One Of The Most Boring Modern Philosophy Works, Cosmopolis Drags.

The Good: Direction is good, Moments of themes
The Bad: Awkward acting, Unlikable characters, Virtually plotless
The Basics: A droning, plodding film about the last day of a tycoon, Cosmopolis is boring instead of audacious.


I like complicated movies. I like complicated and smart movies. In fact, one of my favorite films of all time is Magnolia (reviewed here!) and that film is smart, complex, and exceptionally layered. What separates it from being pretentious is the fact that the characters resonate with genuine human emotions. At the end of it all, the themes explore deeper, universal truths about humanity. It is complicated and smart without being pretentious. I loathe pretentious movies.

Cosmopolis is nothing but pretension. Filled with pretense, characters who speak almost exclusively in riddles, and themes that are presented almost to the exclusion of the characters who embody or articulate the themes, Cosmopolis is a very pretentious film. I suspect that it is solely the fact that writer David Cronenberg’s project that got Cosmopolis made. Cosmopolis is based upon a novel and it is worth mentioning that I have not read that book, so this is a very pure review of the film Cosmopolis.

Eric Packer is a hugely successful young businessman who leaves work in his limo to go get a haircut across town. He spends the ride with his analyst and longtime business partner, Shiner, who assures him the business is secure. He abruptly leaves his limo to meet Elise, a young blonde who insists she likes riding in taxis and seems mostly immune to his charms. After getting back in his limo, Eric has sex with a different woman and continues his trip across town. Over the course of a full day, he meets with anti-capitalist protestors, hookers, and the manager of a black musician who died of natural causes and whose funeral, like the protest, blocks Eric’s way. He meets with Elise again, at a bookstore and at a hotel after he has sex with a different woman.

After night falls, Eric ends up at the barber he set out to meet. En route, he is assaulted by an artist who smacks him in the face with a custard. Impulsively, Eric kills his own bodyguard and gets his hair cut. After returning the graffiti-stained limo to its berth, Eric ends up in the lair of a man who has been out to kill him all day and the two face off for a conversation that reveals Eric’s place in the Capitalist machine.

I’m an anti-capitalist (not as freakish or maniacal as the ones in Cosmopolis), so when I write that Cosmopolis is boring and jumbled, it is not because I do not understand the perspective of the anti-capitalists. Instead, I find Cosmopolis loathsome because the characters are vacuous, largely flat and monolithic, the plot is dull and drags on largely uneventfully and the performances are so stiff as to make Robert Pattinson’s portrayal of Edward Cullen in The Twilight Saga (reviewed here!) look positively charismatic and exciting. As it is, though, the film is so deliberately opaque through most of the film that I had to look up what the relationship between Eric and Elise actually was. Sure, they mention being married in Cosmopolis, but they are so passionless, detached from one another and speak in circles so frequently, that it was not entirely clear in the film that they were actually married to one another. Moreover, the fact that Eric has sex with at least two other women in the course of the film did not make their relationship clearer.

I was a bit miffed to see that Cosmopolis is considered science fiction (by some); the only aspect of science fiction in the film by my reckoning is the voice-activated firearm used by Torval. And even that did not seem any more fantastic than the fingerprint-activated firearm used in Skyfall (reviewed here!). The rest of the movie seems to be remarkably straightforward in its technology and themes. When those themes are made clear, about the way capitalism destroys the masses to benefit the few and dehumanizes those who control the wealth of others, Cosmopolis is more than just all right. Unfortunately, it seldom does that.

Instead, Cosmopolis is largely a guy we don’t care about stuck in a traffic jam all day. He uses his massive limo as an office, taking on visitors throughout the day and very few of them are actually interesting or engaging enough to justify the almost two hours of boredom that the film includes. He fucks two women, flirts with two others (one of whom is his wife) and all the encounters are equally unmemorable. In fact, the only bit of amusement in the entirety of Cosmopolis for me was the discussion Eric has with the musician who did not die. The two talk about how it’s almost a shame that the dead rapper did not get to go out in a blaze of glory; he simply died of natural causes.

Throughout Cosmopolis, there are references to the visiting president and currency fluctuations, but Eric receives the news and reacts to it all blandly. This forces Robert Pattinson, who plays Eric, to present a great deal of exposition, which he does with a stiffness that is almost inhuman. In fact, the scene in which Eric is having his prostate examined while flirting is so dryly delivered, it is only the camera angles and intercuts to the doctor that inform the viewer what is happening to the protagonist.

Sadly, the film’s ultimate antagonist, played by Paul Giamatti, comes into the film far too late to engage the viewer. Moreover, in a complete failure of casting, Giamatti’s first appearance on screen is conspicuous. The role of Benno Levin should have gone to a complete unknown; when Paul Giamatti walks by the limo early in the film, he sticks out like a sore thumb. Amid all the pedestrians, I found myself exclaiming, “Hey, that’s Paul Giamatti!” And, given that this is not an Edward Hitchcock film and Paul Giamatti is not assuming a Hitchcockian cameo, the viewer is tipped off early and simply waiting through a particularly droll day for Giamatti to pop back up.

Benno Levin’s part in the film is not one that is hard to be sympathetic to, but it is not incredible-enough to justify the rest of the movie. Had the narrative technique been something more interesting, even a Memento-esque retracing presentation, the film might have been a little more engaging. As it is, the film is stiff and demanding upon the viewer, with little real reward for the viewer’s attention. In other words, it is all pretense, with little payoff.

For other films focused on big business and tycoons, please check out my reviews of:
Margin Call
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps
Thank You For Smoking

1.5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2013 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Cycles We Pass On, Cycles We Cannot Escape Are Embodied In A History Of Violence

The Good: Excellent characters and development, Good acting, Engaging story, Good direction
The Bad: Moments of cliche
The Basics: When a decent man is put in a situation that involves violence in self-defense, his life begins to spiral out of control.


The first thing to impress me about A History Of Violence was the relative intelligence of the characters. The police aren't portrayed as idiots, the women aren't portrayed as weak and helpless, and the protagonist seems to realize the severity of his actions. For one reason or another, I have managed to watch a lot of disappointing movies and television lately. Fortunately, A History Of Violence bucked that trend and offered me a solidly entertaining diversion that is still making me think.

While Tom Stall enjoys life and love with his wife and two children, the rest of the world does what it is doing. Killers come and go and at school, Tom's son Jack finds himself talking his way out of a fight with a bully. Unfortunately for Tom, one night at closing at his diner two killers enter and menace his customers. Tom defends the patrons and the waitress there and in the process dispatches the two killers.

Unfortunately for Tom, this sets off a series of events that cause his life and the life of his family members to unravel. A menacing stranger, Fogarty, comes to town and calls Tom by another name, which Tom denies. Even after the police investigate Fogarty and find out his ties to organized crime and Edie (Tom's wife) gets a restraining order, Fogarty menaces Tom and his family. Jack gets into a fight in school, Fogarty makes his play and Tom's life is turned upside down.

What works exceptionally well in A History Of Violence are the characters. Tom Stall does not want to glorify violence and his anger at his son for getting into a fight at school seems very genuine. Tom seems educated, articulate and deliberately pacifistic, which are traits that are effectively shared with his son, Jack.

The transformation that occurs after the initial act of desperate heroism is telling and very real. A History Of Violence plays out the "is he or isn't he" aspect of Tom's nature quite effectively for a significant amount of time and I think it would be a shame to ruin that in this review. However, it is fair to say that A History Of Violence is all about exploring the consequences of aggression and rage. Tom's playful attitude with his wife is wonderfully sundered once the door to violence is opened. When Jack makes an angry crack about how the family deals with problems, Tom's reaction is very natural given line that he has crossed.

This is a family that has not solved problems with violence, so when one member of the family commits an act of violence - even in self-defense and the defense of others - the family suffers. It's refreshing to see a young person (Jack, in this case) freak out when he sees his mother running around with a shotgun. In school, Jack has a wonderful exchange with a girl about how scary it is for Tom to have killed two people.

That level of realism follows throughout the movie. In the diner scene when Tom is called upon to save the patrons, he does not walk away unscathed; one of the two career criminals knifes him. That played out as very real. And when Tom is called another name repeatedly by Fogarty, even though he is a local celebrity, Sheriff Sam starts asking Tom questions. That level of detail and intelligence was remarkably refreshing and real.

And Edie is wonderful in how she knows Tom. She acts independently of him when Tom is threatened and that seems both loving and realistic. She's intelligent and she can see what has happened when the door to violence is opened. Unfortunately, her intelligence lapses at one of the dumbest times in the movie; after her family is menaced, she turns her back on her very young daughter while out in the mall. That did not "read" right at all.

Similarly, there are scenes near the climax of the movie featuring hard core criminals who are ruthless that lack the realism and tone of the rest of the movie. It's a shame, too, because in order to resolve the film, the writers and director sacrifice the realism of the rest of the piece. It goes back to the old question from Star Wars: A New Hope; "How does the Empire maintain control when the stormtroopers can't seem to hit anyone they shoot at?"

Where the movie ends, though, makes sense on a character level and it is a thoroughly appropriate ending (though had it ended a few minutes earlier with a very different character resolution, I would have been equally satisfied). It's a powerful movie with an excellent exploration of the way violence escalates, even when it begins benignly.

Part of what makes the movie work so well is the acting. It's always a pleasure for me to see Stephen McHattie getting work and having him open A History Of Violence is both wonderful and effectively creepy. Ashton Holmes does an excellent job as Jack. He is articulate and funny and he plays disarming remarkably well when his character is bullied.

Maria Bello is equally good as Edie. She plays loving, angry, protective and curious as appropriate wonderfully. She is able to modulate between moods with the flicker of her eyes and a subtle change in her glance. She emotes very well and helps act as a very human foil to Tom. Her last appearance in the movie is riveting.

It is Viggo Mortensen who carries much of the movie with his acting. Mortensen is good at modulating between the mild mannered man he portrays with a sense of permanence and realism and the man who engages his protective instinct. Mortensen plays instinctual very well, making his ability to react very real. He plays Tom with great humanity.

This was the first movie directed by David Cronenberg that I have seen (I saw him act on "Alias") and I have to say I was impressed. I was equally impressed on the DVD to see that the deleted scene, which was a dream sequence, was deleted because he felt it did not fit (I agree). Also, he argued against a U.S. and International DVD release as the international version simply had two shots that had a little more blood and an enhanced sound effect. I respect Cronenberg's directoral choices in this movie.

A History Of Violence, as the title suggests, is not for everyone. Squeamish about blood and sex? This movie is not for you. The sex is not gratuitous and the differences in the ways it happens throughout the movie are very telling. And effective. I remain impressed by A History Of Violence and I recommend it for anyone who wants a decent character exploration on violence and its effect on a family.

For other stories where revenge is an important aspect, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Payback
The Last House On The Left
Unforgiven

8/10

For other film reviews, be sure to visit my Movie Review Index Page for a complete listing of all the films I have reviewed!

© 2012, 2006 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |