| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agent Luke Hobbs enlists Dominic Toretto and his team to bring down former Special Ops soldier Owen Shaw, leader of a unit specializing in vehicular warfare. "Fast and Furious 6" is in theaters now and available for pre-order in limited edition packaging on Blu-ray. |
Frequently Bought Together
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Special Features
None.
Editorial Reviews
Eric Packer (Robert Pattinson),a 28-year-old billionaire asset manager, heads out in his tricked-out stretch limo, while remotely wagering his companys massive fortune on a bet against the Chinese Yuan. His trip across the city quickly turns into a wild, hypnotic odyssey as he encounters explosive city riots and a parade of provocative visitors. Having started the day with everything, Packer s perfectly ordered, doubt-free world is about to implode. Bonus Features: Citizens of Cosmopolis Featurette, Audio Commentary with David Cronenberg.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
104 of 130 people found the following review helpful
By Mary
Format:DVD|Amazon Verified Purchase
*Contains Spoilers*
I read this book when Robert Pattinson signed on to the project, and to be honest, I didn't like it on the first reading. It grew on me by the second reading, but the movie made me love it. One of the challenges Cosmopolis faces is that it's impossible complete the phrase, "The moral of the story is...." and so many people, me included, dislike things that can't be easily defined. I've seen interviews with David Cronenberg and Robert Pattinson where they say that it is impossible to tell you what they story is about, but don't make the mistake of thinking that it's about nothing, it's just about open to so many interpretations that it's impossible to pin down. I'll give you mine, but rest assured that if you don't like what I see, chances are you'll see something else entirely anyway.
The story, in it's most basic form, is about Eric Packer's limo ride across the crowded city to get a haircut. He encounters various people and scenarios along the way, and inexpicably he encounters his new wife at several stops along the way, even though that would seem to be impossible since he's seemingly moving forward (albeit slowly) and she appears to intend to remain somewhat stationary. In a sense I think the limo ride is a microcosm for a Eric's journey through life. There is that saying that some people are in your life for a reason and some people are in your life for a season and I think he encounters his wife several times as a symbol of all people in a person's life that they keep coming back to, but it's poignant because he never really understands her, or her him even though there is that desire. They both very much are pretending to be normal, or at least understand normal, and don't we all feel that way sometimes? Even if he doesn't realize it the limo can be seen as his hearse because life is, afterall, a journey toward death. It's important to note that Eric is going to all this trouble of traveling across town to see his father's barber, which I think is symbolic of Eric's desire to somehow either connect with his past, become like or understand his father, or reach some sort of arbitrary life goal he's set for himself based on familial expectations all while he's sprucing himself up for his inevitable demise.
One of the few misses in this movie is that Cronenberg left out a scene where Eric encounters "three hundred naked people sprawled in the street" and he takes off his clothes and joins them and even thinks he sees his wife, Elise, in the crowd. In the book, I thought this was the only time that Eric really seemed to fit in with the people around him and it seemed to be the first time he understood Elise. It seemed like a sort of ritualistic cleansing before burial for Eric. Cronenberg also leaves out that in addition to Eric losing all his money he also intentionally loses all of Elise's as well. I think this points to the "you can't take it with you" philosophy and helps Eric resign himself to the fact that he's done. That Cronenberg didn't focus on these two bits of information makes me think that my entire interpretation of the story is wrong and you all should go about your day. Nothing to see here folks.
In a much hyped about scene worth the price of admission, Eric Packer encounters Benno Levin, his "stalker" for lack of a better word, played by Paul Giamatti. The fact that Eric Packer's security team has been working locating an undetermined "threat" to Eric's safety which was presumably Levin, but that Eric inexplicably stumbles upon the warehouse where he is hiding with no real reason for going there in the first place calls for a similar suspension of disbelief to the one that allows you to believe that Eric can repeatedly and coincidentally encounter Elise when he is traveling and she, seemingly, is not. It brought to mind that moment in Fight Club when you learn that Edward Norton IS Tyler Durden. Imagining that that scene might be taking place inside Eric's head kinda blows my mind. That being said, I'm pretty sure I'm wrong.
This movie is worth being seen because it is one of very few thinking movies. Much has been made about the fact that the timing of this movie coincides nicely with the Occupy Wallstreet movement but even though there are so many aspects of this movie that can make you think about the validity (or invalidity) of the financial market, this movie is really just about one person trying to find meaning in life.
I read this book when Robert Pattinson signed on to the project, and to be honest, I didn't like it on the first reading. It grew on me by the second reading, but the movie made me love it. One of the challenges Cosmopolis faces is that it's impossible complete the phrase, "The moral of the story is...." and so many people, me included, dislike things that can't be easily defined. I've seen interviews with David Cronenberg and Robert Pattinson where they say that it is impossible to tell you what they story is about, but don't make the mistake of thinking that it's about nothing, it's just about open to so many interpretations that it's impossible to pin down. I'll give you mine, but rest assured that if you don't like what I see, chances are you'll see something else entirely anyway.
The story, in it's most basic form, is about Eric Packer's limo ride across the crowded city to get a haircut. He encounters various people and scenarios along the way, and inexpicably he encounters his new wife at several stops along the way, even though that would seem to be impossible since he's seemingly moving forward (albeit slowly) and she appears to intend to remain somewhat stationary. In a sense I think the limo ride is a microcosm for a Eric's journey through life. There is that saying that some people are in your life for a reason and some people are in your life for a season and I think he encounters his wife several times as a symbol of all people in a person's life that they keep coming back to, but it's poignant because he never really understands her, or her him even though there is that desire. They both very much are pretending to be normal, or at least understand normal, and don't we all feel that way sometimes? Even if he doesn't realize it the limo can be seen as his hearse because life is, afterall, a journey toward death. It's important to note that Eric is going to all this trouble of traveling across town to see his father's barber, which I think is symbolic of Eric's desire to somehow either connect with his past, become like or understand his father, or reach some sort of arbitrary life goal he's set for himself based on familial expectations all while he's sprucing himself up for his inevitable demise.
One of the few misses in this movie is that Cronenberg left out a scene where Eric encounters "three hundred naked people sprawled in the street" and he takes off his clothes and joins them and even thinks he sees his wife, Elise, in the crowd. In the book, I thought this was the only time that Eric really seemed to fit in with the people around him and it seemed to be the first time he understood Elise. It seemed like a sort of ritualistic cleansing before burial for Eric. Cronenberg also leaves out that in addition to Eric losing all his money he also intentionally loses all of Elise's as well. I think this points to the "you can't take it with you" philosophy and helps Eric resign himself to the fact that he's done. That Cronenberg didn't focus on these two bits of information makes me think that my entire interpretation of the story is wrong and you all should go about your day. Nothing to see here folks.
In a much hyped about scene worth the price of admission, Eric Packer encounters Benno Levin, his "stalker" for lack of a better word, played by Paul Giamatti. The fact that Eric Packer's security team has been working locating an undetermined "threat" to Eric's safety which was presumably Levin, but that Eric inexplicably stumbles upon the warehouse where he is hiding with no real reason for going there in the first place calls for a similar suspension of disbelief to the one that allows you to believe that Eric can repeatedly and coincidentally encounter Elise when he is traveling and she, seemingly, is not. It brought to mind that moment in Fight Club when you learn that Edward Norton IS Tyler Durden. Imagining that that scene might be taking place inside Eric's head kinda blows my mind. That being said, I'm pretty sure I'm wrong.
This movie is worth being seen because it is one of very few thinking movies. Much has been made about the fact that the timing of this movie coincides nicely with the Occupy Wallstreet movement but even though there are so many aspects of this movie that can make you think about the validity (or invalidity) of the financial market, this movie is really just about one person trying to find meaning in life.
43 of 57 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars
A Day In The Life: Love It Or Hate It, Cronenberg's Latest Provocation Is A Unique Intellectual Exercise
December 19, 2012
Format:Amazon Instant Video
From the strange to the sublime, few filmmakers have fascinated me more than David Cronenberg. The Canadian auteur has made some of my all time favorites, and his distinctive sense of macabre humor and his skewed world view is in evidence even in his most mainstream work. With a string of great films that included Scanners, Videodrome, The Dead Zone, The Fly and Dead Ringers, he earned a nickname (a personal favorite) as the King of Venereal Horror. But not to limit himself to genre work, he also scored accolades for his interpretation of Naked Lunch, A History of Violence, and Eastern Promises. I love Cronenberg in case you couldn't tell! Even his less successful pictures courted big ideas (Existenz, Spider) and/or great shock value (Crash). Say what you will, Cronenberg makes the films he wants to make and to heck with anyone else! I have to respect that. That is a large preface to discussing his latest effort "Cosmopolis," which in my estimation is a film that will elicit strong reactions from its viewers in both the negative and the positive sense. Adapting Don DeLillo's novel of the same name, the film unravels like a surreal (and utterly deadpan) dream as society teeters on the brink of anarchy.
Robert Pattinson veers about as far away from his Twilight role as one movie will allow. I appreciate that he wants to stretch as an actor and Cronenberg is notoriously good with his performers (Jeremy Irons' best work is in Dead Ringers and Jeff Goldblum was never better than in The Fly). Pattinson plays a financial genius who is betting his company's fortune on the day's events. In the midst of increasing turmoil, however, he becomes obsessed with riding across town to seek out a barber from his past. The cityscape as he travels very slowly in his limo is decidedly dystopian with riots and confrontations brewing. Along the way, Pattinson holds court with various people who drop into and out of his car. Among the bigger names that he encounters through the course of this day are Juliette Binoche, Samantha Morton, and Paul Giamatti. The movie is basically made up of random scenes and discussions that directly relate to our fascination with money, power, technology, and information. As the movie progresses, however, these themes lead to greater violence and even revolution. It is a cerebral exercise as much as a movie experience. There is a fair chance that you will be intrigued by its ideas, but an equal proportion of viewers will find the experience lacking. I suspect there will be little middle ground.
For my taste, "Cosmopolis" falls into the interesting failure category in Cronenberg's filmography. The movie has a purposeful chilliness and remoteness that can make every conversation seem like it is in monotone. There is a certain humor underlying the proceedings, and the movie does work as a deadpan satire. It is an unrepentantly bleak indictment of modern society and its values. Some of the character interactions are quite entertaining, some are a bit more perplexing. There are a lot of significant points to ponder, but the screenplay tends to handle most matters with a fairly heavy hand. By the time things start escalating out of control, I found myself not caring very much. And the big payoff comes in the form of a confrontation with a lively Giamatti (after all the stilted talk, Giamatti appears as if in a different movie altogether). But even this moment never really satisfies. "Cosmopolis" was interesting, to say the least, but I simply found that some of its parts were stronger than it as a whole. Not conventional in any sense, this may be a love-it or hate-it proposition. As a huge Cronenberg fanatic, I ended up being strangely apathetic. KGHarris, 12/12.
Robert Pattinson veers about as far away from his Twilight role as one movie will allow. I appreciate that he wants to stretch as an actor and Cronenberg is notoriously good with his performers (Jeremy Irons' best work is in Dead Ringers and Jeff Goldblum was never better than in The Fly). Pattinson plays a financial genius who is betting his company's fortune on the day's events. In the midst of increasing turmoil, however, he becomes obsessed with riding across town to seek out a barber from his past. The cityscape as he travels very slowly in his limo is decidedly dystopian with riots and confrontations brewing. Along the way, Pattinson holds court with various people who drop into and out of his car. Among the bigger names that he encounters through the course of this day are Juliette Binoche, Samantha Morton, and Paul Giamatti. The movie is basically made up of random scenes and discussions that directly relate to our fascination with money, power, technology, and information. As the movie progresses, however, these themes lead to greater violence and even revolution. It is a cerebral exercise as much as a movie experience. There is a fair chance that you will be intrigued by its ideas, but an equal proportion of viewers will find the experience lacking. I suspect there will be little middle ground.
For my taste, "Cosmopolis" falls into the interesting failure category in Cronenberg's filmography. The movie has a purposeful chilliness and remoteness that can make every conversation seem like it is in monotone. There is a certain humor underlying the proceedings, and the movie does work as a deadpan satire. It is an unrepentantly bleak indictment of modern society and its values. Some of the character interactions are quite entertaining, some are a bit more perplexing. There are a lot of significant points to ponder, but the screenplay tends to handle most matters with a fairly heavy hand. By the time things start escalating out of control, I found myself not caring very much. And the big payoff comes in the form of a confrontation with a lively Giamatti (after all the stilted talk, Giamatti appears as if in a different movie altogether). But even this moment never really satisfies. "Cosmopolis" was interesting, to say the least, but I simply found that some of its parts were stronger than it as a whole. Not conventional in any sense, this may be a love-it or hate-it proposition. As a huge Cronenberg fanatic, I ended up being strangely apathetic. KGHarris, 12/12.
61 of 82 people found the following review helpful
By lahani
Format:DVD
I won't try and explain this movie to you, because I think it's impossible to do. There are many, many interpretations of what goes on and I believe that you have to see it for yourself to determine what it means to you. That being said, I had great conversation afterwards trying to decide just what I thought it portrayed, and I came up with several. I will finally just say that this is definitely one that I will purchase so that I can watch and re-watch it. And I'm sure that every time I see it I will come up with something different. THAT's what makes this a great movie to me! The acting, especially by Robert Pattinson, was absolutely phenomenal. The ensemble actors were all wonderful though and each brought something very different to the movie. I can't wait until this becomes available - I will be first on the list and suggest that you get on that list as well!!
Most Recent Customer Reviews
2.0 out of 5 stars
At least I could look at Robert Pattinson
Tried to read the book but couldn't finish it. Knew when I ordered the movie it would not be a favorite. It is too intellectual for me, I guess. Read more
Published 12 days ago by Susan Letter
1.0 out of 5 stars
not impressed with this movie
Im sure this movie appeals to some people but it was definitely a drag for me and my husband.. we watched the entire movie to give it a chance but never got into it. Read more
Published 13 days ago by ashley wray
2.0 out of 5 stars
So Why a Film?
"Cosmopolis" is directed by someone who has made such films as "Naked Lunch," "Crash" and "Spider." It is not very surprising that David Cronenberg turned a Don DeLillo novel into... Read more
Published 13 days ago by Tsuyoshi
2.0 out of 5 stars
Love Rpat but didn't love this movie
I love Robet Pattinson. I have all of his movies. This one was pretty bad, didn't love it.
Was really disapointing.
Was really disapointing.
Published 15 days ago by macloth
5.0 out of 5 stars
excellent movie
this was a very good movie. alot different acting & enjoyable. anyone that is a pattinson fan would enjoy this
Published 15 days ago by Stella M. Grifin
3.0 out of 5 stars
enh...
The movie itself, isn't really that captivating...futuristic, yes, however, the movie itself, was a little hard to follow...not horrible...but not great. Read more
Published 18 days ago by Brittney Jarnigan
5.0 out of 5 stars
Very interesting
Interesting and intriguing
Very interesting, is a film to reflect. Robert Pattinson's performance is great, he is such a good actor.
Very interesting, is a film to reflect. Robert Pattinson's performance is great, he is such a good actor.
Published 21 days ago by Andreina Deleone
3.0 out of 5 stars
Not my favorite Robert Pattinson movie
I rented this movie because I love Robert Pattinson. But it was very hard for me to watch. I guess I just didn't understand it. Glad I didn't purchase it.
Published 22 days ago by Freida Wallace
2.0 out of 5 stars
I like Robert Pattinson in just about anything
But this movie was a little bit out there in my opinion. But that's ok I will still watch anything he is in.
Published 28 days ago by Debi
1.0 out of 5 stars
Needs acting lessons
This guy is the worst actor I have ever seen. I really do not understand how or why we have to be tortured watching.
Published 1 month ago by David Miles
