A new one sheet featuring Cosmopolis, with an interesting date. Could Cosmopolis be appearing at Cannes? The date fits as the Cannes Film Festival runs from May 16th to May 27th.
And it appaears that the film is seeking additional dsitribution deals this month in Berlin.
The sixth edition of Telefilm Canada’s Perspective Canada at Berlin will take place at the European Film Market (EFM), which runs concurrent with the Berlinale. This showcase is designed to increase the international exportation of Canadian feature films and spotlight Canadian companies, films and talent for the more than 6,900 potential buyers, sellers and producers from over 90 countries accredited by the EFM. The same initiative is held annually at the Cannes Film Market.
David Cronenberg’s eagerly awaited Cosmopolis is presold in over 25 countries, including Italy and Portugal, and will travel the world.
Recently I discovered a new site for film critics’ reviews. I thought profiling a few sites like this might be useful to readers. It’s also a way to quickly see professional reviews of A Dangerous Method, now out in theatres. The film has been received very well.
These three sites are called, “film review aggregators,” making a search for reviews far more efficient than a Google search. Ratings of A Dangerous Method from these sites reflect information at this time, and could change a bit. You’ll see similar scores across the sites, but of course, they all include the big review sources and film critics, so there’s overlap.
The three sites I’ll talk about are Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and moviereviewintelligence.
Many filmgoers know of this site from its catchy name. I assume you are supposed to think of the image of audiences throwing tomatoes at the stage (screen) when they don’t like what they see. Rotten Tomatoes is owned by Flixster, which was acquired by the film studio Warner Brothers in May 2011.
Rotten Tomatoes (RT) provides review quotes and links to reviews by film critics, and also allows users (filmgoers) to rate movies, too. So, you get two sets of reviews on the site. RT lists total worldwide box office for a film, and you can click to view the film’s trailer. It has links to information on what’s in theatres, DVD rentals and current releases, celebrities, news, and critics.
At RT the visual presentation of reviews is easy to absorb, you will see names of individual critics and their media source, with a brief excerpt from his or her review in a “bubble” quote format. You can click for the full review, and you can comment. You can click on all “fresh” ratings, or all “rotten ratings,” if you want to view one set or the other. You see a red tomato for fresh ratings, and splattered green for rotten. If the positive reviews make up 60% or more, the film is classified "fresh."
Rotten Tomatoes Scores for A Dangerous Method:
Critics: The film, with 138 reviews, earned an overall 78% “Certified Fresh” rating (on a scale of 100). Within the critic’s rating, one can click on “top critics” (37 reviewers), which shows the same rating of 78%. Users: The overall rating of A Dangerous Method by users is 56%, which is the percentage of users who rated the film 3.5 stars or more. The average rating by users was 3.3 stars. A Dangerous Method earned a rating that exceeds “fresh”: “Certified Fresh.” As stated on its website, RT “awards the Certified Fresh accolade to theater releases reviewed by 40 or more critics (including 5 Top Critics) that score at least 75% or higher on the Tomatometer. A film remains Certified Fresh unless its Tomatometer falls below 60%.”
RT has strengths and weaknesses. Because it’s simple—fresh or rotten—you can see the overall view of the film pretty quickly. The simplicity though can distort differences in opinion, if that’s all you view. A plus for RT is its often-large volume of user ratings.
Like the Rotten Tomatoes (RT) site, Metacritic aggregates reviews on its site, distinguishing between critics’ reviews and user (filmgoer) reviews. Metacritic is owned by the CBS Corporation.
Metacritic also has broad information about the film industry, links to film trailers, a list of films that are in theatres (by wide or limited release), and what films are coming out soon. I believe RT generally has a larger volume of user reviews than does Metacritic. However, Metacritic reviews much more than films, such as music albums games, movies, DVDs and TV shows.
Metacritic gives a numerical score to its critics’ rating, based on a scale of 100. Green ratings are over 60% (positive) and red are below that (negative.) Yellow is something considered a “mixed” review from a critic. User scores are on a 10-point scale, and anything over a 6.0 rating is considered positive.
Metacritic assigns a number percentage to each critics review. It will convert “star” ratings or a “letter grade” rating to a number percentage. It also does a weighted average of all the reviews “based on their quality and stature.” This means that its overall film review scores can vary considerably from that of RT’s. One can seek out detail on how scores are calculated at their link http://www.metacritic.com/about-metascores.
Metacritic Scores for A Dangerous Method:
Critics (41 reviews) Score: 76, positive User (40 ratings) Score: 6.4, positive I like Metacritic as a place to start because the volume of reviews is so much more manageable. But then I might compare what I see there to the overall scores for both critics and users at RT. If there’s much of a difference, then I may read more reviews there.
Moviereviewintelligence, a site I just discovered, presents critics’ film reviews as well, but it has more detail, which I think is really worth looking at. It does not provide user (filmgoer) reviews. This site was launched two years ago by David A. Gross, who describes himself as former movie marketing executive, consultant, and researcher. The site is not affiliated with a movie studio or other entertainment company.
Moviereviewintelligence pulls together scores (also based on a 100% scale) by the source of the review. It classifies by the following categories, and you get to see the scores across all categories all on one line. It’s very interesting to see how the scores vary by source.
moviereviewintelligence Scores for A Dangerous Method:
74.8% Total Score, all sources 75.3% Broad National Press 74.1% Local Newspapers 72.8% Alternative/Indie 76.1% High-Brow Press 79.0% Movie Industry 76.8% NY/LA Chicago Toronto 71.1% Key Cities What’s interesting with A Dangerous Method is there isn’t a lot of variation across sources; it’s in the 70’s across the board. The scores are all in the general range of what is seen at the Rotten Tomatoes and metacritic sites. Of course these sites, as I noted, are likely including many of the same reviewers.
What I like about the moviereviewintelligence site is that it:
1) Gives you the overall score from critics, then 2) Presents by source, then 3) Lists specific reviews with the source category, and then 4) Shows how the film was received, with an easy to understand scale, using color-coding as well. Reviews are scaled as follow--Outstanding, Very good, Good, Moderate, Weak, Poor-- with positive ones being coded green, more negative dark brown, and more in between, lighter brown.
All this gives you a lot of information quickly, but doesn’t overwhelm. If you want detail, the reviews are listed with quotes, and hyperlinked for the full text. There’s other detail on scores for those interested, too. An example is a graph that plots the scores, color-coded by size of publication and the score (by color of dots.) There’s also a graph that shows opening day reviews (and then any before or after) with bars that show how positive or negative.
Also there’s lots of information on how this site calculates and displays scores, I’ll leave that to those who are interested, to explore there.
For Detailed Box Office Performance Data
For anyone who’s interested, box office performance detail is available at Box Office Mojo.com. This profiles detail by country, and for the US daily, weekly, and weekend numbers, as well as the number of theatres and theatre average $ data. It also allows you to compare the box office performance of a film of interest to similar films.
Summary
So, what did I learn? Critics really like A Dangerous Method, and so do users, ranking it positive as well (or very nearly so-just under an overall “fresh” rating at RT.) With the additional detail from the moviereviewintelligence site, one can see the ratings don’t vary much by source of review, either. Everyone seems happy with it.
For fun, I entered some random titles of other films currently in theaters until I found a different result, a difference in opinion by the types of reviewers (sources.) Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close had a lowest score of 24.6% from “alternative/indie” sources, and a highest of 74.2% from the broad national press. I didn’t try to figure out why, but these sites allow you to delve into that question if you so wish. This is how these sites are particularly useful.
Can all these critics and users be wrong about A Dangerous Method? To me, the film is worth your time and the cost of a movie ticket. I’ve seen it twice myself, and actually got more out of it the second time. It was an important piece of cultural history, the acting was very good, and it really was gorgeously shot. Of course, with your interest in Cronenberg’s Cosmopolis coming out this year, as well, it would be fun to compare and contrast later his handling of two very different stories and settings.
Juliette Binoche has done a couple of interviews in which she was asked about her experience while filming Cosmopolis.
In a recent article with Madame Figaro, Juliette Binoche talked about Cosmopolis, Robert Pattinson and David Cronenberg.
MF: What do you do in Cosmopolis, the next David Cronenberg film?
JB: I make love in the limo! Belonging to Robert Pattinson, the fabulously wealthy man who wants it all and loses it all! It sounds like Cronenberg, doesn’t it? Director of photography, Peter Suschitzky, lights up each shot like a painting. Robert and I were alone in the car with a camera and a microphone, and we could hear David’s voice coming from a distance: we would redo a take, then another one, etc. There was something clinical about it, which for me was a change from Amos Gitai or Abel Ferrara.
She also talked earlier with MK2.com.
MK2.com: Can you tell us about the filming of Cosmopolis with David Cronenberg? JB: I play an art saleswoman who has sex with a rich young man, played by Robert Pattinson, who is trying to sell her paintings. I shot two days, in a highly Cronenberguien, that is to say quite distant while shooting, but warm at the start and finish. It was in front a green background, in a limousine with a camera directed at a distance, David talked through a microphone. At first I was intoxicated with the idea of playing a sort of berserk. But at the end of the scene, she finds herself in a lonely miserable position. Leaving the movie, I felt badly. And that’s exactly what David wanted to tell: the illusion of prosperity and the sense of a world that falls and loses.
This post is the first in a four-part series on A Dangerous Method which starts today with one filmgoer’s review. The next post will be about film review sites online, and the last two will be a selective look at aspects of the film, particularly the setting, the look of the film, and the female characters, using quotes from the director.
Last fall, A Dangerous Method opened at the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF), and I gave a first person account of that event in posts recently on this blog. The film has been in theatres worldwide since the end of November in most markets. It has only recently expanded from a very limited run in the US to over 350 theatres, and is now accessible to more Americans. As of the time of this post, www.boxofficemojo.com shows A Dangerous Method has made $4,291,872 in the US, for a total over $19 million. It’s doing well at the box office, and film reviews have been strong.
Cronenberg Films are in the News This January, David Cronenberg’s Cosmopolis topped off a series of mentions in the media as “one of the most anticipated films of 2012” with a stunning upset win in the MTV 2012 Movie Brawl. An unexpected win against some highly anticipated blockbuster films like The Hunger Games, The Dark Knight and The Hobbit.
The films it beat will do large box office, this poll wasn’t projecting any financial expectations or likely audience reception to 2012 films. What’s important about the outcome is that millions of people voted that they looked forward to seeing Cosmopolis the most of the sixteen listed. This has created positive publicity and greater awareness of the film. This is, simply, a good thing.
A Dangerous Method Now in Theatres Now it’s time to shift gears to giving attention to the current Cronenberg film. A Dangerous Method presents a fascinating and true story of Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and Sabina Spielrein, three people who truly shaped the modern world with their pioneering work in psychoanalysis. These were three gifted, yet still deeply human and flawed individuals. This shows them at the start of their thinking and research.
While the film seems a break from past work, it is about one of David Cronenberg’s recurring themes— exploring the nature of the human condition, which includes, “the beast within.” Hence to me, and I’ve seen some critics voice this as well, it’s a natural choice for Mr. Cronenberg. He has commented that this particular topic has been a specific interest. He explained to Total Film magazine: "I have to remind people that the first film I ever made was called Transfer and it's about a psychiatrist and his patient, a seven-minute film."
This Series: A Look at A Dangerous Method I saw the film twice. At TIFF, I was impressed, but there were a couple of things I was uncertain about, that somewhat “took me out of the movie.” I wasn’t quite sure how to articulate my feelings. I decided I needed to see it again. Indeed, on second viewing those aspects no longer concerned me. I think I was just more relaxed and was more able to absorb and enjoy. I was thinking too much when I viewed the first time.
So, trying to think what would be most helpful to readers, we thought we’d approach this in three posts:
• Post 1: One Filmgoer’s Review. Start with a review of the film, from a friend, who unlike me, went in “cold.” He had no preconceived notions about David Cronenberg, had seen some of his films, but had knowledge of Freud and Jung’s work. He knew I posted here and said, I loved this movie, it was really well done, and I want to review it!
• Post 2: Look at Three Film Review Sites Online. Direct readers who are interested to a way to quickly access professional film reviews online. We thought this would serve double-duty. Those who want a quick scan of how A Dangerous Method was reviewed, or to read full reviews, you’ll have quick links. In addition, it’s an opportunity to inform. Many of you likely are already in the know, but for others, it’s helpful to know of these online sites, and how they are the same and different.
• Posts 3 and 4: A Selective Look at the History, Female Characters, and Artistic Decisions. Present some snippets of interviews with David Cronenberg that provide insight on the film’s story and setting, and some of his artistic decisions. As we all have heard of Freud and Jung, but not necessarily the female characters’ important roles, I bring to you some comments from the director.
As always, our goal is to inform and highlight a fine film. I really love my friend’s linking the subject of the film to the essence of filmmaking itself. I’ve bolded this content.
One Filmgoers Review: A Dangerous Method
There are many movies that ought not to be for children, but that allow them anyway, with cartoonish violence and sexual escapades that are not, in fact, required by the plot or to make the characters believable. This movie, too, is not for children, but for a different reason – it is a sophisticated exploration of the origins of psychotherapy in early twentieth century Austria, and an equally sophisticated exploration of the tangled relationships among Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud, and Sabina Spielrein, one of Jung’s earliest patients treated by the “talking cure”, and eventually his mistress.
Some reviewers have complained that the three main actors, Viggo Mortensen as Freud, Michael Fassbender as Jung, and Kiera Knightley as Sabina, engage in interminable discussion – which seems to me to be ironic, given the topic and events of the film. But in fact, the dialogue is smart, sophisticated, and yields insights into the thoughts and motivations of the characters in a way that their mere actions cannot, even when those actions are graphic enough to earn the film its R rating.
Instead, what we encounter in director David Cronenberg’s film is a subject that is central to film-making itself – what motivates us, what urges must we fulfill even when they lead to neuroses, how do we understand our own behavior and motivation? Psychotherapy was then a young profession, and Freud was determined to make it a science. Jung dabbled in theories of race memories and paranormal abilities, and as a result of these and his own personal failings, such as taking patients for mistresses, strained his relationship with Freud beyond the breaking point. Sabina emerged from the worst of her own neuroses to become a psychotherapist herself in her native Russia. Cronenberg deftly navigates the difficulties of portraying a story based on the lives of real people, however far removed from today, and his handling of this difficult material is both true enough to fact and spectacularly filmed to give viewers a sense of the desires and dreams of each character, and the particular challenges of pre-First World War Vienna.
There are relatively few practitioners of the “talking cure” today, and even fewer with an obsessive reduction of all neuroses to the repression of sexuality as children and adults. The practice of psychiatry has evolved along with much of medicine to encompass a much greater reliance on drugs and the physical manifestation of much mental illness. But psychotherapy occupies an important place in our cultural history, and in our understanding of how we think, and why we behave the way we do. A Dangerous Method provides a very human insight into the people who made it so.
Look for Post 2, Three Online Film Review sites, next.
MTV had the opportunity to speak with director David Cronenberg about his reaction to the Cosmopolis win in the MTV Movie Brawl.
MTV: David, thanks for talking with us! Have you been filled in on what's happened with Cosmopolis over here?
David Cronenberg: You know, I've been following it! I'm shocked! I'm shocked and amazed and really tickled. It proves that movie fans are unpredictable and really interesting and really passionate. It's fantastic. I would have never, ever imagined that this would happen.
MTV: How did the tournament first get on your radar?
Cronenberg: Somebody sent me something and said, "Hey, we seem to be doing OK in this Movie Brawl thing that MTV's got going on." I didn't know about it. At that point, we were struggling with The Dark Knight, I think. I thought, "Wow, that's pretty impressive!" Because Cosmopolis, while I think in terms of what it is as cinema is pretty hefty, but in terms of budget and promotion, it's an underdog compared to something like the Dark Knight franchise. I really didn't think we would have much of a chance. That really got my attention.
To read the rest of the interview and the article, please click here:
Who would have thought that a small budget indie flick would come out on top of a slew of big budget, big studio films?
Over 3 million votes were cast in the final round of the MTV 2012 Movie Brawl which ended with Cosmopolis beating Lionsgate's The Hunger Games for the most anticipated film for 2012.
Originally, not even in the line up, Cosmopolis enetered the brawl as a #4 seed following a write in campaign.
The film went on to beat Pattinson's other films Bel Ami and Breaking Dawn Part 2, taking down The Dark Knight Rises before topping THG in the final round.
I received my email newsletter from Landmark Theatres, and what a treat I found! David Cronenberg’s essay about Freud’s chair, a replica of which was used in the film, and now is at home with the director in Toronto.
Many may not associate “a sense of whimsy” to David Cronenberg, who is known for directing films exploring the darker side of human emotions, often with visual images of significant shock value.
But here we see his anecdote about a prop in A Dangerous Method, “[the chair] had a cheerful Gumby-like human shape with arms that seem to want to encircle you?” Cronenberg adds, “It would have been a crime to not have our Freud—played by Viggo Mortensen—sit in that amazing and expressive chair, so we commissioned the replica maker to make us our own.”
The Director notes how interesting the chair was for being “both strangely modern and yet somehow Victorian.” As duality is a characteristic explored in much of his filmmaking, this chair highlights the duality in the time period in which the film is set. It was time solidly in the Victorian age, but moving toward modernity—driven in part by Freud and Jung’s nascent work at the time.
Cronenberg’s sense of humor and lightness returns to close this lovely anecdote about this important prop in the film, “But I have our chair in my house in Toronto now, and it has a double-history for me—Freud and his movie doppelgänger Viggo-Freud—and I like to sit in it from time to time. It always surprises me how good its lumbar support is.”
The original articles found on this site are owned by the respective writers. If you want to re-post one on your site, please let us know and please credit the author.
Follow Cosmopolis Film Blog on Twitter
Disclaimer
Please enjoy the site. This site is an unofficial fan site and is not in any way affiliated with Alfama Films, Kinology, Toronto Antenna or with any of the actors, filmmakers or their management. The characters, story, images and names are property of the writers, author, Alfama Films, Kinology, Toronto Antenna and / or Simon and Schuster. Photos, videos and other such images are not owned by site. The site uses photos and videos that are available on the web. All rights belong to their respective owners and all effort has been used to properly credit to their respective sites. No copyright infringement is intended on anything seen on the website, including media. If you are the original owner of a piece of media and you would like it removed, please contact cosmopolis.filmblog@gmail.com
Official Cosmopolis Site
Alfama Films
Cosmopolis at IMDb 
Simon&Schuster
Cosmopolis Film.com
...Thinking of Rob
Spunk Ransom
Robert Pattinson U.S.
...Let Me Sign
...Robert Pattinson Profile