Cosmopolis (2012) – 3.5/5

Strange, talky film full of complex, almost theatrical dialogue and long, philosophical discussions about things I couldn’t quite wrap my head around. And such big words, god. Who talks like this? But yeah, the film is an adaptation of a book so, okay, the complex dialogue is understandable. And it has some rather brilliant scenes here and there, though not very many. Most of the film is just okay, always on the cusp of being terrible, but saved thanks to said brilliant scenes, and some strong performances, including from Robert Pattinson who isn’t that great, but isn’t that bad either. He has his moments.

The film is abstract, to say the least, and hard to get into as a result. And not much really happens until the last third or so, with most of the “action” taking place inside Pattinson’s limo, or just outside. But some of the discussions are interesting, some scenes are funny/absurd, and there’s a really great **SPOILERS** sex scene near the middle that is very well shot and performed, and, well, sexy. **END SPOILERS** But not much is ever explained. We never really get a sense of who Pattinson is or why he does the things that he does, or who any of the characters he talks to are or what in the hell the point of the film even is. But that’s okay. It’s just one of those films.

The only scene that I really disliked was the final one. It’s very well acted, especially from Paul Giamatti, but it’s so technical and abstract and long-winded that I just got bored with it. The conclusion didn’t even make sense, really, nor did the whole nature of Pattinson’s character in retrospect. He seemed to be a man of contradictions throughout: reckless, yet fearful of death, lustful, yet sexually starved, wealthy, yet ultimately powerless. It felt like the film was trying desperately to convey a message it itself didn’t quite understand but nonetheless felt everyone should know. But maybe the book is the same way. Who knows? I haven’t read it.

Overall, not a great film, and definitely not for everyone, but it has its moments. I especially liked the “pie” scene near the end; brilliant, and so well shot. But yeah, the film is strange, abstract, and very hard to follow, and nothing is explained really, and some of the acting is a bit “stiff” at times, especially from Pattinson who, again, isn’t terrible here, merely okay. A touch miscast, I think. But he’s good in fits and starts. And such great hair! Not sure seeing him nearly naked was absolutely necessary to the plot, though, but whatever. I’m sure Twilight fans will be delighted. Who am I kidding, they’ll never watch this; some actual thinking is involved. Hey-o!

Anyway, weird movie. Watch if you like abstract stuff that’s well acted, but nontraditional in almost every sense of the word. Oh, and occasionally quite violent.

  1. Very good review. I am dying to watch this film for months now. I like weird and unusual films, but I am yet not quite sure if this film is going to far with this.

    • It’s an interesting film. Certainly not great, but not as bad as a lot of people have been saying. Thanks!

  1. No trackbacks yet.

You must be logged in to post a comment.
%d bloggers like this: