Ohjaus:
David CronenbergKäsikirjoitus:
David CronenbergKuvaus:
Peter SuschitzkySävellys:
Howard ShoreNäyttelijät:
Robert Pattinson, Paul Giamatti, Jay Baruchel, Kevin Durand, Juliette Binoche, Samantha Morton, Sarah Gadon, Mathieu Amalric, Emily Hampshire (lisää)Suoratoistopalvelut (2)
Juonikuvaukset(1)
28-vuotias Eric Packer (Robert Pattinson) lähtee 100M dollarin penthousestaan ja asettuu ylipitkään valkoiseen limousineen. Valuuttadiileri ja investointikeinottelija tarvitsee tukanleikkuun. Matkasta parturiin tulee moderni odysseia American Psykon maisemissa, läpi kaoottisen New Yorkin. Packerin tiimin kuuluvat eri alojen taitajat vierailevat kiireisen multimiljonäärin takapenkillä suorittamassa eri tehtäviä keskellä ruuhkaa. (Cinema Mondo)
(lisää)Arvostelut (8)
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.
()
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
()
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%
()
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.
()
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.
()
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...
()
The film captures the nearly twenty-four-hour-long self-destructive descent of one man, one archetype, and one mental world. The desire to obtain and understand abstract pure power, passing through wealth itself, the desire to predict, control, and live in the future, enjoying a primitive sense of superiority and strength without sympathy for the surroundings due to one's position. All of this collapses upon realizing that the future cannot be controlled and that death awaits everyone indiscriminately. In the end, it did indeed catch up with Eric Packer not only for how he lived but mainly for how he thought. The film is an above-average faithful adaptation of its source material, which is both a positive and a negative. The disadvantage is for those who have not read the book - then the film will probably turn into a series of scenes that are only understood by chance, or rather, or not at all... I cannot overly criticize that the film did not capture all the thoughts of the printed source, as that is simply a limitation of almost all films based on any book. I had not seen R. Pattinson in any major role before this, so I can objectively say that he does not (particularly) detract from the quality of the film.
()
A day in the limousine unfolds in a way that makes you reflect on where society is actually heading. Eric is an example of how we don't give a damn about others. Everyone is at his mercy, as is his own fate. He has reached a point where he doesn't really care about anything. For him, urinating in the limousine is as much of a problem as killing someone. Does he actually care about anything? What matters to us? Can we still talk to each other? And when we talk to each other, does it have any meaning? I think this is another excellent Cronenberg study that deserves attention, just try to hang on and think about it. If the film doesn’t tell you anything, well even that can happen. But what does it matter? Everyone can be influenced in their own way.
()
Mainos