Entertainment One | Release Date: August 17, 2012
5.2
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 101 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
40
Mixed:
26
Negative:
35
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
10
MegWhiteleyAug 17, 2012
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. After watching Bel Ami, Robert Pattinson returns in this new Cronenberg movie with Cosmopolis, a movie that be based on the Don DeLilo's book. The story of Cosmopolis is the next, the billionare Eric Parker (Pattinson) rides slowly across Manhattan in his limousine that he uses as his office while on his way to his preferred barber, even though there are traffic jams. The development of the story is very interesting, have much impressive moments. The Pattinson's performance is really amazing, after we watch he on Water for Elephants, Remember Me and Bel Ami we watch that this is his best performance. The screenplay is great. Cosmopolis is an amazing movie. Expand
5 of 9 users found this helpful54
All this user's reviews
10
rintakumpuSep 5, 2012
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.
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
10
Wes_BrewerFeb 23, 2013
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,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. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
9
SeriosityNov 15, 2012
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 leaveA 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. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
9
someone132Nov 24, 2013
This movie might not be a masterpiece per se, but personally I loved it. It is a slow-burner, and a lot of the dialogues don't make much sense initially. In fact, I would say the movie only really begins to hit its stride once it passes theThis movie might not be a masterpiece per se, but personally I loved it. It is a slow-burner, and a lot of the dialogues don't make much sense initially. In fact, I would say the movie only really begins to hit its stride once it passes the 40-minute mark.

From then on, however, it all begins to make sense, and the director's intent becomes clear. The final conversation of the film is truly electrifying, and the ending fits the film perfectly. Much like Inception, it really is one of those films you should watch several times to trace the complexity of events on the screen, and appreciate how every detail fits into the message of the film, with nothing being wasted. The dialogue in the film is also very diverse and memorable, with each person saying something different, all meaningful in their own ways. If you're tired of generic, cliched character archetypes, this should the film for you.
Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
9
johnslegersJan 3, 2016
Robbie Collin of The Telegraph gave the film four stars out of five, stating, "It's a smart inversion of Cronenberg's 1999 film eXistenZ: rather than being umbilically connected to a virtual world, Packer is hermetically sealed off from theRobbie Collin of The Telegraph gave the film four stars out of five, stating, "It's a smart inversion of Cronenberg's 1999 film eXistenZ: rather than being umbilically connected to a virtual world, Packer is hermetically sealed off from the real one."

"Cosmopolis" is a movie about what it feels to be disconnected from the "real world". It's a movie about the nihilism, despair and boredom of those who're without a meaningful goal or purpose on their lives.

This movie isn't for everyone, though. The less you can relate to the disconnect of the movie, the more this movie will leave you disconnected as well.

One thing is almost guaranteed, though: this movie will make an impression. "Cosmopolis" is one of those movies people tend to either passionately love or passionately hate. It's one of these movies that either resonate throughout throughout your soul or fail to reach you at all.

If you like Cronenberg's movies, definitely check it out.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
ExpectonerJan 8, 2013
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 ^^
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
audreythomas25Jan 27, 2016
It’s a very smart movie and its very fascinating.

Watch this film here for free http://www.watchfree.to/watch-24d595-Cosmopolis-movie-online-free-putlocker.html
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
8
talisencrwMay 4, 2016
I really enjoyed this Cronenberg film. Though my favourite films of his are the incredible ones he did in my teens, during the 80's ('Videodrome', 'The Dead Zone' and 'The Fly' are nothing short of outstanding, and works that no one elseI really enjoyed this Cronenberg film. Though my favourite films of his are the incredible ones he did in my teens, during the 80's ('Videodrome', 'The Dead Zone' and 'The Fly' are nothing short of outstanding, and works that no one else could have come up with), he's really been thinking outside of the box for the past decade (even for a consistently interesting creature such as he), and it's only been recently, with both Sarah Polley and Denis Villeneuve emerging as vital directors, that his ranking as the greatest Canadian director ever chas even had suitable competition for comparison.

I remembered when this came out, and I believe a critic from 'The Globe and Mail' interviewed Cronenberg at its opening at Cannes, and he was almost apologetic about using Pattinson. It sounded like he didn't want to have to direct him. He made the excuse that he couldn't get funding for his projects from North America anymore, which is a dirty rotten shame, and had to go to Europe and Asia any time he wanted to make a film in order to have it bankrolled, and the Japanese insisted on star power to put moviegoers in the seats, and said there'd only be financial backing if Cronenberg directed Pattinson. This was my first experience watching the actor's work, and he did a fine job, no problem. The supporting cast was strong, with many of my favourite character actors of late, such as Paul Giamatti and Jay Baruchel. The script, co-written by Cronenberg, was a strong statement about just how out of touch the very rich are with the other 99% of us. I docked my mark by 1/10 because I was pissed off that Cronenberg degraded one of the finest actresses of our lifetime, Juliette Binoche here. I can't even talk about it. It was as difficult for me to tolerate as Spike Lee having Christopher Plummer call Jodie Foster a c*** in the otherwise excellent 'Inside Man'. Lee's off my Christmas card list for sure this year, but Cronenberg being a fellow Canadian (I bet you thought I was going to say white, hahaha), I'll be less angry. But he better look over his shoulder if he tries something like THAT again. I was THAT close to crossing HIM off my Christmas card list too...

I also remember from the time the film came out, an article and rating on the film (I think it was 'The Globe and Mail' as well, and by the same critic who had earlier interviewed him), saying that when he watched it, he watched a few teenage girls leaving the theatre (most probably because Pattinson was in it), saying it was the worst movie they had ever seen. That's the only evidence you need that this is a fine movie, well worth your time.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
VidsRuleJan 4, 2013
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 wantCronenberg'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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
SpangleNov 15, 2015
Cosmopolis is cold and distant, but it is with a purpose as our protagonist is not one of us and is a member of the 1%. We are supposed to feel disconnected from him. Robert Pattinson is absolutely phenomenal here. He brings a measure ofCosmopolis is cold and distant, but it is with a purpose as our protagonist is not one of us and is a member of the 1%. We are supposed to feel disconnected from him. Robert Pattinson is absolutely phenomenal here. He brings a measure of openness, but at the same time, smugness and pompousness that was needed. He is brilliant. The supporting cast is also great. The direction from David Cronenberg is great as usual and so is the cinematography. Honestly, it is impressive for a film to be so cold and uninviting, yet so brilliant at the same time. This film is incredibly divisive, which is understandable. It simply won't appeal to everyone, but regardless, Pattinson is a thing to behold here and this a film that should move to expunge Twilight from his resume. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
lahaine2012Sep 21, 2012
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 selfDavid 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
RobertBroganSep 28, 2015
Cosmopolis is for people who want something different and are willing to be tolerant in order to get it. For everyone else expecting something along the lines of Oliver Stone's Wall Street, a straightforward but well-done drama, Cosmopolis isCosmopolis is for people who want something different and are willing to be tolerant in order to get it. For everyone else expecting something along the lines of Oliver Stone's Wall Street, a straightforward but well-done drama, Cosmopolis is going to be a disappointment. It is not so much weird as plain odd. I don't dislike the movie but do find a lack of effort (particularly the lighting) and feel it could have been significantly better. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
MkMAug 21, 2012
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'sActually 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
4 of 7 users found this helpful43
All this user's reviews
5
StealthgearFeb 24, 2013
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 theThis 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
BrianMcCriticMar 10, 2013
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.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
hd1978Aug 3, 2014
A Wall Street billionaire (Robert Pattinson) takes one risk too many and his empire is about to fall. The themes are familiar; the emptiness of wealth, the inequalities arising from unrestrained capitalism. A rat became the unit of currency,A Wall Street billionaire (Robert Pattinson) takes one risk too many and his empire is about to fall. The themes are familiar; the emptiness of wealth, the inequalities arising from unrestrained capitalism. A rat became the unit of currency, we are told. Like many Cronenberg films, Cosmopolis seemed to promise so much, but was ultimately style over substance. These themes have been exhausted and I don't think there was anything new here. There was a great deal of dialogue expressed as if it held great meaning, but when considered, was often vacuous. The characters interacted with one another as if they were aliens, which undoubtedly was the point. but became boring and seemed pretentious. However, Pattinson gave a precise, controlled and razor-sharp performance; he is under-rated as an actor. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
J_Thom123Jan 1, 2013
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 whoThe 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
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
2
MarcDoyleAug 17, 2012
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 willIt 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
5 of 8 users found this helpful53
All this user's reviews
2
bmbigbangJan 3, 2013
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 arei 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
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
2
LewisDannyFeb 10, 2014
A painfully vapid movie, and a departure from Cronenberg's usual genius; the dialogue is as shallow as a kiddie pool, and the atmosphere is equally as cold (not to mention sterile).
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
ZeyeballZApr 27, 2013
A rare misfire for Mr Cronenberg. The dialogue was preposterously stilted and the characterisations were almost uniformly poor, save for some of the supporting roles.
With this plot, this setting and this director I was hoping for something
A rare misfire for Mr Cronenberg. The dialogue was preposterously stilted and the characterisations were almost uniformly poor, save for some of the supporting roles.
With this plot, this setting and this director I was hoping for something exciting and innovative. What I got was a disconnected series of scenes where bloodless characters spout forth preposterous clever-clever dialogue.
Ultimately there was a complete lack of tension due to the failure of actor and director to create a story that I cared about. I recommend avoid even free-to-view. Your time is worth more than this.
Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
0
StenJan 4, 2013
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!
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
0
NazguleroJan 5, 2013
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 peopleUtterly 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. Expand
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
0
aethelyonJan 7, 2013
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.
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
0
DJTOBYJan 25, 2013
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 fastI 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. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
0
AlphaRebelFeb 2, 2013
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
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
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
0
KetaurinoFeb 17, 2013
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.
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
0
IxtopMar 5, 2013
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,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. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
0
FilmlayarlebarJun 11, 2013
This will be the first and the last time I watch David Cronenberg's film. One of the worst film I've ever seen! The dialogue is Horrible and really boring!!
0 of 4 users found this helpful04
All this user's reviews
0
georgecarvajalJul 20, 2013
the most boring movie i had ever seen there is not content nothing is interesting i almost sleep watching this is just blah blah blah inside a limo all the movie talking about something we dont care is just boring...
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews