Although David Cronenberg is particularly recognised for creating gruesome venereal horror films, his work in recent years has moved further away from the horror genre. His latest effort, Cosmopolis, embraces a slow-paced, dialogue-heavy style which is far removed from earlier, more commercial films such as The Fly (1986). Adapted from the novel by Don DeLillo, Cosmopolis shows us a day in the life of Wall Street multi-billionaire Eric Packer (played by Twilight star Robert Pattinson), a day largely consisting of a tedious quest across the city in the back of a limousine, all in pursuit of getting a haircut. This is framed against a backdrop of monetary failure and anti-capitalist rioting, harking back to the global financial crisis of 2008. The burden of money and a preoccupation with superficial matters means that Packer brings to mind a contemporary Patrick Bateman from American Psycho (2000), only without the humour, charisma and overwhelming psychopathic tendencies (so basically, without any of the things that make the character interesting).
While fans of the novel may be pleased that Cronenberg has chosen to retain much of the dialogue from the book, the long, eloquent sentences recited with little variance in tone mostly manage to alienate the viewer. Real-life speech contains pauses, fillers, interruptions, backtracking and repetition, whereas in Cosmopolis the dialogue literally sounds like it is being read aloud straight from the novel’s pages. Art films frequently prioritize dialogue over plot in order to capture the realities of everyday conversation and to present the audience with characters that we can really get to know, but in this instance the dialogue really tells us nothing remotely compelling. Conversations about the economy, capitalism, and “deep” philosophical questions or observations about life (“What does it mean to spend money?”) sound very clever at first, but the responses given actually teach us very little of interest about the characters on-screen. The stilted dialogue and lack of feeling is present among all the film’s characters, despite the appearance of actress Samantha Morton who is the Queen of emotion in films like Control (2007) and Morvern Callar (2002). We can assume then that this was a deliberate directorial decision on the part of Cronenberg, and not attribute much blame to the actors involved.
The cinematography and editing, at times, also contribute to the stilted effect. The way that some of the sequences were pieced together felt awkward and resulted in more of my attention being drawn to the cuts between shots (and sometimes to the dodgy green screen scenery outside the car’s windows) than to the complicated dialogue in the scene. The cumulative effect of all of this is that the film is extremely difficult to engage with. The characters are not interesting, the dialogue is not interesting, the plot is not interesting, and the way that everything is presented to us doesn’t help matters one bit. The one positive that I can draw from the film is that sometimes the deadpan tone in which dialogue is spoken is used fairly effectively to create humour, particularly in the case of ridiculous lines like “my prostate is asymmetrical.” One scene involving a rectal examination in the back of the limousine has the potential to be hilarious, but the continuous use of disjointed and uninteresting dialogue results in the segment being only marginally less boring than all the rest in the film.
The decision to set the bulk of the film in the back of a limo is an interesting one. The limo acts as Packer’s bubble from the outside world, suggesting that the luxury of being able to have everything he wants has led him to become numb to everything outside himself. Pain and fear are not emotions which seem to affect Packer, in fact he seems to welcome danger with open arms as a break from monotony; the numerous threats on his life cause him very little concern and he feels the need to continue on the all-important journey to the barbers even as a riot goes on right outside his car. Inside the limo the sounds of the angry crowds outside are reduced to silence, resulting in the car, and Packer inside it, seeming even more disconnected from reality. However, similar comments on the nature of capitalism and greed have been made before in other films, films which also succeed in being much less tedious than this one.
Generally speaking, even when I dislike a film personally I can still acknowledge that there are things about it which different viewers may find appealing. In the case of Cosmopolis, I really struggle to do this. Though some critics have described the film as “riveting”, I honestly can not bring myself to recommend this to anybody.

ciaranainsworth
27/06/2012
I first heard about this movie through tumblr and, like a terrible film student, was almost immediately put off by the inclusion of Pattinson. I haven’t seen him in many films (which may have something to do with the fact that he has been in so few) and yet each time I have seen him I have been bored to tears. I was therefore surprised by reviews that praised him so in this movie. I enjoy Kronenburg as a director, notably for films such as Videodrome and The Fly, but I was and still am dubious as to whether he could make Pattinson in any way appear entertaining or indeed give him a presence on screen.
It has to be said that the premise of the book and subsequent film is one that bores me. Even by simply reading the synopsis I know I am probably not going to see this. There is very little room to steer away from dialogue due to the loquaciousness of the novel and therefore, as somebody who more of a fan of silent cinema than radio, it doesn’t seem to be the sort of thing I would enjoy. Having read this review, it is apparent that not even the cinematic aspects of the creation process have been able to salvage this one.
Laura Marie Scott
28/06/2012
The fault really does not like with Pattinson in this instance. No, I don’t think he’s a particularly good actor either, but in this role he’s given very little to work with since he’s basically playing a man devoid of emotion.
Thanks for commenting!
Corey Atad
06/07/2012
I walked out of the film, and my condemnation of the film was verging on hyperbolic, but you basically say everything about the film that I felt. I just don’t understand how such a huge misfire happened. It felt like Cronenberg didn’t bother to think about the film or plan it. Just stick the camera at odd angles and have the actors recite pages of dialogue with no emotion.
monster1711
04/04/2013
Great review and awesome site, I am now following. Lots of good content, keep it up! I recently started my own film blog and would love for you to check it out. Hopefully you’ll like what you see.