MovieChat Forums > Cosmopolis (2012) Discussion > Horrendous!

Horrendous!

posted 13 years ago by carpenterfulci
90 replies | jump to latest

Just saw the movie and my God, I haven't seen such a terrible movie in a long, long time!

What works in litterature doesn't work in cinema, and this is why this movie fails horribly. 2 hours of CONSTANT dialogue. Insipid dialogue that is, with characters answering questions with questions etc. While wordy philosophical considerations are good in a book because you have time to drop the book and think about it, they really don't work in a movie, AT ALL.
Seeing this movie was like seeing the architect speach in the matrix reloaded only it lasted the whole movie, and it was even worse!

Keep your dollars, save your brain, don't see this movie!

[–] dggygttyl3 13 years ago

I saw it today as well, and I don't know how I managed to sit through the whole thing...It was just awful, the movie tries too hard to be smart.

[–] carpenterfulci 13 years ago

Exactly. An hermetic movie, that doesn't care at all about the spectator.

[–] deniseactress 13 years ago

lol. you guys just caused all twilight tween fans of Pattinson to burst in tears.

[–] carpenterfulci 13 years ago

Honestly, just let them see the movie, and they won't need me to burst into tears!

I won't spoil it, but there are a few scenes that might make them rethink their love of that actor! :)

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Faustus5 13 years ago

2 hours of CONSTANT dialogue. Insipid dialogue that is, with characters answering questions with questions etc. While wordy philosophical considerations are good in a book because you have time to drop the book and think about it, they really don't work in a movie, AT ALL.

Now I want to see it even more. That's exactly what I was hoping for, so it will work for people like me.

Probably helps that I'm a philosophy major and thought the most exciting parts of A Dangerous Method were the philosophical/scientific arguments and discussions.

[–] carpenterfulci 13 years ago

I didn't really enjoy a dangerous method but the philosophical dialogues were understandable and enjoyable.

Believe me, I used the word "philosophical" for a lack of a better word, but there is nothing remotely interesting in their constant jive.

[–] Faustus5 13 years ago

All I can say is "Sad to be you."

If Cronenberg's approach to the material was truly inappropriate for film, there would be a consensus to that effect among viewers.

Instead, we see a divided audience, where some appreciated what he did, and others did not like it.

So please, moderate your criticism: stop the BS about Cosmopolis trying something that "does not work in film". It didn't work FOR YOU. That's all that matters. Trying to extrapolate from that is idiotic. Your mere subjective reaction is irrelevant, particularly coming early on, when trolls tend to dominate in these forums.

Frankly, the first people who post "Best Ever!" or "Horrendous!" threads tend to be the dumbest, least perceptive people on the face of the Earth.

Give us some evidence that you are better than that. No one cares if you are bored by two hours of dialogue. That just tells us that you would prefer action to talk.

Do you really expect to gain any kind of cred here by bashing dialogue in a forum devoted to a Cronenberg film? Cronenberg fans love dialogue. We love philosophical discussion. If you don't care for that kind of material, then you can just leave the room and hope the door doesn't hit you on the arse.

[–] carpenterfulci 13 years ago

Wow, calm down!

Fisrt of all, seeing I was the one who wrote these lines, I don't see how it would be anything else than my opinion. Being compelled to say "but that's just my opinion" at the end of every sentence is getting tedious.

TO MY MIND, it doesn't work in movies, there you go.

I don't like the "best ever" fanatics, but I did think that this movie was horrendous.

I must say I have enjoyed almost every Cronenberg movie I have seen (the fly, videodrome, a history of violance, that one with vincent cassel I don't remember the name) except his last one a dangerous method that I found ok but nothing special.

"That just tells us that you would prefer action to talk. "
No it doesn't. I'm all for contemplative pauses or silences in conversations, a thing you almost won't see in Cosmopolis. If I wanted constant dialogue, I would have gone to see a play. Cinema is a visual art, and it should use visuals to express ideas, instead of reciting evrey dialogue line from a book.

Anyway, go see the movie, and we can have a more balanced conversation when you get back.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] carpenterfulci 13 years ago

Yes he is naked. There are sex scenes involving him but you won't see his engine^^

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Faustus5 13 years ago

Cinema is a visual art, and it should use visuals to express ideas, instead of reciting evrey dialogue line from a book.

My Dinner With Andre

Nuff said.

(And yes, I over-reacted.)

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] graziafitg 13 years ago

To everyone going to see this movie out of interest in philosophy:

Your disappointment will know no bounds...

[–] Curzon_Street 13 years ago

You were at the premiere? You stayed through the 15 minute standing ovation, the longest one of any film screened this year? Cool.

Tell me, what was the location of the scene where Eric has sex with Elise? Cause at the moment, I doubt you've even seen it.

Both Cosmopolis trailers: http://ow.ly/1iTyiC
.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Curzon_Street 13 years ago

The longest standing ovation of the festival, not to mention the 5 star reviews. The majority of the reviews are glowing. It was the hottest ticket in Cannes, it was all over twitter, with people desperate to get tickets to see it.

Haters gonna hate, it doesn't change anything. And blackbeanie saw it, she wrote a review here, she loved it because it so closely reflected the book:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/board/thread/199566700

Positives so far: Variety, Empire, Playlist, AintItCool, Time Out London, Telegraph, Filmoria, MSN, LWL, Hitfix, Movie City News, Hammer to Nails, Press Play, NPR.

Both Cosmopolis trailers: http://ow.ly/1iTyiC
.

[–] deniseactress 13 years ago

this movie will be in and out of the theatre before you blink. or found in some art house movie theatre for a week before it lands uploaded online.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jayp852000 13 years ago

__________________________________________

this movie will be in and out of the theatre before you blink. or found in some art house movie theatre for a week before it lands uploaded online.

__________________________________________

It will probably play mostly in art house theaters, but thanks for the reminder.

What does that have to do with reviews? Some of Cronenberg's most provocative and respected movies made the least amount of money.

They are an acquired taste, to say the least, and not always appreciated by a mainstream audience.

[–] dggygttyl3 13 years ago

For nearly two hours, characters tell idiotic sweeping statements like "People die" "Life is unfair" or "Violence must have a cause".

It's anything but subtle, and a good, thoughtful phylosophical movie doesn't have to yell it at your face.

[–] carpenterfulci 13 years ago

I didn't go to the premiere, it's in every theatre in France right now.

[–] Curzon_Street 13 years ago

So if you've really seen it, please answer my question. Where do Eric and Elise have sex?

And since it's in every theater in France now, it's a good thing that the 3 leading papers: Le Monde, Libération and Le Figaro gave it good reviews. The current rating on the Cannes scorecard is 7.53/10. Very good so far.

Both Cosmopolis trailers: http://ow.ly/1iTyiC
.

[–] carpenterfulci 13 years ago

Jesus, is this a FBI investigation? Elise is the wife right? Well they don't have sex in this movie.
Can't you trust a negative reviewer to have actually seen the movie? grow up seriously.

[–] fleur_de_flaneur 13 years ago

You're obviously out on a campaign for the film, with the 2 trailers conveniently stacked under your posts.
The French will continue to praise the film, but elsewhere (e.g. German's Der Spiegel magazine called it monotone, bloodless, perishing in pretentious dialogue) it's not quite applauded. Some people should go to their local theatre again if they love the weight of the word so much that they're willing to translate "boring" into "challenging", as long as their cultural heroes are concerned. Cronenberg, where do you go to, my lovely?

[–] Anonin 13 years ago

The opinion in this is very much divided. We can see this with critics too (thought most of them love or like it). The movie is very challenging indeed because it requires you to not only concentrate from the beginning to end, it also demand you to analyse every single sentence, so i can imagine why the average movie goer will not like it. I still don't know how i feel about it after watching it yesterday (it opened in the french part of Switzerland the same time than in France).

I think it's too easy to just call it boring or pretentious because you're too lazy to watch a movie that require you to use your intelligence, that why many critics love it (they for once are used to analyse movies anyway) and the audience hate it because we are too used to watch movies that just demand us to sit in the theater and enjoy.

I just pity everyone who had to review it after one viewing because for me, I need to warch it again to get the full extend of what they wanted us to get.

Anyway I think most of people will not like it because we are too lazy to use our brain.

[–] sammie1863 13 years ago

It definitely appears to be a love it or hate it kind of film and a rather draining one. But, to each his own. Don't trash it because it is not your cup of tea. I agree it is probably tough to give a complete review after one sitting. I have read a number of reviews that indicated they had to 'let it sink in'. I, for one, am looking forward to the 'challenge'.

[–] blackbeanie 13 years ago

I had the same reaction after I had read the book the first time. I was like: what the hell is this?
But the book didn't leave me in peace, so I read it a second time. Then I got hooked by Eric Packer and the wonderful meanings of the dialogues and, after 4 reads, I now consider the book as one of my favourites.

So when I went to see the movie I knew exactly what I could expect and what not and IMO Cosmopolis is a peace of art. But, as with many forms of art like sculptures and paintings, you need to look at it more than once to get the details.
Robert Pattinson nailed Eric Packer and brought his weird, psychotic side on screen as no other actor of his age range (and older) could've done.

I feel sorry for those who were disappointed in the movie but it wouldn't be fair to blame the actor or even the movie itself. It's just not their cup of tea, nothing wrong with that.

[–] In_Celluloid_We_Trust 13 years ago

So, no 'splosions then? Cool.

[–] carpenterfulci 13 years ago

Stupid remark.

Do you live in a bipolar world where people either like boring auteur movies or explosion filled blockbusters?

[–] horrorules 13 years ago

agree with Carpenterfulci, this is the WROST Cronenberg ever.
A nonsense and boring movie wich has only dialogues long and inconclusive.
Generally i like Cronenberg, but this time NO.
Pattinson is one of the wrost actor ever, he is only suitable for garbage like Twilight.
I hope he leaves an acting career, as soon as possible.

This movie SUCKS
Pattinson VERY VERY GARBAGE ACTOR

ehy H2 haters, look this
http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr226/zombiezombie/suck.jpg

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] In_Celluloid_We_Trust 13 years ago

Yeah, I bet everything you don’t concur with is "stoopid". You say the film is too talky, I imagine watching a play would be the ultimate nightmare for you. You seem to have a personal conception of what makes a film decent that isn't quite what others might think, if it doesn't comply with your own sensibilites it must be "Horrendous!".

Piss off you obnoxious fool.

[–] carpenterfulci 13 years ago

I thought the movie was horrendous therefore I don't see why I should call it any other name. If your post aimed at reminding me that this was just my opinion, then thank you but I am aware of that.

I can like talky films, although I often consider it is an easy way to tell the story without using what cinema offers to convey these ideas (photography for instance).

I like dialogues in plays because it works, I like long descriptions in books because it works, I don't like books transfered to screen without any reflexion on the script to adapt it to the visual medium that cinema is. Cronenberg himself confessed he only "filled the blanks" from the book: he barely changed the dialogues from the book at all. Well sorry, but that is lazy film making, and that makes for a horrible movie.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] carpenterfulci 13 years ago

OK I appreciate your post although I don't agree with it.

As for the word "horrendous", believe me I have seen bad films, but to me this is indeed horrendous. I can't remember any movie I have disliked more than Cosmopolis (although some of them were worse on the art department, they were still more enjoyable).

And the good half of the audience that left before the end seems to agree with me. I have NEVER seen so many people leaving before the end of a movie.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] blackbeanie 13 years ago

I have seen the movie and for me it is a masterpiece.
I have to admit that I've read the book 4 times and I remember that after the first read I was very confused and had the feeling that I didn't understand what DeLillo was trying to say. But I knew that, what he was writing, was meaningful, especially at this time period with the economic and financial crises putting whole countries on the edge of bankrupt.
So I read the book again and got hooked by his typical style of dialogues and by the complexity of Eric Packer.
I knew what I could aspect from the movie and still I was stunned by the authentic way Cronenberg has brought this difficult novel on screen.
I can see what you mean with the dialogues: in the book you can reread them but in the movie, the words disappears so quick it's difficult to get the meanings.
But, on the other hand, changing the text lines into more common dialogues would've alienated the movie from the book, would've given a whole other Eric Packer. I admire all actors though for having tried to bring the convo's as natural as possible.
Also at my screening people were leaving the theatre, some already after 10 minutes. That made me wonder: if you're willing to pay an expensive ticket to see a movie, is it so difficutl to inform yourself a bit better? With google and so there's a lot of info you can get about the book and the movie so you can guess what it's all about, if it's your cup of tea or not.
At the multiplex I saw people wandering from the one poster to the other, not able to decide whether they would go see Bettleship, Avenggers or Cosmopolis. Now wonder they leave disappointed, but after only 10 minutes, that seems weird to me.
I enjoyed Cosmopolis a lot and will rewatch it at least 1 time.
Sorry you didn't like it and sorry for eventual mistakes as English isn't my native language.

[–] carpenterfulci 13 years ago

I see, that's an interesting post. I have to wonder after reading it, if adapting the book into a movie was something that could or had to be done.

Aren't some books just impossible to transcript to screen faithfully? I haven't read the book, but judging by what you said, that does seem to be that kind of book.

[–] sammie1863 13 years ago

The key here is that the film is not for everyone. That doesn't equate to it not needing to be made. You didn't like it, were, bored, etc, but, others are ecstatic about the adaption and believe it was the best film they have seen. Either way, it is OK.

I enjoyed the book and believe I will enjoy the film. The poetic nature of the novel being faithfully interpreted on film appeals to me, but, may not to others.

[–] Curzon_Street 13 years ago

I'm not sure you're understanding, but the movie is an extremely faithful adaptation. Cronenberg used big chunks of the dialog from the book specifically because of the way it was written. There was no point in rewriting the dialog because it has a rhythm and pattern that he thinks is beautiful (and so do I).

Here's what Cronenberg said:
What convinced him to turn the book into a film to direct it?

DC: "The amazing dialog. DeLillo is famous for this but the dialogue of Cosmopolis are particularly brilliant. Some may be called “Pinteresque,” a la Harold Pinter, but we could also rename “DeLillesque.” Pinter is a playwright and his virtuosity by dialogue writer is more than obvious, in a novel but do not expect ever the expressive power of DeLillo’s work."

If you were a fan of the book, you might have liked the film more. In most cases, when a movie is adapted from a book, people say the movie wasn't as good as the book. In this case, people who loved the book are also liking the movie. That's unusual.

Delillo has seen the movie and also said he liked it, and he liked the changes that Cronenberg made, too. So if you don't like it, that's fine, but just be aware that others do.
.

[–] carpenterfulci 13 years ago

I didn't express myself correctly. What I meant was that maybe it was impossible to do a GOOD faithful adaptation of this novel.

[–] Curzon_Street 13 years ago

Right. Well, most of the critics have liked the film, so they thought it was a good adaptation. It's not going to please everyone, but then, no movie does.

Italy seems to like it, it was #3 this week, behind the Avengers and Dark Shadows. Pretty good for a low budget indie with little promotion in Italy.
.

[–] sammie1863 13 years ago

There are those that believe this is a good, a very good adaption of the novel.

[–] Marnye 13 years ago

To say that the movie was panned is false.

The top 3 French papers (Le Monde, Libération, Le Figaro) and respected magazines like Les Cahiers du Cinéma (the cream of film magazines and an institution), Télérama and Les Inrockuptibles all gave Cosmopolis excellent reviews, Première magazine too. They all praised Robert Pattinson. And I am French, so I know what I am talking about.

Rob: 8 times on French news programmes.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] carpenterfulci 13 years ago

Yeah the newspapers say it's good so it must be good. Go see the movie and make your own opinion.
And télérama, les inrockuptibles are respected critics? Is that a joke?

[–] Marnye 13 years ago

Yes, they are respected... I know better than you because I am French.

I am seeing the movie on Wednesday, special show attended by Rob and Cronenberg. Looking forward to it.

Rob: 8 times on French news programmes.

[–] carpenterfulci 13 years ago

I'm french too douchebag, and les inrockuptibles and télérama are a joke.

[–] Marnye 13 years ago

No, they are not a joke, but you are a joke, connasse ou connard.

Rob: 8 times on French news programmes.

[–] carpenterfulci 13 years ago

My "bobomètre" just exploded. :)
Anyway go see the movie and come back when you have, then we'll talk.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Curzon_Street 13 years ago

I remember some people found it difficult to follow Memento when it came out too, and needed to see it more than once. Same with The Prestige. I generally enjoy films like that.

Both Cosmopolis trailers: http://ow.ly/1iTyiC
.

[–] carpenterfulci 13 years ago

Then you obviously haven't seen cosmopolis, because it has nothing to do with that type of films.
The problem is not that the story is not understandable (it couldn't be more simple actually: guy wants to go get a haircut) or that the message is ambiguous (the denounciation of the selfishness and autodestructive nature of capitalism is obvious), no the real problem is that the dialogues are extremely poor, irrealistic and annoying.
Just imagine a superposition of maxims, each one not even being related to the previous one. That is what the dialogues in Csomopolis sound like!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Curzon_Street 13 years ago

I loved the dialog in the book. Since they use a lot of it in the film, why wouldn't I love that?

I get that you didn't like it. You've made your point. Not everyone agrees with you. Some of us thought the dialog in the book was beautiful, like a poem.

So you don't like the dialog. No one is going to force you to watch the movie again, are they?
.

[–] carpenterfulci 13 years ago

Sure. But I definitely think such dialogues, even though they might work in a book, don't work in a movie because of the limited time you have to think and because they don't seem like a proper conversation people would have.
Would you like to have a Kant or Hegel book transcripted verbatim to screen? I doubt it, that would make for an extremely annoying movie.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Faustus5 13 years ago

But I definitely think such dialogues, even though they might work in a book, don't work in a movie because of the limited time you have to think and because they don't seem like a proper conversation people would have.

Whether it "works in a movie" depends on the intelligence, disposition, and interests of the viewer. There is no general rule out there about what works or doesn't work in art--as anyone who is philosophically literate about art would know. Cronenberg himself has said that for him, the essence of cinema is people talking and saying interesting things. Kubrick would have said something completely different, of course. They each make/made movies according to different sensibilities and there is plenty of room for everyone's tastes.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CurzonStreet 13 years ago

Great review from the Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/9290609/Cannes-201 2-Robert-Pattinson-in-Cosmopolis-review.html
Robert Pattinson gives a sensationally controlled central performance in David Cronenberg's film Cosmopolis, writes Robbie Collin.
4 out of 5 stars

There’s no way David Cronenberg could have known – could he? – but in Cosmopolis, the master of body horror has engineered a kind of cinematic stem cell from which all of the other films at Cannes this year might have been cultured.

This is a steely, chillingly topical adaptation of Don DeLillo’s satirical novel about Eric Parker, a young billionaire fund manager who spends a day being ferried across midtown New York to visit his hairdresser.

At its heart is a sensational central performance from Robert Pattinson – yes, that Robert Pattinson – as Packer. Pattinson plays him like a human caldera; stony on the surface, with volcanic chambers of nervous energy and self-loathing churning deep below.

Cronenberg’s script is often oblique, and the film is talky and evasive – heaven knows what Pattinson’s Twilight fanbase will make of it. But its portrayal of civilisation as an impossibly intricate, crucially flawed equation, about to buckle and snap, is sinuously compelling.

Both Cosmopolis trailers: http://ow.ly/1iTyiC
.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CurzonStreet 13 years ago

Cronenberg definitely likes films where the characters have something to say and since when do they all have to sound like "proper conversations people would have"? How boring would that be if it were applied to every film?

Cronenberg talks with BBC News & Dazed Digital:
“This character is in every scene in the movie which is quite unusual for a movie with a big star. That means he must have charisma, and that he is constantly revealing different tones and shades - and Rob has that. Finally, he has to be good with dialogue because this is wall-to-wall dialogue, some of it quite technical, which can be very intimidating for an actor. Once I convinced him he was the guy, he had no problem with it."

Both Cosmopolis trailers: http://ow.ly/1iTyiC
.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Faustus5 13 years ago

If you want a movie completely with dialogue and no cinematic originality, why not make it a theater production.

Why not make it a movie and instantly get a wider audience? This isn't rocket science, you know.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Faustus5 13 years ago

Why not leave it a book. Where its translation is understanded better coming from yourself, rather then an empty faced actor looking confused.

Because he's a filmmaker and he likes making movies. Don't go if you aren't interested. Is this really all that difficult for you to comprehend?

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] malcolm-smith 11 years ago

Thank you. That is a good summary of the film.

I think that the film could have been more interesting if the film didn't go for the supposed cool Matrix style of dialogue delivery.

For the first fifteen hours of the film I was thinking Matrix, Matrix, Matrix all throughout. Change a decaying society for, er, a decaying society and change a submarine for a limo, robotic squids for protestors and we've got this film.

Then we jump into a Bladerunner inspired closing series of scenes or, rather, the sets are very Bladerunner where one could exchange a run down abandoned building for a run down abandoned building, a long drawn out duel where one character wishes to die for a long drawn out duel where one wishes to die.

It may have worked in the book. But as Carpenter said in the Extras all he did was copy and paste the dialogue for the first three weeks and then for the next three put in the rest of the film. And this is where it went wrong; it may have worked perfectly in the book but it didn't translate onto the screen where, I am afraid, it came across as a big pompous self-important over-indulgent mess.

I watched the whole thing and I can honestly say that it's not often I watch a film with utter disinterest or attachment. For philosophical movies there are many that are better and, arguable, few that are worse.

I feel that films which stand up and shout "Look at me, I'm clever" invariably aren't. I don't know how many of you read 'Private Eye' but anyone who reads the strip "It's Grim Up North London" may recognise this as something which Quin and his mates would watch.

A brave attempt though. But, alas, falls at about every hurdle.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] blackbeanie 13 years ago

Well, until now not one work of the well known DeLillo is been adapted into a movie, his books are considered to be unadaptable because of his particular writing style and his specific views on our daily society.

So it was very daring of Cronenberg to take the risk and made a movie with dialogues intact. It will probably not turn well on the BO and general reception, maybe Cronenberg has put the bar too high this time, but the fact that he was willing to try, made me a fan of him.

And, IMHO, he made it work. Only a genius like Cronenberg could recreate Eric Packers mind on screen. Only a self confident director like Cronenberg saw the talent in Robert Pattinson to bring insane, psychotic elements in such a natural way to life (I'm working in the psychological department, I see when an actor 'acts' psychotic and when he 'is' psychotic).

I think the big problem of Cosmopolis is not the movie itself. The adaptation is more than good, though I regret some parts not being there. The problem is that, in theatre, you can't pause, rewind and hear the text again. The quotes, the oneliners, so meaningful and visionary, don't have enough time to get into the viewer's mind.
You can't blame the audience, you can only advise the audience to not throw this movie away, to try again with an open mind, maybe after having given the book a try.
It's not because the viewers don't get the movie after a first watch, that the viewer is dumb or the movie is bad. Even Pattinson and Cronenberg didn't really get the plot when they started shooting. It was an odyssey for them too, but what a nice journey they made of it, in my idea.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kidjay83 12 years ago

Yeah the dialogue was the worst part i dont think it was even adapted for screen.The writer just worked off of the book R.pattison should stick to doing his vampire films.When it comes to acting he doesn't have it but i guess all the good actors.Knew better than to be involved in this P.O.S movie maybe that's why he was hired.To secure that people would go see it i agree with carpenterfulci save your money.The next time you see one of those thrid world child starving commercials .Send your money there instead david cronenberg should be ashamed of himself for taking a pay check.For a garbage movie like this same with the half wit actors.Who decided it was a good idea to do this project.

They are starvgin people in this world who are alot more deserving of that money then you .

Where are the real artists? Today it's four-barreled carburetors and that's it.

[–] manythings711 12 years ago

How intentional is the stilted dialogue? What about the awkward acting? Intentional? Even if it is done on purpose it distracted me every other second. I love philosophical films, waking life for example, what bothered me isn't that it's scene after scene of dialogue. It's that the acting and line readings were so strange and off putting.

[–] kidjay83 12 years ago

the movie wasn't good acting ,writing,philosophical were just off putting .

"There is no terror in the bang, only in the anticipation of it."

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]