThanks for reading!
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..
The negative reviews that emphasis the main actor Robert Pattinson's ex-sanguine performance are not to understand, since he is exactly as vampire as his character Eric Packer, a 28 years old egoist with a lot of money.
Its very stylised and some of the initial scenes dialogue seemed contrived and awkward but after the film hits its stride we were locked to the screen.It looks like Mr Cronenberg makes films organically (watched the extras on the blu-ray afterwards) and doesn't believe in rehearsals, which explains why the first scene seemed stilted maybe.
Upon finishing this urban road movie starring Robert Pattinson as a genius multi-billionaire; I ran a Google search for its director, hoping to uncover a precious list of must-watch titles.
A lesser Director could have gone all CGI and Sci-Fi mega-movie trying to make it more action or grandiose yet the quietness and long-shot dialogue only scenes laid bare the actors to perform as if watching it on a stage in a small theatre.This story is an allegory of the disillusion of capitalism, set in a dystopian future New York - or even a parallel one.
4. Just because you don't understand a movie on the first viewing does not mean it is a bad film, I have watched this twice and it only got better, and i understood more the second time.
This time, he hits an all-time low in COSMOPOLIS -- a lifeless and painfully boring motion picture that even a die-hard art-house fans might find this a monumental waste of time.Based on Don DeLillo's novel of the same name, the movie centers on a 28-year-old billionaire named Eric Packer (Robert Pattinson) who wants a haircut from his father's old barber.
As the world is slowly collapsing around him, Packer eventually finds himself face to face with his own destined assassin, Benno Levin (Paul Giamatti).Judging from the source material and especially the trailer that promotes the movie, it looks as if die-hard fans are in a treat for the good old David Cronenberg's bizarre trademark.
The pace is so awfully slow to a standstill, that its 109-minute running time seems like forever.No doubt David Cronenberg's typically cold direction doesn't fit well for this kind of talky movie.
Even with the presence of some highly-reliable actors like Juliette Binoche, Samantha Morton and Paul Giamatti, their performances are as uninteresting as they goes.Visually, Cronenberg does insert a few moments of violence and strong sexual contents, but they are all gratuitous and feels patchy altogether.Ultimately, I understand that Cronenberg tries to make a lot of statements here but unfortunately, the message doesn't get across.
Cronenberg shows the deeper inner underlying dialog which is in this case explicitly outspoken.Once I started to see the film as an inverse of a movie - every detail played out with the intention to project an idea, feeling or thought, implicit - This movie however makes the intent explicit and takes away the usual and cliché implicities.A guy sitting in a limo with heavy protection, looking out for danger - assessing the moment "it might hit".
The film falls in the category into which we would put David Lynch's most surreal work, one for cinema that defies description as simply good or bad, and instead invites you to an experience, one whose quality only YOU can decide.Adapted from the Don Delillo book, which was already pointedly distant, David Cronenberg's latest offering has drawn a fair deal of negative criticism for retaining the detached approach of the novel, and for being, it would seem, deliberately cold and apparently uninterested in its audience.
Indeed for a film set for the most part in a silent (really, completely silent!) limousine, it is one you can delve into surprisingly deeply, and find level after level of meaty ideas to chew on.Truth of the matter is this movie was never going to receive huge commercial success, it is simply too divisive for obvious reasons: - A tough, obtuse novel that reads like a discombobulating dream - A director who adapts it almost directly, creating arguably his most experimental film, and if anything emphasising all the more the metaphoric devices of the story.Casting a teen heartthrob from one of the biggest cinema series of all time in the lead, making it immediately eligible for the mainstream audience, a brave choice on both parts.
Not-Good-At-All. Cosmopolis – TRASH IT (C-) In recent times David Cronenberg has to come out of his so-called-art vision and present something more easy and understandable like A History of Violence.
Sadly this isn't the case in Cosmopolis, I'm personally fed up of watching movies about young rich people finding purpose of their lives.
This film is a brilliant combination of source material (DeLillo's dialogue), sly direction (Cronenberg's opening shot makes a stretch limo look like a great white shark), and a flawless cast.
I was put on to this movie after seeing and interview with the beautiful Sarah gadon.After hearing a lot about it i figured what the hell i had nothing else to do .Immediatly the feeling i got when watching this.Went from bad to just pit of my stomach horrible.Atrocious is usually a term used when describing a horrible wreck of some kind.Here it's just as befitting a term the same with the word wreck.*Robert pattison's performance and acting were hands down thee worst acting i've ever seen in my life.He should seriously quit after he's done doing those silly twilight films.It truly does pay off to be a good looking face in Hollywood.Im considering getting some plastic surgery myself so i can look just as good as him.Maybe that will end all my poverty as and actor and i can be another rich talentless hack.*Dialogue : hands down the dialogue was horrible it was like the writer didn't exert the slightest effort .Which left me scratching my head like what is the point of even making a movie like this .Just about all the actors ,acted as if they were trying to remember facts from a text book .It was unbelievable ,dry and filled with rhetoric that i don't think the writer himself as well as the cast .Could or ever would be able to understand in two life times.
I like David Cronenberg and have seen all of his movies.People started leaving about twenty minutes after the movie began, when it became clear that nothing was going to happen.
I even signed up for IMDb only to make this review and help a few people avoid the film.Only a few comments on the reason for that: the story sounds like a chic and elite "American Psycho" - like plot - but the movie is shot in a totally flimsy, cheap-looking way.
If he were an actual character and not just a vehicle for a financial metaphor, his talent would be more obvious, but the climactic scene (with Paul Giamatti) where he has to accept what he has done and who he has become while an adversary is ready to force that acceptance onto him is extremely powerful.With David Cronenberg's expertise and Pattinson's star-power, I was expecting "Cosmopolis" to be the must-see indie movie event of the year.
For me, 10/10, it's Cronenberg in 'Crash' form (i.e. real art, not art that gets good reviews).It's not suitable for children--and, I mean, I get it, most of the time I only want a movie to watch popcorn too, as well.
Although David Cronenberg tried, he failed when he tried to make a film adaptation of the eponymous novel.I had huge expectations for this film mainly because the trailers made the film look interesting but I was completely disappointed after managing to watch it in its' entirely despite wanting to leave about halfway through.I have no problem with dialogue-heavy films but this one was commonly filled with pretentious, and obvious phrases uttered by Pattinson while speaking in a clichéd tone with a clichéd expressionless face which has no character development to justify his lack of expression to a bunch of people he meets in his limo.Oh, how frightening an expressionless billionaire who lacks emotion because...oh...wait...he's just being expressionless for sake of it with little to no character development.
A late evening KVIFF viewing, a complete full-house, but the film doesn't live up to David Cronenberg's esteem, which comes across as a big blow since I have watched all his films since NAKED LUNCH (1991), with the exception of A DANGEROUS METHOD (2011), and this latest nihilistic post-modern parable has been his worst so far, a self-indulgent endeavor with deadly hollow format.The film actually is a one-day journey of a young tycoon (an asset manager to be specific), whose routine basically includes conversing different characters in his stretch limo (including daily health check), meanwhile he is desperately in need of a haircut, and eventually he ends up with a man who intends to assassinates him inside a sombre building, leaves me bewildered and vexed.
David Cronenberg's Cosmopolis follows a young billionaire named Eric Packer, played by Twilight star Robert Pattinson, as he rides in his bulletproof limousine around New York City in a quest to get his haircut, and that is as far as the plot goes.
''People eat and sleep in the shadow of what we do''Cosmopolis is not an easy ride and certainly not for everyone, resembling a dream-like feeling this is a visually beautiful film, the performances are great and the dialogue is weird and complex which is obvious it didn't please a lot of people.
(5.0 rating is laughable, what the hell is going on?).It's one of those films that may require more than one viewing to fully understand the meaning of each conversation but it's totally worth it since you're always gonna discover something new and interesting that will make you think for days (you can find quotable lines everywhere in this movie).The final confrontation might have hypnotized me in some kind of way, Paul Giamatti and Robert Pattinson deliver one of the best climactic dialogues i've ever seen.Cronenberg gives us the vision of the 1% of our society and he creates a masterpiece that can be thought-provoking and funny at the same time, i feel sorry for those who didn't get it..
Parts of it are confusing though, but it makes for good reason to watch it a second time.Some long pieces of monologue may bore most people not used to Cronenberg's indulgent style.
Overall I would recommend this to anyone who has liked David Cronenberg's films & want more of his surreal, witty cinema that makes you think..
While watching the movie I was wondering only one thing: Does anybody in the world talk like this?
I may have understand where Cronenberg was going with it and what it was about but I struggled to watch this movie to the end.
Sometimes, when watching a film I want to read the book for broader experience of the story, well with Cosmopolis that is not the case..