Cosmopolis

· June 22, 2012 · 2 Comments 

COSMOPOLIS is the journey of a young millionaire, Eric Packer, as he travels across the city determined to get his hair cut. He learns that someone is trying to kill him, but this just one of many realisations that come to him through the people that he meets during the day.

Set primarily inside Packer’s limousine, which is stuck in traffic, the initial concept of the film works well. He is caught, unable to escape the demons that confront him through the people he meets. Beyond that idea, unfortunately, the film loses its way and slowly falls flat.

The surrealist approach allows COSMOPOLIS to take liberties: not only elements such as questionable special effects, where there needn’t be effects at all, but an incoherent structure that meanders endlessly through time and location. The dialogue is cryptic, monotone and pretentious. Random conversations with a streaming line of famous cameos, including Juliette Binoche and Paul Giamatti, become indecipherable and forgettable after the first half an hour. The unnatural language used detaches the voice from the humanity in the character, and no-one seems quite real.

An attempt at exploring deeper meanings and insights into capitalism is lost in the sheer number of characters and discourse.

It is true that one could pull from it the heartless nature of capitalism, the robotic behaviour of the elite and the ease with which the money-makers glide through life. The character’s journey to get his hair cut is a subconscious effort to return to his roots, his simpler past. The potential killer talks in a normal fashion, in contrast to that of the rest of the characters, which underlines the class distinctions of this world. Unfortunately, whatever the reasons and motives behind the filmmaking, they don’t make the film any more watchable, and eventually it becomes tiresome. An attempt at exploring deeper meanings and insights into capitalism is lost in the sheer number of characters and discourse. This is not a new discussion or subject, and the film begins nothing fresh to the table.

As Packer, on the other hand, Robert Pattinson delivers a surprisingly weighty and admirable performance, which is a far cry from his previous incarnations as a vampire. However, the teenage girls will probably be frowning in confusion rather than screaming this time.

What could have been an abstract WALL STREET for the new generation becomes a thick, concrete jungle of good ideas, in which the audience simply get lost and want to go home.

Similar Posts:

  • http://www.takeonecff.com/author/jimgr Jim Ross

    In all honesty, I really think you’ve been too easy on this. Some nice images here and there (I did like Pattinson and Sam Morton drinking spirits while the car rocks and is spray painted) but overall this was perfunctory. Cronenberg knows what he’s doing, so it’s not a total bust, but this really feels like a failed experiment – if you judge it on its own terms then this was huge misfire. The dialogue was so incredibly dull and oh-so-serious. It felt like a rather pretentious stage play. Pattinson does a rather good job I suppose, as does Giamatti, but there is no engagement with ANYONE at all, maybe you’re not meant to – but that doesn’t make it in the least bit watchable. Full of clunky metaphors, pretentious musings and taking itself oh-so-seriously.

    I love a weighty dialogue-heavy film when they’re good, but come the end scene I just wanted someone, ANYONE to get shot. Quickly.

    • Mike Boyd

      What surprised me most is that a lot of people liked the film! Maybe
      someone can comment and tell me why because I could find very little
      that redeems it. Not even the performances.