Me, me, me!
"Eric Packer, de manera ocasional o planeada, se reúne con una serie de personajes quienes dan entrada a los razonamientos sobre el futuro autodestructivo, la tecnología errónea, el existencialismo frustrado, el goce sexual en sus distintas formas y maneras, la violencia innata, la deconstrucción de los conceptos..." http://bit.ly/ZgEd36
Better than its reception, but no where was great as Cronenberg's classics. The cynicism is palpable, its satire is brutal, and the acting is wonderfully cold all the away around. My biggest issue with it though is that its such a conservative adaption and Cronenberg didn't add much visually. I honestly would like someone else to try to adapt, possibly me. Only I should've adapted this. I would have done it better!
Fuck! A vision of America even darker and bleaker than Killing Them Softly. It is also more on point. A beautifully conceived critique of the upperclass (that doesn't excuse anyone which I love), as well as the nature of capitalism, money, and apathy in the wealthy. I loved it. Cronenberg's most ambitious and interesting film since eXistenZ. I loved that almost nothing actually happened and so much did.
I don't know if Don DeLillo should feel flattered or embarrassed that David Cronenberg literally took a highlighter to most of the dialogue in his novel "Cosmopolis" and then called it a 'screenplay.' Granted, Cronenberg's slavishness to the text wouldn't have been an issue if the movie didn't feel so tonally off-point from DeLillo's work. A slew of misjudged performances, with Robert Pattinson being the worst offender, and intermittently shoddy digital photography also conspire against "Cosmopolis." As a longtime fan of Cronenberg, I must confess this feels like one of his first genuine misfires.
I heard DeLillo and two actors perform a section from the book when it came out (at the Steppenwolf in Chicago) and ... all three delivered it in ways pretty consistent with the actors in the film. I guess what I'm saying is: I think all involved deserve pretty much equal blame. Which I find to be quite the bummer.
thought there was something a bit off about it initially. seeing it again showed this to be an audacious piece of cinema. there's something deeply uncomfortable about the removal of DeLillo's dialogue from its literary context. but it's Cronenberg's incredible, understated cinematic work with this material's unsuited rhythm and dynamic that makes this as interesting as it is. DeLillo done justice, in some weird way.
Trite. A film like L'Avventura is much more scathing... Both Pattinson and Cronenberg qualify as being top 1%. Fascinating how Hollywood's criticism of wealth is reserved only for industries that differ from their own.
It's clear that it tries to talk about life in broader terms, but it's undeniable it does so with the premisse that the blend between capitalism and life is irrevocable, in a really resigned manner. Capital is predominant today, but the movie accepts this fact as something incorporated to human life from now on, as an everlasting fact. Crappy film both artistically and politically.
cronenberg's most explicitly experimental movie in decades features a holy trinity of my own favorite actors (that's mathieu amalric, juliette binoche and samantha morton) and a surprisingly appropriate performance from team edward. but in the end, the material worked better as a book than it does on film. cronenberg is at his best when his high-brow instincts are filtered through a pulp lens. less talk more action.