Cosmopolis – Review

July 8, 2012 2 Comments

Cosmopolis (2012) 

Directed by David Cronenberg. Starring Robert Pattinson, Juliette Binoche, Sarah Gadon, Mathieu Amalric, Paul Giamatti, Samantha Morton.

How can anyone enjoy such a self-indulgent pile of unintelligible garbage is really beyond me. A few years ago I used to think Cronenberg was one of the most inventive directors around in America: his early films, though not very accessible in a mainstream sense, have always been at least incredibly imaginative and created some images of nightmares of an almost visceral quality, which would stick in our minds for years and years to come: whether it’s an exploding head (Scanners) or a TV screen literarily eating your head (Videodrome), or piece of ears and fingernails falling off Jeff Goldblum  decomposing body  (The Fly). Even the non-completely successful  Naked Lunch or eXistanZ despite their absurdity, were intriguing enough to keep you glued to the chair and had ideas and inventiveness to fill not just one but two films. And then Crash, of course, I film I really hated  and yet I cannot deny its power.

More recently David Cronenberg seems to have abandoned his visceral style for one which is more cerebral… and his nightmarish images have been replaced by tedious logorroic dialogue and by doing that he’s really lost me… It was only a few months ago that his spectacularly dull A Dangerous Method was released. A film that not only managed to bore the hell out of my me, but which also made Michael Fassbender look quite a banal actor: quite an achievement indeed. But if you thought A Dangerous Method was slow, talky and un-cinemtic, Cosmopolis will go you even further and take you to unexplored corners of boredom and self-indulgness, like few films have done before! How could Philip French from the Observer have called it “riveting cinema” is a real a mystery… Are you kidding me?

I would be willing to bet that if the film had been made by a different unknown director, (and not starred Pattinson) hardly anyone would have even noticed it, let alone raved about it as some people are doing.

There are possibly one of two interesting ideas about the film’s concept, which all come from the novel by Don DeLillo, from which the film was adapted: the journey of a multi-bilionarie crossing New York inside a limousine to have a haircut (yes, that it is).

Whether you read Cosmopolis as a premonition for the economic crash or simply as the descent of a man into bankrupcy, there is no denying that this film is one of those clear examples of an adaptation that should have really stayed on the written page of a book. Because once the cumbersome dialogue gets transposed onto the screen, it really begins to show how proposterous and self-indulgent it all is. And unfortunately that’s all the film has to offer: dialogue dialogue, dialogue… and more dialogue. I have nothing against films built around dialogue and speeches (12 angry men is a masterpiece and that takes place inside a room where people talk at each other!). The problem here is that the dialogue in question is so full of itself , so obtuse, so preposterous, so un-real, so arty, and just so uninteresting, that after a while it really starts to go through you, as opposed to you. While watching this film I literarily found myself wondering “What is it they’re actually saying to each other?!”.

Beyond the dialogue, there’s very little else to admire in this film. The cocoon-like atmosphere inside the limousine is not supposed to be real, but it’s jarring at the best, it’s distracting and after about 5 minutes it becomes just tedious. The multitude of characters that come in and out of the journey, all seem to live in some sort of limbo, and despite their obvious differences, all talk with the same monotone voice those uninteresting lines of dialogue. So much so that it’s actually impossible to tell whether anyone is good in this film. I’m sure they are, because they’re all great actors… Sadly, their skills is totally wasted here. Lots of people asked me: “How is Robert Pattinson? Is he good?”. Well you know what? I have no idea? Mainly because that part is playing is so dull, so unreal, so uninteresting, so un-engaging that after a while not even the charm of Twilight-icon is enough to carry you through.

I’m all in favour of film directors trying new things, experimenting with cinema, trying to follow their personal paths, but when it comes to pointless crap like this, they should really spare us from joining their egocentric selfish trip!

This is an insult to all those Pattison fans out there and a deadly kick on the balls to all of us common mortals who happen to stumble across it. They should really pay us to watch this kind of stuff and it should not be the other way round… (actually I might ask Philip French to pay my ticket!).

Stay well away from it, for your own sake. Let’s not encourage Mr. Cronenberg to pull any of this shit on us again!

4/10

Filed under latest movies, Reviews Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

The Ides of March – Review

October 30, 2011 3 Comments

The Ides of March (2011)

Directed by George Clooney. Starring Ryan Gosling, Paul Giamatti, George Clooney, Philip Seymour Hoffman

As many before me have pointed out, this film is clearly an early Oscar bait for the forthcoming awards season: it’s slick, handsome, subtle and has some great performances all around.

As a massive fan of the West Wing and political dramas in general, I was always going to like a film that takes place behind the scenes of a political campaign to elect a candidate at the US primaries. But on the other hand, maybe because of my knowledge of the genre, I couldn’t help feeling a certain sense of déjàvu in the depiction of both the plot and the types of characters. Yes, politicians are double-faced, scheming, deceiving, fast talking… This is an immature democracy soaked in disappointments and yet at the same time in colourful optimistic rhetoric.

We’ve seen most of this before, but despite its unremarkable familiar atmosphere, the film looks and feels so good and has enough confidence and tension to keep you thrilled throughout. And just when you’re about to think “this might be a tiny bit slow”, it pulls off a couple of truly unexpected twists and turns it from a political drama into a pulsating thriller. I must confess, at one point I was literally lost as to where it was all heading to.

Clooney co-wrote it, directed it and stars in it too. As a the man behind the camera, he handles it all with great subtlety and films it more as a theatre play, relying on the skills of his actors rather than big actions scenes, or car chases and shootouts. As the man in front of the camera, he takes a step back from the central stage and lets Gosling and the rest of his might cast to do most of the work.

Ryan Gosling in his third movie in a row in little more than a month confirms himself as the actor of the year: his performance is perfectly pitched: strong, charismatic and clever in a way that makes it very easy to like and identify with, despite the weaknesses and darker shades of his character. Paul Giamatti and Philip Seymour Hoffman, unsurprisingly, are perfect as always and Evan Rachel Wood and Marisa Tomei both shine in their limited supporting roles.

In the end Clooney might have more chances at the Oscar with his wonderful performance in the “Descendants” coming out soon (which I’ll be reviewing next), and anyway it’s probably a bit too early to make any Oscar predictions (will people still remember this film next February? I can hardly remember it after just a few days…), but this is still a solid political/thriller of the caliber we don’t get many these days, which treats its audience as thinking human beings capable of actually following a plot without the need to spell it out right from the title itself.

7.5/10

Filed under latest movies, Reviews Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Ironclad – Review

March 5, 2011 6 Comments

IRONCLAD (2011) 

Directed by Jonathan English. Starring James Purefoy, Kate Mara, Brian Cox, Paul Giamatti, Jason Flemyng, Mackenzie Crook, Aneurin Barnard.

Blood does run indeed in one of the most brutal in-your-face violent Brit-flicks (and not just British to be honest) I’ve ever seen.

In fact it’s the violence itself that seems to be Ironclad’s selling point. It’s obviously all sold as “realism” but we all know that in this case it’s just another word for gratuitous and exploitive.

And so as the handheld-shaky-cam swings about and the editing goes crazy hiding the pretty low-budget, limbs fly left, right and centre, hands get chopped off, people get literally sliced in two in the bloodiest and ruthless gore-fest you’ll ever seen.

To be honest with you, after a while if you just go with the silliness of it all, you might actually even enjoy it a bit. I think I did,  despite the never-ending 121 minutes.

But in its defense, to be able to stretch what’s essentially one long battle for 2 hours is quite an achievement.

The story of Ironclad, after a very dodgy (though mercifully short) intro/opening which seems has been lifted straight out of a bad docu-drama, is indeed very simple: a small group of 20 people or so try to protect Rochester Castle (Apparently a pivotal garrison in England) against a siege by King John’s army. That’s pretty much it. Don’t expect much else in terms of character development, or plot twist, or story, or even lines of dialogue: in fact most of the dialogue consists of a series of aaaaaaaaarrrrrrhhh and rrrrroarrrrr and other stuff like that. However compensating all that, you’ll get  a lot of stabbing, slicing, hammering, catapulting and all type of swordplay and fights.

And the choral soundtrack makes it all feel even bigger that it is.

Paul Giamatti is probably the most absurd miscast of the year so far and yet, aware of that himself, he ends up having great fun with the role and plays it so over-the-top that you just can’t help but laughing with him.

All the other actors too give their best with their one-dimensional characters.

Incidentally the whole audience I was with laughed out-loud at the ludicrous ending too, in fact perfectly in keeping with the rest of the film, which at least doesn’t take itself so seriously like Russel Crowe’s latest Robin Hood.

What can I say? I will never watch this film again, but while I was there I had fun with it (if only it had been 20 minutes shorter I might have liked it even more…)

6/10

Filed under latest movies, Reviews Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Barney’s Version – Review

January 24, 2011 4 Comments

Barney’s Version 

Directed by Richard J. Lewis. Starring Paul Giamatti, Macha Grenon, Paul Gross, Dustin Hoffman, Minnie Driver.

This is a very unusual film which took me completely by surprise. About 1 hour into it I was actually ready to hate it. Then something must have happened about half way through because slowly (maybe too slowly) what was up until that point just an average comedy, turned into something quite different: a touching story, with a very powerful ending which I am sure will stay with me for quite a while.

Paul Giamatti is the real strength of “Barney’s Version”, a film which otherwise would have become a fairly forgettable ride. He somehow manages to turn the part of the obnoxious, hard-drinking, cigar-smoking, foul-mouthed, hypocrite and quite repellent television producer, Barney Panofsky, into a moving character right at the end, just when you’re ready to dismiss him. This is certainly one of the best performances of Giamatti’s career (and that says a lot, since he’s always been very good).

Having said this, 132 minutes spent in the company of someone like Barney who is so focused on himself, so smug would stretch anyone’s patience.

His actual character is virtually impossible to comprehend and in the end, despite being present for pretty much every single scene in the film,  he does remain a mystery (and i don’t mean it as a compliment). This is certainly not Giamatti’s fault but a combination of the script (adapted from a novel by the Canadian Mordecai Richler) and a bland direction (unsurprisingly Richard J. Lewis comes from TV from things like CSI, makes no attempt to bring any style or pace to the film).

The main problem, length aside, is that you never quite believe why so many attractive women could fall in love for the sweaty, drunken Barney. And yet, he does get married 3 times and has constant flings everywhere else too. At some point I even wondered whether Giamatti was really the best choice for this story (though he is so good that he almost gets away with it).

The whole first part of the film is probably the weakest. It is fairly episodic and tries too hard to be a comedy without being funny enough. There are too many subplots which feel too random and disjointed but also there are way too many supporting characters, most whom might have played better in the novel, but here they all feel too much like caricatures (the father in law, Minnie Driver and Dustin Hoffman among many), as the film barely scratches their surface.

Then, about 1 hour into the film, something quite big happens (I won’t tell you what it is, don’t worry) and from there onwards the film finally seemed to find its way and became more focused.

Rosamunda Pike enters the film  and the relationship between her and Giamatti takes the centre stage. I have  never been really crazy about Rosamunda Pyke, but in this film she’s really good and she definitely plays one of the her best part.

Slowly the film settles into what it really should have been from the beginning, a slightly more poignant and focused film about a guy feeling the weight of the guilt and regrets for the life he’s spent. The last act is heart-wrenching and probably the most original part of the film. Some people may find it a bit too heavy handled, especially since our emotional investment in the main character has been somewhat limited by his awful persona.

It really worked on me but I can see how somebody could argue it’s rather manipulative.

On a separate note, there some in-jokes cameo appearances by some of Canada’s most notable directors, for diehard movie geeks out there: these are mainly people who have worked for producer Robert Lantos (producer of Eastern Promises). Even David Cronenberg and Atom Egoyan also turn up as directors of Barney’s TV show.

6.5/10

Filed under latest movies, recently re-watched, Reviews Tagged with , , , , , , ,

%d bloggers like this: