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. (10/01/2012)

What feels like roughly four hours of toilet philosophising, which Cronenberg disparages in places, but through most of the film he just lets it monotonously flow forth, which is so mind-numbing that you will probably lose any desire to hear the film’s message, whatever that may be (for example, the message that we haven’t been told anything). I will have to watch it again to confirm or refute the impression that this is Cronenberg’s shallowest and least atmospheric film, but I’m going to need to psych myself up for that over the next several weeks. 50% (08/04/2012)

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. (03/17/2019)

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. (07/08/2012)

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 (07/10/2012)