blaud
Posts: 722
Joined: 13/12/2007
|
I think David Cronenberg needs to realize that he is not a jack-of-all-genres. After the moderate misstep that was A Dangerous Method, I for one thought that DC would get back into his trademark slick/ violent dramas or action films, which is, let's be honest, where he shone best. Cosmopolis starts intriguingly enough, but as nothing is resolved for the duration of the film, the intrigue only turns to tedium as more and more characters are introduced for minute reasons and then promptly disappear. It's all well and good to make a difficult-to-unravel surrealist film, but if you're using the fact that the film is intended to be surrealist to bypass things such as cohesive storytelling or character development, it's not going to work. This is the mistake Cronenberg makes; he tenuously links little motifs and phrases etc. between scenes and expects there to be some colassal realization of reason throughout. There isn't. It's pretentous twaddle. Cronenberg has tried his hand at a similar tone before and succeeded amicably (Videodrome), but Cosmopolis proves that a film must have an upshot as well as a rabbit hole to fall into, and after 108 minutes of tumbling, not even a well-judged performance from Pattinson can rescue this from being anything more than a self-indulgent, pretentious, and boring film that wallows in genre cliché
|