Realização:
David CronenbergArgumento:
David CronenbergCâmara:
Peter SuschitzkyMúsica:
Howard ShoreElenco:
Robert Pattinson, Paul Giamatti, Jay Baruchel, Kevin Durand, Juliette Binoche, Samantha Morton, Sarah Gadon, Mathieu Amalric, Emily Hampshire, Goûchy Boy (mais)Streaming (1)
Sinopses(1)
Eric, um "golden boy" de 28 anos, fez da sua vida um microcosmos obsessivo e violento do mundo de hoje em dia. Uma obra frenética e visual, numa unidade de tempo e lugar- 24 horas em Nova Iork. Adaptação de um romance entre o real e o virtual, onde o protagonista penetra num labirinto de imagens contraditórias e assimétricas, é uma promessa de luz para cada espectador. (Leopardo Filmes)
(mais)Críticas (8)
I don't count myself among the die-hard fans of David Cronenberg, and although I’ve been keeping an eye on hims since the days of Crash, but I've never been particularly fond of him. So what is Cosmopolis like? Ordinary. In the context of Cronenberg's work, not particularly alarming, not particularly revelatory. But his collaboration with Robert Pattinson apparently appealed to him, and so we got even more of it with Maps to the Stars...
()
Sem Tempo para os intelectuais. Uma crítica difícil de digerir do capitalismo, cheia de diálogo incompreensível, a maior parte do qual nem sequer nos pretende dizer nada de significativo, e destina-se apenas a transportar-nos para um mundo cinematográfico que nunca vimos antes. Depois de Crash, David tenta defender a sua posição como realizador que filma o não filmável. Uma viagem visualmente estética, perturbadoramente atmosférica, pulsante, brincando com as expectativas do público de que nem sequer se sabe qual será a próxima palavra que vai sair de um personagem, quanto mais o que vai ser na cena seguinte (o episódio da arma no campo de basquetebol é ótimo). Pattinson, sobre cujo papel no elenco eu inicialmente abanei a cabeça em descrença, é o principal trunfo do filme e ele interpreta-o perfeitamente. Binoche, Amalric e Giamatti desfrutam dos papéis menores e são um bom impulso para o filme. É uma pena que, para uma representação da alienação da sociedade cosmopolita, o próprio filme permaneça alienado a todos os níveis, exceto a relação de Pattinson com a sua mulher. A dupla tem as melhores cenas do filme juntamente com os únicos diálogos palpáveis. Cosmopolis é uma brincadeira que me entretém com o quão diferente é. E também imaginando o olhar nos rostos das multidões de fãs adolescentes de Pattinson a observá-lo :-D
()
What feels like roughly four hours of toilet philosophising, which Cronenberg disparages in places, but through most of the film he just lets it monotonously flow forth, which is so mind-numbing that you will probably lose any desire to hear the film’s message, whatever that may be (for example, the message that we haven’t been told anything). I will have to watch it again to confirm or refute the impression that this is Cronenberg’s shallowest and least atmospheric film, but I’m going to need to psych myself up for that over the next several weeks. 50%
()
It is not enough to describe book dialogues and film them with the stereotypical method of “shot x counter-shot". There are a few eccentric moments and they feel more self-parodying, while the ending is explicitly verbal diarrhea. Although I basically like what the film says, it does not defend Cronenberg's form. Not even the desperately un-charismatic Pattinson, whose decadent boredom one can't even take seriously.
()
It’s not exactly an enjoyable watch, but Cosmopolis is definitely worth seeing. For its differentness at least. Also to see Pattinson (just how many horrified fans left the theater in disgust? :D) who gives the best performance of his career so far. I must admit that I found myself nodding off a bit during the first half, some of the theorizing dialogs were tiresome, but that soon stopped. Basically non-existent relationships (except for the wide and that grampa) rule out any sympathy for the characters. The music, combining Shore’s abilities with the electronic project Metric, is almost hypnotizing in places. This isn’t a satisfying picture and that’s on purpose. Maybe that’s why I rather liked it. I’ll certainly play it again, the more I think about it, the more interesting that proposed journey to the barber’s seems.
()
My feelings about this movie are very well illustrated by a monologue from one of the main characters in the movie, when she describes how she went to the theater to see a play that was poorly attended, and five minutes after the curtain was raised, she found out first-hand why it was poorly attended, and then she left during the break really annoyed. I felt the same way watching Cosmopolis, except I stayed until the end.
()
The film captures the nearly twenty-four-hour-long self-destructive descent of one man, one archetype, and one mental world. The desire to obtain and understand abstract pure power, passing through wealth itself, the desire to predict, control, and live in the future, enjoying a primitive sense of superiority and strength without sympathy for the surroundings due to one's position. All of this collapses upon realizing that the future cannot be controlled and that death awaits everyone indiscriminately. In the end, it did indeed catch up with Eric Packer not only for how he lived but mainly for how he thought. The film is an above-average faithful adaptation of its source material, which is both a positive and a negative. The disadvantage is for those who have not read the book - then the film will probably turn into a series of scenes that are only understood by chance, or rather, or not at all... I cannot overly criticize that the film did not capture all the thoughts of the printed source, as that is simply a limitation of almost all films based on any book. I had not seen R. Pattinson in any major role before this, so I can objectively say that he does not (particularly) detract from the quality of the film.
()
A day in the limousine unfolds in a way that makes you reflect on where society is actually heading. Eric is an example of how we don't give a damn about others. Everyone is at his mercy, as is his own fate. He has reached a point where he doesn't really care about anything. For him, urinating in the limousine is as much of a problem as killing someone. Does he actually care about anything? What matters to us? Can we still talk to each other? And when we talk to each other, does it have any meaning? I think this is another excellent Cronenberg study that deserves attention, just try to hang on and think about it. If the film doesn’t tell you anything, well even that can happen. But what does it matter? Everyone can be influenced in their own way.
()
Publicidade