Maps to the Stars

Cronenberg's critique of capitalism and the hypocritical society of deception is as superficial as Wagner's screenplay and as artificial as the digital barbecue at the end. The show of half-details, which in the case of A Dangerous Method really created the image of the world as an integral mirror, which gradually cracks and turns into something desperately anachronistic and toothless in this postmodern stylization. There is in it some vain preaching and the inability to get to anything sick (beyond the sick endeavor of the screenplay). A freak show full of superficial caricatures and patterns, the innards of which can be seen from the very first moment. There is something wrong with a film in which Robert Pattinson is the most sympathetic and believable character. Master, it's time to film your harvest festival. (10/30/2014)

In Maps to the Stars, David Cronenberg ruthlessly settles the score with nothing less than Hollywood itself and its glamour. This perspective brings disillusionment from a world where ruthless competition, pretense, cynicism, and the pursuit of pleasures prevail. In the chosen viewpoint, Cronenberg is not original; others have also gone after the dream factory in a similar manner. However, Cronenberg can rely on the quality acting of several film stars, led by Julianne Moore. She provides yet further proof that she belongs in the top rankings of contemporary actresses. Her fading film star is able to change all imaginable moods and expressions on the surface offered by the script. Mia Wasikowska, who is a generation younger, skillfully supports her. At the same time, Cronenberg can rely on his intimate knowledge of the environment, and some of his jabs are effective and precise. Essentially, I like his directing style, but one can't help but feel that the mysterious layer of the story is actually unnecessary, and above all, the crazy twist based on incest is contrived and the director could have treated the resolution of his story much more rationally without sacrificing the credibility and effectiveness of the story. A comparison with the famous Mulholland Drive by a different David is readily available, as they both play with the same environment, expressive means, and genre combinations, but the result is not flattering for Cronenberg. Lynch managed to play with Hollywood, genre references, and the viewer much more cleverly, sophisticatedly, and entertainingly. At the same time, I fear that outside the classic festival circuit, Cronenberg will not find much understanding for his perspective on the filmmaking world. Perhaps a note on the genre - labeling this piece as romantic carries the same weight as speaking about romance in the film The Hurt Locker since James really had a passionate relationship with war. Overall impression: 60%. (10/09/2014)

The movie is absolutely excellent, and above all Julianne Moore shows what she's made of and how natural she is in basically every role. However, the whole story, as it unfolds, is not really about how difficult it is to be a star, but simply about the fact that we are all a little bit crazy. David Cronenberg continues to delve into the soul, but this time he simply doesn't have a well-written screenplay for it. (09/30/2014)

I was expecting a sharp Hollywood satire, but even though it’s a non-Hollywood film about the Hollywood environment, the satire is not as bold as I thought it would be. We get some dialogues here and there mocking the fads and mannerisms of the stars, but it’s mostly a subversive and untraditional movie about relationship with protagonists that are fucked up in a way that not even in Hollywood must be common. Really, such a parade of perverted and self-destructive characters is not something you see every day. Cronenberg is in true form this time, and though fans of his earlier works won’t find much physical nastiness, the inner psychical nastiness is more than enough, to the point that the film won’t be very easy to digest for many viewers, even if it’s told detachedly and with black humour. It’s edgy fun, and it worked superbly for me. 9/10 (09/25/2014)

An incomprehensible abomination, the theme of which could have turned out to be more than intriguing in the hands of other filmmakers (Sam Mendes, David O. Russell). I used to have Cronenberg in my top ten directors and I still love most of his work (including films with mixed reviews like Crash). He’s unique in how comprehensibly and acceptably he manages to portray pathological deviations from “normal” and make them part of a riveting story. With Maps to the Stars, however, he falters, as the film is an indigestible dead weight, a show of characters allegorically so far removed from reality that their definition and the escalation of their interactions dissolve into nothing. I’m giving one star for Julianne Moore, who’d excel even in the role of a cucumber. (11/04/2014)