Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

Watch: New Trailer & 3 Clips From David Cronenberg's 'Cosmopolis' Starring Robert Pattinson

by Kevin Jagernauth
May 3, 2012 2:35 PM
  • |

Update: 2 more clips from the film have arrived at Comme Au Cinema as well as a new trailer at the official website with some fresh footage. Watch below.

As we know, Robert Pattinson is looking to stretch his wings beyond Edward in the "Twilight" series. Yesterday he signed on to hunt Saddam Hussein in "Mission: Blacklist" but before that gets rolling, the actor will show off this chops in David Cronenberg's "Cosmopolis." And we now have a better idea of what we can expect from that film.

After some pretty freaky trailers a clip has arrived, giving a sense of the tone, which is....interesting to say the least. Set in a diner, the scene finds Pattinson chatting with his wife, played by Sarah Gadon. They are both talking about being "inflamed" (whatever that means) and frankly, the entire thing is almost Shakespeare to us. There is a very definite stylistic choice around the dialogue that will either be impenetrable or intriguing, but as the sequence ends, we know that madness seems to be lurking at the edges of where Eric Packer goes.

This could all work in context so who knows, but for right now we're cautious. But we will say that Pattinson looks fine here in the role, it's just a question of if the movie itself will work. "Cosmopolis" premieres at the Cannes Film Festival and opens in France on May 25th. Watch below. [AlloCine]

  • |

More: Robert Pattinson, Cosmopolis, Sarah Gadon

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    


  • LA | May 6, 2012 10:33 PMReply

    Wait a minute. Robert Pattinson has always been stiff and wooden, but because the acting here is stiff and wooden 'on purpose' I'm supposed to believe this is good acting?

  • Jess | May 5, 2012 1:04 PMReply

    Robert is playing the character exactly like the book. He's a very detached character. Your not supposed to emotionally connect with the character because he never allows it. He's almost alien. He's so detached that he doesn't even know the color of his wife's eyes. Anyways the character has no emotions. It's almost like Shakespeare. The author created a unique language and style within the book. If you read an excerpt from the novel you won't understand and maybe the film is the same way. The character needs to be seen from the beggining to be understood. In my opinion because I've read the book Robert nailed it. He should be very proud.

  • Dan | May 4, 2012 2:30 PMReply

    The more I see from this movie the better it looks. It has that unnerving 90s/80s feel to it that completely works with this subject matter. Could be a total stinker but at the same time, and for some people, a cult classic in the making.

  • maxime | May 3, 2012 10:10 PMReply

    @those who replied to me. It isn't a question of broaden your horizons in the first place. It's a question of knowing the book character and looking for the actor to bring it on screen. That's the director's job. David Cronenberg just recently said that from all actors on his list to perform Eric Packer, Rob suited him the best. He saw qualities in him that convinced him to take the risk. And David took a risk by chosing the 'sparkling vampire' but he did. Stating that Pattinson acts bad in this movie is like saying that Cronenberg is a bad director. That's what I'm trying to point out. Are there other actors who can play intense, understated? Yes, but not so many in the same age range as Rob. There are many actors that I don't like but I wouldn't say they can't act when they play in movies directed by experienced, acclaimed directors.
    I've read here about Knightley's performance in ADM. Didn't see the movie yet, but a professor in History of Psychology in my country has written that she performed hysteria exactly as it occured in that time period.
    So, liking or not liking a performance is more a matter of personal taste than a judgement on good or bad acting. Especially with book adaptations you have to know the book character and then see if this character is brought well on screen. In case of Eric Packer, from what I've seen, I'm positive.

  • @maxine | May 3, 2012 10:24 PM

    He saw qualities in him that convinced him to take the risk. And David took a risk by chosing the 'sparkling vampire' but he did. Stating that Pattinson acts bad in this movie is like saying that Cronenberg is a bad director.

    God, that's completely utter bullshit. You can criticize an actor's performance and completely separate it from the film's direction. And yes, even good directors end up working with bad actors for a variety of reasons. Your train of thought is totally convoluted.

    That said, while the dialogue is intentionally stilted and awkward, Gadon actually 'gets it' and makes it work in this scene in a way I just don't think Pattinson does.

  • Blogboy | May 3, 2012 9:00 PMReply

    From ScreenRant: "Passing over the customary jokes about Pattinson’s acting in the Twilight movies, his and Gadon’s stilted delivery in the first uninterrupted footage from Cosmopolis is recognizably intentional – as to create this feeling that the film does indeed take place in a world that’s just removed far enough from everyday reality, so as to heighten the sense of unease and discomfort that Cronenberg is going for.

    So, yeah: that’s a fancy way of saying Cosmopolis is an “artsy” movie."

  • 1974 | May 3, 2012 7:18 PMReply

    Hey Indiewire, since you are the most exclusive movie web site, and the most enjoyable one, here is something you should share, it's preview of Cosmopolis soundtrack, and it sounds AMAZING!

  • Burn | May 3, 2012 4:03 PMReply

    After seeing the 2 other clips, this movie looks LAUGHABLY bad. What a joke.

  • @BLV | May 3, 2012 8:13 PM

    Every director makes some shitty or not so great movies. The Cronenberg fanboys are a little ridiculous and defensive. So far the clips don't seem very impressive and the acting is so/so. Just deal.

  • Blv | May 3, 2012 8:02 PM

    Burn the 14 year old internet thug .Cronenberg doesnt make "LAUGHABLY bad" movies. Your hate for Pattinson is clouding your judgment.

  • Alex | May 3, 2012 4:00 PMReply

    Psychological effect of an aura, overanalysis and hatred - forces of nonsense. Continue, guys)))
    Pattinson surprised again. And Cronenberg... its just wow. Cant wait!

  • Alex | May 3, 2012 11:25 PM

    ITA, thanks! I'm positive too)
    @ @maxine
    You "just don't think Pattinson does". Cronenberg think he does.
    So... take it easier, just relax)

  • Ross | May 3, 2012 3:37 PMReply

    The full (north american) trailer with more footage is online here:

  • Josh Balkin | May 3, 2012 3:51 PM

    That trailer is old and came out when the previous full-length trailer did. Still cool, though.

  • Dan | May 3, 2012 2:44 PMReply

    He's dubbed so we can't judge his acting in the new clips

  • The Playlist | May 3, 2012 3:32 PM

    embeds work now. Tweaked, not dubbed, etc.

  • Ryan | May 3, 2012 3:25 PM

    The other clips are actually worse. Pattinson's acting and accent are all over the place.

  • Kevin | May 3, 2012 2:49 PM

    Not dubbed, select the VOSTF clips.

  • Tuesday | May 3, 2012 1:34 PMReply

    The viewer shouldn't have to read the book to get what message a film is trying to tell. If so, the film has failed. And while I understand the character is supposed to be cold and detached, he shouldn't come across as wooden and blank, which is what Pattinson always is. I actually think Sarah Gadon 'got it' here. Pattinson. No.

  • aijfad | May 3, 2012 9:49 PM

    @R - I liked Knightley's performance too, but I disagree about Fassbender's. That was subtle, impeccable work, and FAR more difficult than you think.

  • r | May 3, 2012 6:46 PM

    Her accent was exactly what Cronenberg had asked for: "mid-atlantic with a blush of Russian." The jaw thing was very deliberate, it was done to imitate a demonic dog. Read about it. Both Cronenberg and Knightley discussed why it was important to focus on the mouth area that way. I don't understand how anyone can portray hysteria as anything but over the top. I really just do not comprehend this argument. Oh and Fassbender showed up to work, put his granny glasses on and pretty much read from the script. No life in that role whatsoever. I cannot believe people can even praise that lazy ass performance.

  • @T | May 3, 2012 6:14 PM

    Yes, we know what hysteria is. But at best it was a divisive performance. I think she was OTT, cringe worthy bad with the horrible accent and jaw clenching ACTING that took me right out of the movie. Gigantic, gnashing teeth in the 'flip-out' scenes. No. I hated it. Some loved it but I know a lot of critics who thought it was just too scenery chewing. Fassbender and Mortensen were great.

  • t | May 3, 2012 5:59 PM

    @Jon - Didn't know hysteria was supposed to be "natural." Jesus Christ will people actually read up on what hysteria actually WAS before trashing her performance as "unnatural" and ootp?

  • Al | May 3, 2012 3:15 PM

    @MAXIME, if you want' intense stillness' I can give you Ryan Gosling or Michael Fassbender. This clip was just a bunch of unsubtle and forced ACTING. You can see the click click click in Pattinson's head as he says the lines. Nothing intense or natural about it. You definitely need to broaden your tastes a bit.

  • @maxine | May 3, 2012 2:52 PM

    "Robert P is one of the few who can deliver intense stilled performances" did you really type that with a straight face? I suggest you broaden your horizons, he isn't horrible but there are others who an act better than him.

  • Alex | May 3, 2012 2:28 PM

    perfect scene

  • Jon | May 3, 2012 2:18 PM

    His performance is self-conscious and forced, having nothing to do with the character from the novel. It's very similar to how unnatural Keira Knightely was in A Dangerous Method (another Cronenberg film). It's not that we don't 'get it' Maxime, it's just that the acting in this clip isn't working.

  • maxime | May 3, 2012 2:12 PM

    From what this clip showed, Robert Pattinson nailed Eric Packer. The dialogues are exact copies from the book, they are stylistic and a bit weird.
    The movie won't be everyone's cup of tea. If you don't like the specific style and the character, you're free to see another movie. Just stop talking about wooden and blank performance while it's clear you don't have a clue about the characteristics of the protagonist.
    David Cronenberg has chosen Pattinson because he's one of the few who can deliver intense, stilled performances. Not everyone likes this style, that's okay.
    But saying that he can't act is saying that Cronenberg is incompetent as a filmmaker. Eric Packer is in almost every scene of the movie. You have to be incompetent or plain fool to cast an actor who can't deliver the performance you want.
    But yeah, it seems here the headquarter of the Robert Pattinso Hate Club. Pathetic.

  • Tim Tebow | May 3, 2012 1:41 PM

    +1, God Bless

  • Brian | May 3, 2012 1:26 PMReply

    If you read the novel, you know this scene and the way the actors are delivering their lines is EXACTLY as Delillo wrote it and the way Eric Packer should sound. There's a specific cadence and Cronenberg got it here. You guys keep on with your uninformed opinions about this Pattinson kid and how bad he is and go watch Transformers for the 18th time. It's actually pretty amusing.

  • a | May 4, 2012 12:57 AM

    @Mike - Why sorry? You're just a random person named Mike. For all we know, your favorite book is The Da Vinci Code. I can't imagine anyone's offended.

  • Mike | May 3, 2012 1:42 PM

    Well, the book wasn't very good either. Sorry.

  • Lon | May 3, 2012 1:12 PMReply

    Wait is this supposed to give us confidence in his acting abilities? Uhhhhhhhh

  • reeve | May 3, 2012 12:56 PMReply

    The comments. Ugh. He actually plays the character perfectly here! Read the book. damn!

  • Yod | May 4, 2012 12:06 AM

    Exactly. I'm no fan but he looks solid.

  • xx | May 3, 2012 12:44 PMReply

    This guy can't act. Laughable clip

  • BethC | May 3, 2012 10:28 AMReply

    What was that? I see no difference in this Robert Pattinson and the one I saw in Remember Me. I expected more growth.

  • Jon | May 3, 2012 8:55 AMReply

    I see the trailer was mostly hype because this clip sucks and Pattinson is a mess in it.

  • chris | May 3, 2012 8:41 AMReply

    He sucks. He looks so uncomfortable.

  • Ri | May 3, 2012 8:37 AMReply

    The dialogue appears to be word-for-word from DeLillo's book. And yes, it's trippy.

  • Leo | May 3, 2012 7:53 AMReply

    From "enflamed" to "inflamed". You REALLY don't know what it means.

Email Updates