I like Cronenberg films (especially A History of Violence), but this one left me puzzled. I enjoy good dialogue, but the dialogue in this film can make you crazy, but that said the movie looked good and the performance's were good so a 5.

One of the worse movies I have seen recently. Watching it until the end was almost unbearable, especially the end of the movie when the dialogue reaches theatrical heights. I just learned that David Cronenberg, a director I normally like, wrote the script in 6 days and you can really feel it watching the clinical, not only literary and theatrical, but wordy and boring film.

This was a wooden movie. It did not excel in any criteria. The dialogue was interesting, but delivered poorly. Definitely something that wasn't edited enough. Its major flaw was how it was directed. The actors were Zombies. The set of the limo was an allegory, but it didn't help to connect the viewers with concepts they were talking about. I don't see how anyone could follow this. Even in an abstract way it didn't work. The movie also turns rather violent and I don't think the point gets across to the viewer. This isn't as good as Cronenberg's previous films. This was a cheap movie with bad acting and a muddy or even boring plot.… Expand

The only, and tragic, flaw of this film is the great demands it places on the few this film is enjoyably exhausting, abstract, and layered so thickly with meaning and purpose. Cosmopolis is one of the most under appreciated film of its year, and a film that shouldn’t be watched just once.

I made an effort to see the movie until the end. It si just awful. The script doesn{t make sense. Excellent actors like Juliette Binoche and Paul Giammati are completely wated in non sense dialogs. Probably the worse movie I saw in long time.

I've always struggled with Cronemberg films as they are supposed to have a deeper narative but apart from his works from about 30 years ago his output has been utter garbage and sadly this is no exception.

The acting is bloody awful, the dialogue us staid and interpretable and the plot what little there is tyical "deeper meening" with lots of rat symbolism while discussing free markets to prove just how highbrow the story is supposed to be, unfortunatlly this suppresses any entertainment that could be gleamed from this piece of dreck.… Expand

I rarely watch a movie that I can NOT watch the whole movie (good or bad). Unfortunately, this movie was a movie that was so bad, I couldn't watch the whole movie! 30-45 minutes into the movie, I realized this movie wasn't going anywhere fast with the plot. Finally a little over an hour into the movie, I gave up watching it. I returned the 'rented' movie.

My note is 8 Because i have a licence of philosophy and i love special movies. But for a normal person I would say that : " this movie is completely unwatchable ! ". My girlfriend just hate this film ^^

This is an absolutely awful movie and like others, I turned it off within ten minutes. Awful acting and awful dialogue. The production value is amateur at best. Skip it.

Utterly bizarre. How many people on this planet can manage to watch this movie to the end, or for more than 10 minutes ? Cronenberg, well, The Fly was good, but beyond that, the guy seems to be completely detached from reality. Why do people go to the movies ? To be entertained. And not to be bored to tears.

TERRIBLE!

Absolutely one of the worst pieces of cinema I have seen in my life.

Who is paying the critics to write these reviews? 6.0 based on 34 ratings? Come on!

Cronenberg's return to form is highly welcome, and although it didn't set the world on fire, hopefully it means more moody, strange movie's from him. History of Violence and Eastern Promises were good (Dangerous Method was aweful), but I want weirdness from Cronenberg! The mood of the movie and Patterson's acting were perfect. But the characters met on the way were too often booring and pointless, and this is Giamatti's worst role ever. Some perfect writing here, the way Patterson states 'I have a non-symetrical prostate' in the middle of conversation is too hilarious.… Expand

i fell asleep 3 times watching this movie, i have never feel asleep watching any movies in my life, i mean i even watched blade 5 times but i still couldnt sleep while watching. the dialogues are by no means thought out properly. they are imitations and best attempts at genius conversations. sex comes up so much its just **** annoying, its like having a conversation with a bunch of 15 year olds. still cronenberg has the nerves to call batman an adolescence movie. FML!… Expand

The movie is supposed to be an exploration/parody of some psycho-social blah blah blah... It feels like a lecture, it plays like the lecture that a professor of sociology would give if they stumbled into their class drunk. If you are one who enjoys "cinema art", who likes to watch movies with chin-on-fist going "Hmmm..." because it makes you feel closer to Socrates, above the common plebs, or just comfortable in the knowledge that not all filmmakers are sane than this is for you. If you are one of the "commoners" who watches movies for entertainment I would suggest looking else where.… Expand

A strange, polarizing film. Aesthetically pleasing, intellectually stimulating. The performances are uniformly solid, with Robert Pattinson in particular having great scene presence. The rapid dialogue is cold and didactic and sure to leave many viewers uninterested, but somewhere in the unending verbal masturbation is a story being told.

David Cronenberg's swift return to kinky, psycho-social territory is a welcome one. Cosmopolis is a cold, moody character study, that highlights the indifference of the 1% percent and how a millionaire can be lead to a path of self destruction during a limo ride to the barber. Everything revolves around this millionaire, played with chilly precision by Robert Pattinson, who surpassed my expectations. But one of the best part of this movie are the many supporting characters who revolve around his life during the course of a day, whether its his wife (played with skill by Sarah Gadon), his spiritual and financial advisers, potential assassins or his eccentric mistresses. In their respective scenes, each were able to add something new to the film and the millionaire character at hand. The episodic editing was well executed, and, though built on a weird premise, Cronenberg's screenplay was filled with broad rambles, spliced with moments of truths. I did take issues with how distant the film felt at times and its ambiguity may bother some, but that's the way it was meant to be. In the end, it felt distant nature yet intimate in scope, and is surely one of the most underrated movies of the year.… Expand

Pinteresque, Beckettian, unreal, surreal and closer to a stage play than cinema, Cronenberg's slick, cerebral, cold and topical masterpiece defines the 21st Century Absurd.

Actually haven't seen the movie. Just posted this to note that the Onion AV Club actually gave the movie a good review (although they had some things to say about the ending). Either way, they gave it a "B" by their rating system. Now it's been a long time since I attended high school, but from what I remember a "B" was an 80% to an 85%. Yet for some reason Metacritic has them scoring the film a 50%. Just thought it should be addressed.… Expand

It makes me cringe when people mention Videodrome and Cosmopolis in the same sentence (And yes, I did just that... bear with me). One is infinitely entertaining, bizarre and thought-provoking. The other bores me to tears. However, I will say that in my West LA theater, about 20 people got up and left within the first half hour - but a substantial group who made it till the end gave it a hearty round of applause. Then again, they may have just been happy it was over. As a Cronenberg fan, I was so fired up to see this film. Sadly, the last time I was this let down by a filmmaker I love was when I endured David Lynch's Inland Empire. That sucker was a doozy.… Expand