Cosmopolis

Cosmopolis. A city inhabited by people from many different countries. I had to look it up to see if it was a real word. Anyways, if the title of this post is any indication, today we talk about Cosmopolis, a movie you almost definitely have never heard of. But don't feel too bad about that, it just came out last year. It stars Robert Pattinson, Paul Giamatti, and a handfull of other relative nobodies.

Netflix: Did Han shoot first?

Pick: Markum X

Dylan: I do not like movies that make me feel stupid. And this one kind of did that. I am debating whether or not to do some research, review the plot on wikipedia, etc., to see if I missed something. Put honestly, I don’t feel I should have to do that. Some movies ask for it, like Prometheus, which I had to get a few other opinions on before I fully understood it. But this one just didn’t grab me enough to make me want to look deeper. Maybe your insight will be enough to change my mind.

Mark: Well sorry to disappoint, but I don’t think there’s anything deeper than what it tries to present to us.

Dylan: “tries” being the key word here.

Mark: Key word with flashing neon lights.  I really wanted to like this movie.  I like the author whose book this is based on.

Dylan: Ah. Who’s that?

Mark: Don DeLillo.  But having read some things of his, I had my fears for the movie, because his writings require more imagination from the readers, and in book form his writing can be more allegorical without having to have anything concrete to come back to.  A movie has to overcome the challenge of grounding his thoughts in reality.  And while some things worked, some things were lost in it’s own words.  And I agree with you, I don’t like to feel stupid when watching something.  And this movie spoke above and beyond me, but I felt there was nothing behind any of it.

Dylan: See, that’s the thing. All of the dialogue is philosophical. And we are never really introduced to the characters. And for the most part, we’re not supposed to be. Aside from Robert Pattinson’s character (and I guess his head of security, too) all other characters come and go and are never seen again. So we are forced to follow this stranger -- whose thoughts and speech aren’t even remotely relatable -- as he drives around Manhattan for one day. Not to mention the weird stuff going on outside of the limo, which is never really explained, including people running around throwing dead rats at each other.

But wait, before we move on, let me just put in a quick synopsis. Robert Pattinson plays Packer, a very rich young man. But he has reason to believe someone is out to kill him. In the back of a limo, he talks to various individuals about his life, his failing financial situation, and...his prostate. ...does that about sum it up?

Mark: Yeah, I mean, it’s a shit ton wordier than that, but it comes down to that.  And while it does take place in Manhattan, it was shot in Toronto.  From what I read, very obviously so.

But, I agree; that we start at the beginning of Packer’s day and from there we run through the gamut of people he knows and are connected with him in some way.  But it happens without any context for us, and while I usually like films that proceed like a “normal” day for a character, those usually create context; this does not.  We don’t even get a lot of time with some characters.  I didn’t realize one of the women was his art dealer; I just assumed he spoke a lot to this one, as I thought, prostitute.  I was wrong.  But I felt as though that was on the film for not illustrating that better.  But at least, the things going on outside are explained, a little bit.  He’s working his way across town, dealing with traffic created by a Presidential visit, a rapper’s funeral, and an anti-capitalist protest/riot.  The rat people relate back to them.  And sometimes the films explains it.  I understand the point behind the protests, I just wish I didn’t have to tune out the movie to figure it out.

Dylan: Ha, I also assumed she was a prostitute at first. Well, since it took place in New York and there were protesters, I thought for a second that it was somehow Occupy Wall Street-based. And then I thought about The Dark Knight Rises and how it the plot there is weakly inspired by that whole thing too. All the way down to the conversation between Packer and Paul Giamatti’s character at the end, which I saw as perhaps a better alternative to the DKR scene in which Bruce Wayne goes to Selina Kyle’s apartment. Anyways, I digress, and don’t get me wrong, DKR is a much better film. However, one piece of praise I have -- and I really hate myself for saying this -- is that Robert Pattinson was actually pretty good. He memorized his lines and everything! Granted, he had to play a pale, emotionless, dimensionless character. But that suits him, I suppose.

Mark: I’m gonna be a little kinder to him.  I also thought he was good.  Packer is supposed to represent, at least, since you brought up the Occupy Wall Street factor, the 1%.  And he did it well; really playing up the cold-blooded nature of Packer.  This is a man who’s reached such astounding financial heights at such a young age that he has no idea what the real world is like anymore.  And even though it does come off as lifeless, I think that’s exactly what is needed.  But in the same breath, when Giamatti comes into play, Pattinson is completely overshadowed.  You see the difference in their acting strength.

Dylan: Yea, true. Giamatti...I like him, but he hasn’t really done anything spectacular lately. That I know of. What did you think of his role? And the entire ending for that matter?

Mark: Well the role he plays is supposed to be the polar opposite of Packer.  At least I saw it that way.  Packer tries to see every little thing possible, to the most excruciating detail, which in a way leads to his downfall.  While Giamatti’s character is focused on the bigger picture.  His way of thinking is antiquated in the eyes of the people in power.  So while their dialogue was near impossible to comprehend, what I could make out made sense to me.  So the end scenes worked as a way to frame it all together for Packer.  However, the very end just lost me.  It just leaves us.

Dylan: I mean I can’t say I was invested enough in the characters to really care how it ended. So the cliffhanger there didn’t really work on me. I think Packer at that point had a major deathwish, so he probably wanted to die. I don’t know.

Anyways, I am ready for my final thoughts. You?

Mark: Yeah.  My last thing is just I thought Cronenberg did a good job with the directing, making the limo feel like a larger-than-life area, to fit with the character of Packer.  But really this is nowhere near the great directing Cronenberg’s done in the past.  But, as you can tell, while there were some good points, I wouldn’t really recommend this.  If you’re a Don DeLillo fan and want to see his words made into a movie, then that’s the only reason I’d say watch this.  Other than that, nothing stands out enough for me to tell anyone to see it.

Dylan: Yea, I was thinking something similar. If you are a huge David Cronenberg fan, or maybe if you’re like doing a project on him for a film class and want a movie that you can put a ton of thought into and basically get as much out of it as your imagination will allow, then here you go. But if you want to be entertained, don’t bother.

Mark:  Alright, I can give you two trivia questions.  First, who was first contracted to play Packer before Pattinson got the role? Hint: He recently starred in a remake with Bryan Cranston.

Dylan: Colin Farrel? Ferrill? Ferrel?

Mark:  Ding ding ding, we have a winner.  Yes, he actually left this film to go work on that one.  (That one being Total Recall.)

Dylan: My first ever correct trivia answer.

Mark:  I might keep doing hints, since some of these require impossible knowledge.  Now the next question: how long did it take Cronenberg to write the screenplay?

Dylan: Umm, the same amount of time it takes him to take a dump.

Mark:  Apparently that would be 6 days.

Dylan: Hey, we’ve all been there.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, the first movie we both agreed is kind of shitty. This brings into question the very title of this section of the blog, "Good Movie Reviews". I suppose I could change it. I originally just made up "Good Movie Reviews" and "Bad Movie Reviews". But the latter got changed to "Drunken Critic Recap". Now I got a section that promises good titles, and a shitty movie that I don't know what to do with. But if I change it, then I gotta retag all the other ones, and switch some settings so that the new tag is displayed and the old one isn't and ugh, all that clicking and typing, no thanks. In theory I suppose we could just not put up movies we think are bad. But then again, I'd hate for someone to go and watch Cosmopolis and hate it and then blame us for not warning them against it.

Alas, it is a quandary. Is it weird if I say I'd rather watch Viggo Mortensen naked wrestle two hitmen in a sauna than watch this movie again?

(That, of course, is a reference to the movie Eastern Promises, also directed by David Cronenberg. Try to keep up.)

Our next movie will be The Raid: Redemption. It's a good'n. Go watch it. Or don't. What do I know? I'll tell ya, "I don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' babies." And if you can figure out how THAT quote connects to this movie, man, you're good.