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!

Anssi Vartiainen A stupidly rich young man sits in a limo and rides towards his barber meeting. Around him the city gets crazier and crazier as the society crumbles in the throes of an economical crisis. Or at least that's what I think happens... The movie isn't big on explaining stuff.As the stupidly rich young man rides across the city, things happen. He has his daily doctor appointment right there in his limo, he argues with his wife about sex, has sex with just about every other woman he meets, talks with his business associates, hires bodyguards (one of them being a woman he eventually bangs), and so worth. None of this really moves the plot forwards, none of this really connects with anything else. The movie tries to rely on mood and an interesting situation to hook you in, but it lacks the core structure. Plus it tries to make economics into a philosophy, which only reminds me how much I hate the whole subject. At least a film like The Big Short, which is also about economics, makes the whole subject interesting by talking about the people behind it. This tries to elevate economics into an art form, if not a religion in its own right, but it just doesn't have the depth to pull it off.The film has a couple of merits to its name. The story is artsy garbage, but at least the film looks really good and director David Cronenberg's touch is clearly visible across the board. Plus the final scene, where two mentally ill people sit in a trashy low-end apartment and try to make their personal neuroses resonate with one another, is pretty cool. It's still artsy, but in an entertaining manner.All in all I'm sure the film has its fans because it throws enough stuff at the screen that some of it has to stick with certain people. Personally I didn't get enough out of it to be satisfied, but perhaps the fault lies with me.

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.

tristanh-24900 I thought this movie was incredible. The way we are immediately pulled into the dark and almost surreal atmosphere inside Eric Packer's world speaks volumes about director David Cronenberg's prowess. The story is one not many people can relate to, especially when one comes off as cold as Packer. But truth is, deep down inside, Packer's character is incredibly tormented, and simply cannot face it. He is a walking sociopath, and talks the part too. His interactions with other characters serve brilliantly as indicators of his personality and experiences: what shaped him, what is he after, and most of all: why does he seem so dissatisfied? All compelling questions that are answered more and more as the film looms to a climax, culminating in an ultimate "suicide" attempt on behalf of Packer, but not in the way you would think. It is such a marvellous look inside the mind and world of an individual so tormented yet so disillusioned by his own emotional state and simple boredom that it will stay with you for days. Cosmopolis: the size of Packer's genuine lack of care. An incredible rendition of an even more haunting novel by one of Canada's best film directors, and actors that complete Pattinson so well that you wonder if this is real. Best of all: Robert Pattinson is truly superb as Packer; so much so that I forgot all about Twilight until getting here. Truth is Pattinson is not at all Twilight anymore; and Cosmopolis serves as a perfect example of his versatility and ability to portray fraying human emotion. The film's nomination for the Palme d'Or at Cannes was truly deserved. An incredible work of art, worth a revisit but not too many: slipping into Packer's calculated world of self- destruction can be dangerous, and, ultimately, suicidal. Goodnight to all, and I really hope you both understand (as I read from other reviews..) and enjoy this movie.