logo
VidMate
Free YouTube video & music downloader
Download
Cosmopolis (2012)

Cosmopolis (2012)

GENRESCrime,Drama,Fantasy,Mystery,Thriller
LANGEnglish
ACTOR
Robert PattinsonJuliette BinocheSarah GadonMathieu Amalric
DIRECTOR
David Cronenberg

SYNOPSICS

Cosmopolis (2012) is a English movie. David Cronenberg has directed this movie. Robert Pattinson,Juliette Binoche,Sarah Gadon,Mathieu Amalric are the starring of this movie. It was released in 2012. Cosmopolis (2012) is considered one of the best Crime,Drama,Fantasy,Mystery,Thriller movie in India and around the world.

On the spur of the moment, twenty-eight year old Manhattan self-made multi-billionaire Eric Packer decides he wants to get a haircut from his regular and longtime barber across town, a difficult journey today if only because of the traffic gridlock from three high profile but vastly different events taking place in the borough, including a wandering anarchist protest, they who largely use dead rats as their symbol of protest. Through his trek, Eric, most taking place in his stretch limousine, meets with several business associates - some with as esoteric job titles as Head of Theory - and personal acquaintances, including his several week bride, Elise, a wealthy woman in her own right with who he still has a somewhat distant relationship if only because they don't really know each other. The start of Eric's day ends much differently than the end as his personal fortune largely hinges on external forces in relation to a speculative currency transaction, and as he learns that someone is...

More

Cosmopolis (2012) Reviews

  • Genius

    encorespod-730-8513312015-03-06

    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.

    More
  • "When he died he would not end. The world would end." (Don DeLillo)

    blackbeanie2012-05-28

    Eric Packer, genial asset manager, sitting in his limo, contemplating about himself and his visions while playing with numbers that represent an immense fortune, behaving almost in an autistic way once he tries to connect with the real world outside. Eric Packer also as the symbol of the small financial elite that rules our planet, arrogant, shameless and above all what's common and human. What happens when you have all you want? When there's no challenge, no real desire anymore? 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. DeLillo tried to send messages that I didn't understand at all. Then happened Occupy Wall Street and the pie into the face of Rupert Murdoch, so I gave the novel a second chance. I got hooked by the very complex character of Eric Packer, cold and emotionless on the outside and in his actions, but so vulnerable and lonely once you got to know him better. He's a very sad example of how far people can go in our society, just for the sake of money. 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? Because I think that David Cronenberg did a fabulous job in trying to bring this book on screen. 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. He took from the novel what could work on screen and left scenes out, that he thought could disturb or change the mood of the movie. In the first part of the movie, he focused more on the little world of Eric into his limo rather than to shift the emphasis also outside the car. 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. The biggest challenge of course was the casting of Eric Packer, the doomed capitalist, who appears in almost every scene. Once again, David took a risk in hiring Robert Pattinson, but he was confident and he was right. Pattinson nailed this character to perfection. 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. I understand that it is a difficult watch for people who haven't read the book, that they are disappointed but never was promised that this movie was going to be easy. The biggest issue IMHO isn't the movie itself but the fact that, in theatre, you haven't a button to pause and rewind so you can hear the dialogues again and again. Once the words are spoken, they're gone and I can imagine people reacting like WTH?? Though the movie stands on its own, it can only improve your experience if you go a bit prepared to the screening. With my review, I've tried to help those who're interested enough to give it a try. 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. There's nothing wrong with not understanding everything. It doesn't make the audience dumb, it doesn't make the movie bad and it doesn't make a brilliant performance less brilliant. Sorry for mistakes as English isn't my first language.

    More
  • Revise your expectations

    donaldgilbert2013-01-13

    I'm not sure if I'm more amused or more disappointed by the reaction by so many reviewers here of this film. No, it's not your Hollywood production, it contains few digital effects, no action, not even your standard "Cronenberg gore". This is a novel, and is presented in a way that's similar to the novel; with characters and dialog. 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. This happened to me. I started the movie while tired and impatient for distraction. After 15 minutes, I shut the film off and waited a couple of days for the right mood to kick in (awake, curious, searching for intellectual stimulation) before starting "Cosmopolis" from the beginning. Some movies are an escape from the work, and/or from thinking. This is not one of them. I don't like to give spoilers in my reviews, so I will only say to anyone reading, rent this if you're in the mood for a unique movie that gives you cause to reflect and think. And be patient- despite what some have said, I think the ending is exactly right.

    More
  • Philosophical and poetic

    p_v_dshoi2013-01-04

    If you are going to watch this movie, you need to give yourself adequate space to do so. This is a philosophical movie and not exactly easy to watch. It comes across more as visual poetry than anything else and therefore won't appeal to a mass audience. Which is partially the reason for a rather low score on this site. In my opinion it deserves more; the reason for this is that I firmly believe a movie has to be critiqued on the basis of it's type - you shouldn't judge this movie on the basis of all movies, but other movies of this sort, which are close adaptations of novels packed with dense dialogue and philosophical themed subject matter. The question you're looking for the answer to is "should I watch this movie?" And yes, you should, but curb your expectations to what type of movie it is. In it's genre, I find it thoughtprovoking and streamlined; It's a limo slowly being covered by graffiti; Something cold, perfect and seamless being torn apart from within. You will find no typical storyline and no lovable characters; at several times I thought to myself that these characters are in fact portraying computers assessing and processing information and various symptoms of the human condition. People do not talk like they do in this movie. The movie is very well executed and absolutely worth your time. If you are interested in this type of movie that is - and if that's the case it will likely leave you inspired in some way because you are constantly thinking throughout.

    More
  • Cronenberg faithful to his themes extends it to prophecy

    dindondil2012-05-27

    This is a very profound and insightful film. It focuses on dialogues more than action, not a lot of things happen. It is demanding for the audience, yes, but every line of dialogue suggests, every line holds a meaning. Cosmopolis is like an essay about our times and the times to come. What is derivative in our system and how the human mind and the human condition is dangerously shifting. This is pure Cronenberg, very mental, talking about the society through the portrayal of individual psychology. This is for me the most accurate yet quite pessimistic depiction I've seen of what the society of money and information means for human beings. And it digs quite far, thus can become hard to understand. Our relationship to Time has changed, you focus on minutes and seconds. It used to be manageable, but now it goes out of control. Chaotic profusion of information, self-contradiction, being an enigma for ourselves, blurry perception, blurry identity, and do we even have one ? We as a spectator can feel on the edge, as ambivalent as Eric Packer, both reflective and impulsive. Anyway, I think the viewer will throw his own inner themes in the profusion of concepts that rise from the film. Cronenberg is still the master of suggestion, window big open for interpretation. Maybe it won't touch those who feel they perfectly fit in their times. Facebook users, people talking about money, people caring for what they've been told to care. Maybe you have to feel a bit out of phase, out of place at least sometimes to get engaged in the film. It is brilliant in connecting the concepts together in some momentum. There is terrific cinematography by Cronenberg on depth of field and what happens inside/outside the limo -Eric Packer's inner sanctum-. Very great acting by Pattinson, Sarah Gadon, Paul Giamatti and Kevin Durand.

    More

Hot Search