Ø

That's right, you're about to watch a trailer for a Robert Pattinson movie that's going to make you say "I really want to see that."

[youtube][/youtube]

um... yeah. absolutely. wtf is with the giant rat at :26? i guess he really wants some pizza.

cronenberg movie with lots of fucking & blood? never saw that coming, lol.

full trailer is even more interesting: http://www.allocine.fr/video/player_gen ... 43756.html

New York City, not-too-distant-future: Eric Packer, a 28 year-old finance golden boy dreaming of living in a civilization ahead of this one, watches a dark shadow cast over the firmament of the Wall Street galaxy, of which he is the uncontested king. As he is chauffeured across midtown Manhattan to get a haircut at his father's old barber, his anxious eyes are glued to the yuan's exchange rate: it is mounting against all expectations, destroying Eric's bet against it. Eric Packer is losing his empire with every tick of the clock. Meanwhile, an eruption of wild activity unfolds in the city's streets. Petrified as the threats of the real world infringe upon his cloud of virtual convictions, his paranoia intensifies during the course of his 24-hour cross-town odyssey. Packer starts to piece together clues that lead him to a most terrifying secret: his imminent assassination.

can't wait.

Yes! Looks amazing, and really old school Cronenberg-ish vibes all over the place. Can't wait!

Agreed. Was watching some of eXistenZ a few weekends back and was really missing the old school Cronenberg, nice to see he appears to be back in familiar territory even if it is an adaptation.

The trailers I've seen recall eXistenZ more than any other Cronenberg movie. I wasn't too big on that one but no matter — I doubt there's any other movie this year I'm more interested in seeing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/movie ... l?src=recg

Good piece on the flick, pretty spoiler-lite.

here's an essentially spoiler-free review: link to shitty site

reading that makes me want to see it even more.

We nabbed this off of Redbox earlier this week. Big disappointment. I later checked out positive reviews to see whether I misunderstood something plot- or theme-wise, and although some of the finer points eluded me — it wasn't clear during the movie, for instance, that the blonde was actually Pattinson's wife and not just his fiancee — I'm pretty sure I "got" the essence of the movie.

It began to rub me the wrong way from the get-go — the rear-projection/green-screen method used for the limo scenes was much too fake-looking. It resembled any of the driving scenes on, say, Justified, which also look fake. I tend not to mind when it comes to a basic cable show that probably has a minuscule VFX budget (a car explosion last season looked shitty, too). But I expect a certain high technical quality when it comes to Cronenberg, whose movies are not big-budget affairs yet somehow usually toss eye-popping visuals at you by the truckload. The shoddy quality of such work in Cosmopolis was unexpected and distracting.

The movie's about some big ideas — rich vs. poor, society unraveling as the global economy crushes the masses under its boot — but presents them in the most prosaic, flat way possible. The dialogue is thick with financial mumbo-jumbo that sucks out any forward momentum. I understand much of it comes directly from the novel, but that's the thing: books are one medium, movies another. Who wants a talky Cronenberg picture?

What's worse, the movie leaves you with no aftertaste. You wrap up something like Videodrome or The Fly marveling at how the movie just mindfucked you, or in the case of A History of Violence or Eastern Promises you bask in the satisfaction that comes from a richly told story. Even Naked Lunch — which I freely admit I don't "get" — is still unlike anything else out there. I won't say Cosmopolis is Cronenberg on autopilot, but the spark of excitement or love he surely felt during the production phase just doesn't translate in the finished product.

I get the impression Cronenberg has made a decision that, some days, I wish Lynch would have made--he's not going to get much funding for his original ideas anymore, so he picks through other people's scripts/books and does those that he thinks he can mesh his sensibilities with. And he's had some solid success with some of those projects. But I definitely heard poor things on this one, even from the die hards. Too bad, I saw Cronenberg + Delillo and thought it could be really cool (trailer was solid too) I haven't even bothered to see A Dangerous Method, which sounded interesting but also came and went.

Alexhead wrote:I get the impression Cronenberg has made a decision that, some days, I wish Lynch would have made--he's not going to get much funding for his original ideas anymore, so he picks through other people's scripts/books and does those that he thinks he can mesh his sensibilities with. And he's had some solid success with some of those projects. But I definitely heard poor things on this one, even from the die hards. Too bad, I saw Cronenberg + Delillo and thought it could be really cool (trailer was solid too) I haven't even bothered to see A Dangerous Method, which sounded interesting but also came and went.

I think your take on Cronenberg's current MO is probably correct. Hit-and-miss the approach may be, I still prefer it to what's going on (or not going on, more accurately) with Lynch, who has for all purposes fallen off the face of the earth.

And you can continue to overlook A Dangerous Method. Every so often, Cronenberg gets the notion that he must "behave" and rein in his more idiosyncratic tendencies (see Spider, M. Butterfly and to some extent Dead Ringers). A Dangerous Method is the latest in that line. It's his take on the costume piece, and like Cosmopolis it's a movie where characters talk, talk, talk and talk about very important topics while the increasingly antsy viewer has to fight the urge to bail out.

Agree that the green screen in the opening scene is awful (reshoots?!), the endless star cameos are distracting and schematic, with morton seeming particularly out of place, and the twist and the finale fall somewhat flat. Still, was better than I thought it would be, with some interesting ideas and a fairly uncompromising tone compared to Cronenberg's other recent efforts - a low 3 out of 5 for me.

Am I the only one who liked Spider? Ultimately a small story but one well told IMHO.

Weirdly, I thought Morton's scene was one of the few that worked.

I tried to watch Spider again a few months back and honestly couldn't make it past the first 15 minutes. Conversely, we caught eXistenZ recently on cable and was pleasantly surprised at how watchable it was. I mean, it may be pure nonsense but I'd rather sit through it 20 more times before subjecting myself to The Matrix ever again.

i haven't yet seen this, can't wait to, but i tried to watch spider many moons ago. i remember not being able to finish it. i made it past o-dot's mark, but i couldn't complete it.

Yeah, eXistenZ may be the last great truly Cronenberg film. A History Of Violence is probably his best gun for hire work as of late.

Well I watched this today, though it was pretty awful. I'm OK with the basic setup but some of the speechifying, especially put up against more speechifying, and more speechifying...it's philosophically overstuffed, so ultimately it doesn't say much of anything and takes a long, slow time to say it. Pattinson isn't terrible so there's one check mark for it. I wonder if part of the allure for Cronenberg was how cheaply this could be produced.

watched this last night. while it was somewhat interesting, paul giamati was the highlight for me. reading all the positive reviews, i feel about this the way i felt about "killing of a sacred deer" - i guess i'm too dumb to "get" it. i didn't read the source material. don't see any reason to watch this again.