‘Cosmopolis’: A hearse, not a limo

I rarely take notes during movies, but when the pretentious aphorisms started flying in David Cronenberg’s “Cosmopolis,” I dove for my notebook.
I missed a few of the early ones, but managed to scribble down several of the ripest, most ridiculous pronouncements, starting with: “Life is too contemporary.”
Or how about: “Money has lost its narrative quality. Money is talking to itself.”
Or: “The present is hard to find. It’s being sucked out of the world to make room for the future.”
Or: “You do actually reek of sexual discharge.”
OK, so that last one isn’t actually an aphorism. But it’s still pretty ridiculous.
These, no doubt, come from Don DeLillo’s novel of the same name, which Cronenberg adapted. I’m not a huge fan of DeLillo’s writing but I can’t imagine that this slow, self-involved movie – starring the slow, self-involved Robert Pattinson – does it much justice.
The gimmick here is that young tycoon Eric Packer (Pattinson) wants a haircut and gets in his limo to cross Manhattan to get it. It’s a gridlock-alert day – the president’s in town, there are anarchists in the street and a rapper named Little Fez is having his funeral. But Packer wants to go to a specific barbershop, despite the warnings of immobility and security alerts from his chief protector, Torval (Kevin Durand).
As he inches through the streets, he holds a series of meetings in the limo, with worshipful people who tell him how brilliant he is (despite the fact that he’s taking a bath on the yuan, which he shorted at the moment it started to rise). He gets a prostate exam from his doctor, has sex with two different women (who are not his stand-offish rich wife) and becomes the subject of a death threat (and a pie in the face – some security!).
Oh yeah, and people are waving dead rats as a form of protest. This is meant, apparently, to illustrate DeLillo’s epigraph, from a poem by Zbigniew Herbert called “Report from the Besieged City,” which says: “and a rat became the unit of currency.” Pow – right in the kisser.
Through it all, Packer, played by the expressionless Pattinson, contemplates the meaning of money, time and the lint in his own navel. OK, not really – it just feels that way.
It is high-flown and pretentious hooey, a gimmick of a movie (look – an entire movie shot in a limo!), except, of course, he gets out of the limo from time to time. Even when he’s in the limo, it’s fairly obvious that he’s sitting in a mocked-up limo interior on a soundstage somewhere, surrounded by green screens on which are being projected images of the street outside (and not very convincingly, at that).
As I’ve said whenever he strays outside the “Twilight” compound, Pattinson is a dull actor who projects no interior life or even the semblance of thought. That becomes obvious every time he’s forced to share a scene with a real actor – like Samantha Morton or Paul Giamatti.
Still, who better to play a soulless one-percenter? Yet, in the company of actual actors, Pattinson is reduced to a piece of furniture, most of which displays more expressiveness than the immortal R-Patz.
As one would expect from Cronenberg, there are sudden moments of shocking violence to go with the moments of unsexy sex. None of it will distract you from the fact that this limo, like the whole enterprise titled “Cosmopolis,” is going nowhere.
Print This Post


August 13th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Wow you certainly forshadowed what you were going to write in your article on August 1, 2012. You are a sad excuse for a “critic”. You should be ashamed of yourself. Perhaps you should stick to watching movies that you can understand. This one was obciously way above your pay level. Packer is supposed to be played that way. Next time read the book or at least make an effort to sound intelligent instead of simply biased against an actor. To not like something is fine. Your personal attack as well as your constant tracking back to Twilight in all your reviews of this actor show how inept of a critic you really are.
August 13th, 2012 at 6:32 pm
Well, some people are really blessed with good looks. Can’t blame them really….
August 14th, 2012 at 8:46 am
You are the one who reviewed “The Dark Knight Rises’ as rotten and “Total Recall” as fresh.
Point noted.
August 14th, 2012 at 5:28 pm
Didn’t get it, did you?
Okay, now that you’ve exercised your pen and your fantasy about being a writer, how about turning in your tiresome phrases that have entertained only you (“None of it will distract you from the fact that this limo, like the whole enterprise titled “Cosmopolis,” is going nowhere.” Really??), and write a decent review for the reader, and the movie go-er. You haven’t contributed anything here, have you? Chop, chop. We can wait.
August 14th, 2012 at 5:33 pm
I don’t understand, how so poor lampoon can apply for a review rank.
August 23rd, 2012 at 9:51 pm
Mr. Fine, you forgot your thinking cap when you saw, if you actually saw, this movie. Top critics have given Mr. Pattinson flowing reviews for strong acting. Oh, I forgot; these top critics were first rate and you are, what…third, maybe fourth rate. Quit being jealous of Mr. Pattinson and get into another line of work.
March 5th, 2013 at 12:04 pm
Couldn’t agree more with the previous comments, but I must admit I had a good laugh at reading your review because of how you transform a quite deep movie into a cluster of meaningless random facts.
It seems to me that you feel quite a strong emotion toward such emotionless actor and meaningless movie. You sound quite angry. If I found something dull, I would rather act apathetically, not hysterically as you do. And I believe this review tells us a lot about who you are more than about this movie or its cast.