inamaxmoore Some won't get it the first time & most won't even after the 5th, but if you're a deep open-minded person like myself...you'll get it! Some of the best dialogue I've ever watched along with Robert Pattinson showing us just how far his range of character acting can go, what a master! HE absolutely nailed it in this film!

lemon_magic If this film bored you to death, I sympathize. I found it intensely irritating at times, at least until I got into the rhythms and mindset of the screenplay, and even then there were times I wanted to yell at the screen, "GET ON WITH IT!!!"If I had to sum "Cosmopolis" in a few words, I'd say (perhaps unfairly) that it was a Harold Pinter play filtered through a Walter Gibson scenario (the closest parallel being "New Rose Hotel") and through Cronenberg's own desire to challenge our ideas about what is "real". All of these influences aregood things, but I can't say that they go well together in a film format. On the positive side: the film looks great, in spite of the seemingly claustrophobic setting, where 80% of the film takes place inside a stretch limo. I really enjoyed being in that limo. And the actors look great. And the screenplay tries to discuss some big, challenging ideas. On the negative: the film comes to an ambiguous, unsatisfying end. And the characters don't seem to have any real meat to them - every last one of them (except the bodyguard and the driver and maybe the barber) are so vacant, so bloodless, so postmodern and anemic, that you want to throw them outside, make them go for a walk, maybe get into a fistfight or something. I know these are deliberate choices,probably stemming from the Delillo novel this is based on - but it still makes it hard for me to care about what happens to these twits. And I hate Delillo's pseudo-profundity anyway, which poses intellectual and philosophical dilemmas that really don't matter to anyone but maybe a devotee of Derrida.In the end, a Cronenberg movie is always worth watching at least once, maybe twice to see if you caught all the subtexts. Go into this with an open mind and maybe a beer or bottle of wine to relax, and you'll probably be fine.

wlee08 I can appreciate that a lot of people don't "get" this movie, or find it pretentious or pedantic or just strange. But I'll have a go at what I liked about it. I liked that it walked a very fine balance between reality and dream, incorporating poetry and symbolism. I liked the complexity of the dialog - so complex at times that it seems the intention is not so much to be understood as to give an impression. It felt in places like Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal; it stares at the issue of mortality head-on. It also felt a bit like Fellini's Roma (the long highway scene) I thought the deadpan acting was perfect. And it was suspenseful, in the sense that you really will be kept wondering what will happen next to the main character.

LemonLadyR Boy, this is a real love/hate film and mostly hate, but people want to be entertained and this film is not gonna do that very much during our look into one man's day of decision/change. But it will move you in odd ways, make you think, and do what art is supposed to do: react strongly. So, even knowing all this, it is still a difficult movie to get one's head around, but after some digging, I finally did, although I did realize fairly soon that it was something completely different, even for an Indie film. But I think what people are not getting is that it is not a typical 'romantic' film, with all its production values geared towards the slick (although it IS highly stylized), beautiful lighting, emotions, and a film with warm characterizations and bonds between viewer and character (although I did relate to Packer, but it's a specific, not universal thing).I think it hearkens back to the New Wave in cinema of the late 50s/60s (and more than just French, for it is very Fellini-esque). I love Robert Pattinson as Eric Packer. Cronenberg tried this style of abstraction in Crash, but how can you view James Spader or Holly Hunter without emotion? They are too well known for it, it didn't fit, and in the end, could not pull it off due to their strong personalities (esp Holly Hunter). Here, Cronenberg finishes what he started there with this disembodied style. Thus Pattinson is the exact right casting, even in appearance. As Cronenberg himself says, which encapsulates most of the zeitgeist of the movie, which is that high intensity computer trading is abstracted from production, products, commerce, from anything. Thus Packer is reflecting that as a completely abstract person who has no idea of the world and how to be human, so he sounds and appears as an alien dropped into real life on Earth (on the day he finally realizes all this). Character IS valued in films, and I value it, and judge them on it, but here the lack of it works since it goes along with the whole abstraction concept. The complete silence in the limo, when the windows are up, creates a dreamlike tone that pervades the movie, even though it is not realistic, it is not meant to be. Limo as uterus, coffin, tomb, video game, spaceship, sex toy, and on and on. The movie really is not about a financial crisis, but of Packer's stubbornness and attempt to destroy himself by going against his advisers and becoming his own worst enemy. His problems are limited to *his* life; the world has not been affected by his issues, although of course he thinks it has, as a 1%er.The protesters represent the Occupy Wall Street movement, according to Cronenberg, and I thought the "rats" as commodities thing hilarious, but the more serious metaphor is that you can abstract anything and trade it and Pattinson drinks far too much from that cup, even as his primary relationship reflects it. So I think Pattinson is abstracting life and trading it and his relationships as commodities.If you don't care for really arty, stylized films or massively metaphoric films, you will not like this one, but I think if it is thought of as Pattinson's journey from isolation to gritty attempts to join real life then it will go down better. It is as if he is living in the digital world along with his commodities, then has an epiphany during which he realizes there is more outside his tiny world (represented by the limo), both physically and emotionally. So he stumbles his way out of it, creating havoc for himself in an unconsciously suicidal way as he tries to get back to his roots, although it doesn't seem like he quite knows what they are. The guy is so abstract and above it all, from his billionaire throne, that he commits immoral acts without a thought, so desperate is he to get 'home'. He truly needs a pair of ruby slippers to click to go home, and when he finds the next closest thing (people from his past or a chance to right himself) he blows it.Of course there are all the obvious things we hate about the rich, the extreme self-centerdness, the narcissism, the arrogance, and the social commentary (although Cronenberg seems to be less about that here; it is obvious anyway to anyone who is not living under a rock today). The other actors must, for the film to work, at least Packer's advisors, wear the same mask of abstraction and speak in the same disembodied way. I love Samantha Morton, who can do anything, chewing up the scenery. She is right in there with him, as are the other actors for whom it is appropriate. His wife is just a reflection of his narcissism, since narcissists find relationships that mirror themselves. Her skin doesn't even look real, more like an avatar's in a virtual world. She is farther gone than he is, but is more resigned to it and aware of it. All in all, I grew to really like the film and appreciate its perfections. Again, this is Crash done right, in many ways. This film is much less about entertainment than anything else; so fair warning. However I was entertained in a strange way and enthralled by most of the aspects of it. It has wonderful production values that add to the theme perfectly and the other things that make a film deserve a rating of 8/10. I recommend watching at least twice and finding some Cronenberg interviews/commentary. Yes, there is some work to this film, but that is another thing that makes it great art and a viewer that is not spoon fed will be a more well rounded fan of cinema.