Not a Good Week To Be Robert Pattinson: 'Cosmopolis' Disappoints In Canada, 'Bel Ami' Tanks In U.S.

David Cronenberg's "Cosmopolis"

While his "Twilight" co-star Kristen Stewart saw her "Snow White and the Huntsman" edge toward $100 million, Robert Pattinson had little to celebrate at the box office this weekend. His latest attempts to break out from "Twilight" -- Declan Donnellan and Nick Ormerod's "Bel Ami" and David Cronenberg's "Cosmopolis," both of which star Pattinson -- found very disappointing numbers. Although both projects are indies and clearly less commercially viable than Stewart's "Snow White," neither found numbers in their limited debuts to suggest Pattinson's fans have much interest in his post-"Twilight" career.

"Bel Ami" hit 15 screens in the United States care of Magnolia Pictures and grossed a weak $38,018 to average just $2,535 per theater. Co-starring Uma Thurman and Kristin Scott Thomas, the adaptation of the Guy de Maupassant novel notably debuted on VOD weeks ago. The numbers for that platform have yet to be released and hopefully give Pattinson a bit more reason to believe he can carry a non-Edward Cullen role.

"Cosmopolis," meanwhile, won't be out in the United States until August 17. But Entertainment One gave it a limited release in its native Canada and the results were not promising. On 24 screens, the film -- which debuted at the Cannes Film Festival last month to mixed reviews -- grossed $56,566. That made for an average slightly below that of "Bel Ami:" $2,356.

These numbers come after a string of underperforming non-"Twilight" films for the actor. Wide studio releases "Remember Me" (2010) and "Water For Elephants" (2011) grossed $19 million and $59 million, respectively -- for a combined number that's just over half of what "Breaking Dawn, Part I" grossed in its first weekend.

"Cosmopolis" also marks a huge drop from what director Cronenberg usual pulls in from limited release debuts. While numbers exclusive to Canada are not available because they were all released across North America at the same time, "A History of Violence," "Eastern Promises" and "A Dangerous Method" all saw their first weekends in North America average over $35,000 per theater. Even 1999's comparatively low grossing "eXistenZ" averaged $3,165 from its first weekend, and that was from a much wider 256 theater release.

Perhaps the film will fare much better when it hits US screens, though so far things are not looking good for "Cosmopolis," which E One will release in the UK this upcoming weekend.

Box Office

get email updates on Box Office

110 Comments

| Reply
klye | September 4, 2012 2:39 AMReply

THere was no advertising fo Cosmopolis on TV nor did i ever see any previews in theaters. It seems only fans really knew about it from fan blogs. I thought it was a great movie.
Know Your Subject: Cosmopolis Is Amazing | August 28, 2012 9:07 PMReply

Er, @unknown, you were supposed to laugh. The film is a satirical comedy about capitalism and humanity. What a shame you didn't spend a little prefilm time reading DeLillo's book to understand its themes before hanging out with what sound like remarkably immature pals.

Next time try Final Destination 41. A better fit for you methinks.
unknown | August 11, 2012 5:26 PMReply

Unfortunately for Rob. Cosmopolis comes off as a convoluted mess. I went to see it with 7 other friends and it ended up being a competition to see who could sit through the longest without leaving. The entire audience laughed out loud at parts that were supposed to be taken seriously.. In the end I was the only one who stayed until the credits, the last two others leaving minutes before the end.. because.. you just really couldn't tell when exactly it was going to end. I held on.. hoping it would be quick. Afterwards we joked about getting haircuts and prostate exams... and where do those limos sleep at night? It just.. tried way too hard.. I can see it having a cult following similar to rocky horror.. where people yell things out and throw stuff during the movie.
vivianR | August 7, 2012 11:41 AMReply

Kristen is a better actress then R ob 's fan give her. Youdon't get payed much for movies that
are not played well. Kristen, is a good actress. She was born to do what she do. I, don't beleive Rob really ever loved Kristen, when ever you see them together he walks in front of her he gets in all cars before she does. He always look unhappy when they are together. nothing happen unless it is suppose to;I thinkROB ,
Jenna | August 4, 2012 11:14 AMReply

You've got to be kidding with this article being all up on indies. How did three movies that came out in a row that Kristen made that were indies do? Like, The Runaways, only made it into a few theaters, Welcome to the Rileys, the same and The Yellow Handkerchief, the same. These were all pushed after she made Twi. Of course Snow White made over $100M. The production costs were $170M not including massive advertising via commercials. With all that being spent on it, the domestic take seems more than a tad disappointing, even with Charlize and Chris that were promoted even more. I haven't even seen one commercial for Cosmopolis anywhere yet and never saw anything at all on Bel Ami. Unfair comparison, but typical lately.
Sam | June 23, 2012 11:16 AMReply

Man! looks at all these comments!
Ann | June 23, 2012 6:40 AMReply

The agenda here is the same as usual. Twilight's success seems to rankle many who can't believe this series, bolstered by a largely female audience, thrived as it did. The saga still receives most of the potshots, as will the actors, despite many other equally or more deserving targets out there to excoriate. The topic is becoming irrelevant in any case. Increasingly films are driven less by stars and more by concept/genre, even if the concept doesn't always work. Christian Bale will do respectable boff with "Dark Knight" but how many went to see "The Flowers of War," which opened in twice as many theaters as Bel Ami? Daniel Craig is well-known for his franchise, and what is sure to be another, but not so much for "Flashbacks of a Fool" (which took about $2,000 in 2 theaters) or "Dream House." DiCaprio is more consistent but "Revolutionary Road" or "JEdgar" was no "Inception" at the domestic box office. Even Depp or Smith have to stay within the confines of genre to ensure numbers. Cruise can make a billion with a franchise, but not so much with a "Rock of Ages," even given a wide opening. Actors may joke they have to do their 'superhero' or comicbook movie to be considered bankable, but it's a recognition of the reality. At the very least it better be a franchise. As it is, 'Star' value is more importance for worldwide performance nowadays than north american box office. Indies made outside the US, are released in foreign markets first, and 'name' recognition can still be a draw. Pattinson's films outside the saga did well in intl markets, particularly Russia, and in other european countries. Not surprising studios are beginning to follow the same release pattern with majors. The domestic market is becoming more fractured, with so many platforms, so the game is changing. It may even get to the point where the only films opening in america first are those which may not play well internationally. Not going to get into the ways in which how limited a release can affect take, even per screen average, as its beyond the scope of the article. Simply reiterating it will be refreshing when bloggers can get their heads out about Twilight, and actually write articles to inform the movie-going public. Case in point, VOD numbers have not generally been shared by distribs but if the writer can get them would be happy to see the info for a number of releases.
How about actual facts | June 19, 2012 2:11 PMReply

Well Willoe, maybe try some facts. At the rate BelAmi is going it will at least break even. It had no marketing expenses obviously or very minimal and did very well in places like Russia, UK, and Italy. Breaking even is more than most indies do. It was also filmed over 2 years ago when Rob was much less experienced as an actor. Robs other movies WFE and RM both made a profit again more than alot of movies do. Currently Cosmopolis is fresh at 61% on RT. and out of the 100 critics looked at over 85% (some do no count on RT) find Rob excellent in Cosmopolis even if they did not like the movie overall. Cosmopolis is also the #1 movie in Canada its opening week. You want proof, here you go: http://playbackonline.ca/2012/06/19/hot-sheet-top-5-canadian-films-june-8-to-june-14-2012/ As for SWATH, I will not even discuss as this article is about Rob.
tom | June 18, 2012 2:51 PMReply

ummmm I think Peter KNEGT paid the public relations of kristen stewart, well not only him, but many more to speak well of her.
Willoe | June 18, 2012 4:55 AMReply

Look I'm thrilled that Hollywood is really going to be looking at ever using Pattinson again. The only point that keeps getting lost is that Snow White is actually a bigger financial loss than both Cosmopolis and Bel Ami. Snow White has to make 460 million to break even! That's never going to happen! Plus Kristen's performance actually detracted from the film and the critics have not been kind and it's something different to lose that much money for a major studio. Kristen has now burned Indies and Majors.It's like Twi has survived despite her not because of her! I don't think either of them have any talent. If you sit down and figured out how much money Kristen has lost for all her projects starting at Adventureland, it's well over 150 million. Very soon we will be able to add On The Road to another movie she ruined! There was a point when it seemed like Robert might look into figuring this whole acting thing out but then he started a relationship with Kristen,( Kristen brought him happily down the we are the greatest and nobody understands us so just fu_k em universe they live in).Once again Robert made that choice. I hope they have been conservative with their money because I think the gravy train is out since they have already been paid for the last Twi film.I also noticed the Twi's came out to attack you but if they had seen what all the critics said. Out of 100 critics over 70 of them were brutal on Robert's performance in both movies!Then the others were just so so. It has already been decided to take Bel-Ami to dvd and not lose anymore money on it. You Twi's need to realize Robert and Kristen have to make a profit, if they don't then they are gone. I personally can't believe anyone is still hiring them! I hear a lot of people trying to use a pail to save a huge yacht. I don't understand why you guys can't let this go! Robert and Kristen made 5 Twi movies. They made really good money on three of them. They will go down in history as your generations favorite fad! Why can't that be enough? Look the truth is from the very beginning their popularity was to young females. Which is fine but you can't make a career out of that. Truth is these two are a joke and to most of the population disliked as actors and people. I work at a company with 500 people and we do bets on how bad one of their movies are going to do, you know each person picks a number and we put money in and whoever gets the closest wins the pot. Here's the truth Bel-Ami was just gonna keep losing money and it looks like that's been decided on Cosmopolis as well. You can't gripe when the studio decides to save money. I heard all these complaints about how The Runaways wasn't promoted right etc. Do you know it only made 2 1/2 million in dvd sales. A good Hoolywood Exec blinks and makes that, plus all the twi fans did that text message e-mailing hounding Appairation to buy the movie and guess what The Runaway's bankrupted them.Where were all the fans? In fact go look at the sales of every movie that Robert and Kristen have done that is not a Twi movie. Believe me it becomes quite clear that they only make money from their fans if it is a Twi film. If there true fans can't be expected to back them why would you think we would give them a second look? Me thinks the fan protest too loudly!
mari | June 18, 2012 12:02 AMReply

robert will not make that garbage movie, only in your dreams.
CJ MURRAY | June 17, 2012 3:22 PMReply

I HAVEN'T SEEN EITHER MOVIE YET, HAS NOT PLAYED IN THE STATES, BUT I WILL LOVE ANYTHING ROBERT PLAYS IN, HE SHULD HAVE GOTTEN THE ROLE OF CHRISTIAN GRAY
mari | June 18, 2012 12:08 AM

robert will not make that garbage movie, only in your dreams and PETER KNEGT shut up and stop writing articles like this, it is impossible to compare popcorn movies with independent and art films.
gabi | June 15, 2012 12:14 PMReply

how about 1.5 Mill for Moonrise Kingdom on 16 screens in 4 weeks, not too good ether..so whats your point
gabi | June 15, 2012 12:04 PMReply

the Movie is in 4 Cinemas in Toronto , how can it get big Numbers. And it isn't Robs fault , Cosmopolis is a difficult Movie and needs your full attention, I thought its brilliant . Your bias article is a shame for your profession. By the way Robert and Paul in that filthy room going toe to toe, that scene is brilliant
Sam | June 15, 2012 7:30 AMReply

WOW look at how many comments you got for this piece of shit article! Pattz sure do attract a LOT of people! :)
Lynne Stringer | June 15, 2012 2:30 AMReply

The comments in this article seem to be largely based on assumptions from figures that are not yet available. And comparing Bel Ami and Cosmopolis to SWATH is unfair. SWATH is a high budget action fantasy. They're bound to do better than low budget indie-types. If either Bel Ami or Cosmopolis pull in any kind of profit it will be because of Rob's presence.
lauralynn | June 14, 2012 5:59 PMReply

The numbers for Bel Ami don't really reflect how well the movie has been received. The movie was released on Pay-Per-View one month ago and most people have already seen the movie this way at least once if not more often.
Charlie | June 14, 2012 12:57 PMReply

FYI Indiewire: âªCosmopolisâ¬ has been updated to 63% Fresh on RottenTomatoes. There are still more reviews to add. It would be great if you could put half as much attention on monitoring Rotten Tomatoes and celebrating an actor for making artistic choices not based on money, as you do counting shekels.
Norton | June 13, 2012 11:55 PMReply

This article is a clear swipe at Pattinson. Indiewire, once an objective supporter of great indie, has become haven for bitter critics, snobs and doomsayers.
Emtx3015 | June 13, 2012 8:12 PMReply

I live in Toronto and Eone did a HORRIBLE and half-assed promo for Cosmopolis. The red carpet was a fiasco at best. The fans were treated horribly; worse than cattle. Fans were pleading for premiere info and Eone kept tight-lipped. Fortunately I attended the premiere but felt awful for the fans outside. I also couldn't find the movie listing on the opening day, June 8. Eone graciously sent me the info & I was shocked at my options and I live in Toronto. If I found my choices limited, what about the rest of Canada? It is not even playing in Ottawa or Niagara Falls. TIFF in September was the perfect North American festival to highlight this film. I've watched Cosmopolis twice and loved it. It's sad that Eone didn't handle the distribution better.
Bev | June 13, 2012 5:53 PMReply

Sorry their system squashed everything together. Let me number them to make it easier to see the breaks. Just a few examples of ratings from Cannes (finished 4th overall in palme - over 40 foreign critics) ; a compiliation of foreign (16 out of 19 good to excellent rating) (over 72%); an article (Inquisitor) that has snipits from over 40 reviews; and finally a few examples of critics reviews. There are about 40 more I can easily put my hands on that Rotten Tomatoes failed to include in their tally - many from the US.
1.) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmdgVGA_rtJzdHhmRmRtejhteGs1V0NiWVJhTWJOUlE#gid=0
2.) http://www.allocine.fr/film/fichefilm-143756/critiques/presse/
3.) http://www.inquisitr.com/242559/cosmopolis-roars-into-cannes-first-wave-majority-robert-pattinson-nailed-it/
4.) http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=137555
5.) http://www.pressplus1.com/film-reviews/cosmopolis
6.) http://www.thisisfakediy.co.uk/articles/film/cosmopolis/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
7.) http://www.lovefilm.com/reviews/Cosmopolis?intcid=MainCarrousel_LIHP_editorialfowcosmopolis
WWR | June 13, 2012 5:48 PMReply

When KStew's indies tanked at the box office we heard absolutely no comparition to Rob's successes. How convenient.
Elizabeth | June 13, 2012 10:35 PM

I know Cosmopolis has only opened in Canada but Canada is not just Cronenberg's home turf which should have given it a reasonable boost, it is also part of North America; therefore, the comparison holds.
@Elizabeth | June 13, 2012 8:21 PM

just for the record cosmopolis hasn't opened in north america just canada. get your facts straight.
Elizabeth | June 13, 2012 6:24 PM

Oh yes they have compared the box office of her R-rated, low budget indies that had little-to-modest promo (zero international promo) in which she was not even the lead actress with Pattinson's Remember Me and Water for Elephants which were both PG-13 wide releases that received domestic and international marketing pushes. Many sites, including Indiewire and PlayList, have not shied away from making the comparison when discussing Stewart's box office potential or the Twilight trio's potential. It has come up time and again. That's why Stewart's Snow White and the Huntsman was watched as it was. And just for the record, Stewart's Welcome to the Rileys and The Runaways both performed better than Bel Ami and Cosmopolis in their opening weekends in North America.
Bev | June 13, 2012 5:45 PMReply

Just a few examples of ratings from Cannes (finished 4th overall in palme - over 40 foreign critics) ; a compiliation of foreign (16 out of 19 good to excellent rating) (over 72%); an article (Inquisitor) that has snipits from over 40 reviews; and finally a few examples of critics reviews. There are about 40 more I can easily put my hands on that Rotten Tomatoes failed to include in their tally - many from the US.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmdgVGA_rtJzdHhmRmRtejhteGs1V0NiWVJhTWJOUlE#gid=0

http://www.allocine.fr/film/fichefilm-143756/critiques/presse/

http://www.inquisitr.com/242559/cosmopolis-roars-into-cannes-first-wave-majority-robert-pattinson-nailed-it/

http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=137555

http://www.pressplus1.com/film-reviews/cosmopolis

http://www.thisisfakediy.co.uk/articles/film/cosmopolis/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

http://www.lovefilm.com/reviews/Cosmopolis?intcid=MainCarrousel_LIHP_editorialfowcosmopolis
Cindy | June 14, 2012 4:10 AM

@Elizabeth I agree films like Remember Me and Water for Elephants can not be compared to "The Runaways" and "Welcome To The Rileys" but it is a lie to say that The Runaways and Welcome To The Rileys had no promotion in North America when these had more than one premiere in USA, especially "the Runaways" and appeared in all film festivals in USA and Canada, and even so, the opening of these films yet not fared well, Plus "The Runaways" was several anunciÃ³n on TV, so it's a lie to say that there was no promotion for these films. Too , Kristen gave millions of interviews both international and national press
Brandon | June 13, 2012 5:24 PMReply

Wow. Pattinson does attract alot of interest. Bottom line, this article was slanted and was an obvious swipe at him by a biased critic. If he were a good or at least an adequate journalist he would have at a minimum done his homework and looked up the reviews for this movie (beyond Rotten Tomatoes which everyone thinks is a joke). If he had he would have seen the hugely positive reviews for Robert Pattinson, so the problems what ever they may be - topic - distribution - style - season, etc with the movie not getting the numbers in Canada that obviously this critic expected, does NOT lie with Pattinson's performance. It is unfortunate that critics like the author of this, do not step back, do their research, possibly even read and understand the book, before they choose to take a swipe at what they consider an easy target. Problem is the times they are a changing. The majority of critics have finally seen, through this movie, what alot of fans saw a long time ago, a gifted and talented actor that was excellent in an extremely difficult part. That in itself makes this the most successful movie for Pattinson regardless of the final box office tally.
jack | June 13, 2012 2:15 PMReply

What a stupid article. Kristen Stewart had nothing to do with SWATH total. It cost over $170 million to make and another $60-70 million in marketing. You're going to seriously sit there, and think this article is fair? Kristen has had her share of flops at the box office. Welcome to the Riley's, Adventureland, The Runaways, etc. She is no box office draw. At least with Robert's movies such as Remember Me, and Water for Elephants they made their budget, and profit. Welcome to the Riley's was/is one of the worst box office intakes in movie history. Look it up. They actually were in the red with that flop.
Paisley | June 13, 2012 1:45 PMReply

Money is no the most important factor of a film's success but David Cronenberg needed it to do better than this after A Dangerous Method failed to match the success of Eastern Promises. The Maps movie he wanted to do with Pattinson will likely never get made based on this result. The blame is not on Cronenberg's or Pattinson's talent but on that of eOne's failure to properly distribute this feature. Bel Ami was doomed from the beginning as there is no longer a market for that kind of movie.
Jelbys | June 13, 2012 10:35 AMReply

Dear reviewer, pls do everyone a favor and not be like an old snake whose teeth are all spoilt and broken and no poison in its venom but who cannot help himself and still spits its saliva all around.
Jimo | June 13, 2012 7:27 AMReply

Why aren't Rotten Tomatoes not adding covering reviews for this film adequately?

Am I missing something?
Molly | June 13, 2012 7:13 AMReply

Elizabeth said,

"And Cosmopolis not doing better numbers in Canada is noteworthy because Canada is Cronenberg's home country and Cronenberg is NOT a first time director. He's considered one of the best working directors right now. Pattinson's presence aside, Cosmopolis was expected to do better numbers that $2,356 per screen in Cronenberg's home country because he's Cronenberg. So obviously, something seems off. Either EOne was lousy at promo or there is still some blahs over A Dangerous Method or Cosmopolis should never have been sent out in summer."

I agree and I am worried too.
Red | June 13, 2012 4:46 PM

Yes, it was interesting and I too still disagree. I think we're overrating the 'cerebral' because what one person's 'cerebral' can be another's 'This is boring' (which was my friend's opinion who saw it in while vacationing in Paris and she's a lawyer specializing in real property so she wasn't put off by the talkiness; just that she found it boring) but still, people generally like to SEE the movie to make that decision and discerning movie-goers (again, the ones that usually are Cronenberg's target) are even more picky about that about wanting to make up their own minds. Notice that I keep bringing up "Cronenberg's target" because the Canada box office perhaps says more about Cronenberg than it does about Pattinson. As for 'mitigating factors', there is always potential for mitigating factors when it comes to marketing independent films. That's why most get a limited release to test the waters before committing to expansion. That's not holding Pattinson to a new standard; it is the way it has been for quite awhile now. (As for the France comparison, it should be noted that Cosmopolis did better than Moonrise Kingdom in France while Moonrise Kingdom took off to huge numbers in limited release in North America even with limited promo so France to Canada is not quite an equivalent comparison).
Sarah | June 13, 2012 3:53 PM

Red, this is my last response to you. I have a job to get to. Its been fun going back and forth with you actually. I like good banter back and forth. But still disagree. EVERY review of this movie said it was EXTREMELY talky so you did not have to see it to know that and no most people dont like really talky/cerebral movies. I wish they did. Truly I do. Anoynymous was all about Shakespeare (a theory but all about him and his plays). I truly wish people paid more attention to these type of movies. All of them. Unfortunately they dont. I am not saying that I am not dissappointed by Canada's figures. I am. But I feel there are mitigating factors that contributed to the lack of attendance to this movie. As evidenced by foriegn figures in France and Italy where it was promoted properly. I would hate to think it is simply because as a society they are more "highbrow" and cerebral that the US and Canada. That would be just sad.
Red | June 13, 2012 3:16 PM

Sarah, I'm not saying it was a failure. Just that Knegt isn't off to call it a 'disappointment' for the numbers. Besides, you are contradicting yourself. You can't say that there was no promo and yet say that people didn't go because it is too talky/cerebral because how would potential viewers know that unless they knew about the movie. People knew the movie was coming out and for whatever reason, they didn't go. And that 'too talky/cerebral' excuse is lame. A person has to see the movie to make that decision of what is 'too talky/cerebral' because I have never heard anyone ever say, "I don't want to go to that movie because they talk too much." Never has that ever been excuse. Believe it or not, the movie-goers enjoy good dialogue. If there is a complaint about the dialogue, it usually comes after the person has seen it. As for the "Anonymous" connection, c'mon, that wasn't Shakespeare. It was about a theory on who may have written the plays but it wasn't Shakespeare.
Sarah | June 13, 2012 2:48 PM

Red, you are still wrong. I can counter every one of your arguments. Are you the original author of this article, because you sound like it. No Cronenberg film has ever even come close to being this talky (or Tarrintino for that matter). I know each and every one of Cronenberg's films. No one is making an excuse. These are facts. I actually feel there is more to a movie than box office tallies. And as I said before this movie has already accomplished alot for Pattinson as an actor. He gained the respect he lacked from critics and confidence in himself. There are thousands of viewers for less cerebral films to every 1 potential highbrow (as you called it) viewer. You just seem determined to call this film a failure. Then explain, why where it was promoted properly - France, Italy, etc it is doing very well. Yes Shakespeare is popular but no one flocked to the last movie (Anonymous) that was released - It was released domestically in 265 theaters (much larger by 245 theaters) and only made $1189 per. I guess according to your standards that was a flop as well.. Which actually proves my point, not yours. The average viewer does not rush out to see very cerebral films. Thanks.
Red | June 13, 2012 2:17 PM

Sorry, Sarah, but that 'talky/cerebral' as an excuse is not going to work. Film elitists love dialogue and high brow stuff. Why do you think Shakespeare is still popular? Or Tarantino films which are adored for its dialogue? Being talky/cerebral is generally not a knock in the realm that Cronenberg films live. As for the release, it went to 24 theaters, most likely in the urban areas, like most limited releases. And again, the promo is no more or less than other indie films. In fact, it probably got more than most indie films so that "It hardly got any promo" doesn't hold.
Sarah | June 13, 2012 2:01 PM

Sorry Red but you are wrong (entitled to your opinion but wrong) . I dont know if you have seen the movie but it is VERY talky/cerebral - way more than ADM ever was. And promotion varies widely even with indies. This movies had zero Canadian promotion outside of the little it received in Toronto. My friend lives in Canada and it is not anywhere near her and she did not even know it was released, thats how much promo it had outside of Toronto. Just because it was at Cannes and received great reviews (again outside the US "he did not earn it yet" critics) does not mean that people know when it is released in their country. Especially not when, EOne so stupidly released it in the summer in the midst of all the blockbusters. It is and will continue to get lost "in the crowd" with this type of distribution. It is not an excuse. It is a fact. Regardless of box office results, Pattinson has already received what he wanted from this movie, much more (earned) confidence in himself as an actor and critical acclaim (overwhelmingly from almost all critics - again barring the US holdouts).
Red | June 13, 2012 12:43 PM

Cosmopolis's topic is a harder sell? Are you kidding? Given the current state of the world wide economy, it should be an easier sell than A Dangerous Method which was a period film about psychology and was considered a departure for Cronenberg's style. As for the 'Cosmopolis hardly got any promo' line of excuse, it is an obvious fact that almost all indies get hardly any promotion. That's why most indies are released via limited release to build on reputation and word of mouth and if the movie does well in limited release, the budget for promo grows and the movie can expand into other markets. Cronenberg has certainly has the reputation and it had a ton of ink for it from Cannes which is a festival that the more elitist of filmgoers (which Cosmopolis should appeal to) will give attention so that satisfied a certain advance word of mouth so Cosmopolis had more going for it than say, Bel Ami or, since Stewart's name has come up, Stewart's Welcome to the Rileys. So it isn't like Cosmopolis had zero promo. For the targets that matter (Pattinson fans, Cronenberg aficionados and film elitists), they knew that the film was coming out. Bel Ami has reasonable excuses for its lack of theater pull (VoD and almost zilch promotion) but Cosmopolis in Canada does not. As for the box office comments, please, let's not be naive. Box office is important because movies cost money to make and distribute. Production and distribution companies want to make money. As the saying goes, "Show business is business."
Bev | June 13, 2012 10:33 AM

Its topic is a much harder sell. It is a very cerebral film, much more so than ADM and anything else that has been out there for awhile. But no, it should not have been released in the summer when all the blockbuster films are out there, and no it did not receive any promo in Canada except for that very small premiere in Toronto, and no EOne has no idea what they are doing. This movie was schedule to attend TIFF and then be released, EOne changed all that when they bought the rights to Canada, UK and US. There has been virtually no promo in UK either and it is in limited release there as well, so I dont see it faring much better there unfortunately. Obviously EOne doesnt want to get the money back that it paid for this film. Its really sad the handling of this film as Rob has received overwhelmingly rave reviews for it (with the exception of some hold out American critics). Anyway, lets hope for the best. So far it seems to be doing well in the large markets that it has been released into in Europe. I believe that time will prove that this is one of Cronenbergs (and Robs) best films, regardless of the end result at the box office. Only in America, are we so focused on the box office results and not the movie.
WOW | June 13, 2012 6:44 AMReply

Looking at all these comments and thinking about how much "Cosmopolis" actually affected people.. before this people would completely take Indiewire's side... and say stuff like "Oh Rpattz is sucha failure! he doesn't have any future lol" but now after watching "Cosmopolis" everyone's actually impressed with Rob.. defending him and his movies.. so I think this movie was very important for his career... because acting cred stays much more longer than a box office hit. Oh and Mr. Knegt? Forever laughing at your narrow minded article.
Elizabeth | June 13, 2012 5:00 AMReply

Not a perfect comparable but an approximate comparable is that A Dangerous Method was a limited release in Canada starting fr Jan 13, 2011. Prior to that, it was only in the US with 64 theaters for North America (Mexico didn't get ADM until June 2011). Its opening weekend in North America was 4 theaters (LA/NYC) and averaged $41,988. When it expanded to Canada, the number of theaters went to 104 with a per screen avg of $4804. That per screen includes Canada but even if you take a 1/3 off to allow for population variance, ADM still would avg more than Cosmopolis on its opening weekend for Canada by about $900 per screen ($3200 vs $2350). So the over $35K comparison isn't equal given that the limited release for ADM was LA/NYC, the approximate comparison between the Canadian release of ADM and Cosmopolis still shows that ADM did better than Cosmopolis but perhaps not nearly as steep as noted in the article.
Richard | June 13, 2012 9:14 PM

I can understand that "A Dangerous Method" was box office better than "Cosmopolis" because it was better promoted in Canada by the simple fact that participated in the TIFF. Plus that "ADM" had a "better" release date of November 23 and with virtually no competition. While "Cosmopolis" was released without almost no promotion in Canada and to compete with big budget films. This film had to go to TIFF, so as do most of Cronenberg's films
Elizabeth | June 13, 2012 5:03 AM

Correction: Jan 13, 2012 - limited release in Canada. And I guess Mexico will just be seeing it this month which is interesting.
Iris | June 13, 2012 4:02 AMReply

Robert Pattinson's fans are going to jump on me but i dont care. this man is a bad actor. it's a wonder to me how an actor who does nothing in his movies but stare really well, is considered a good actor. i dont care about reviews. when i go to see a movies, if i dont get the feelings or the emotions from said actor, then he is bad and not convincing. but that's fine. there are a lot of actors who had great careers without being good actors.
nikki | June 13, 2012 7:30 PM

Well, as one reviewer said: Rob shows a range of emotions without even moving one muscle and when he sheds that one tear in the final scene it is devastating.
Another reviewer mentioned that when the camera zoomed in you could see his subtle acting and it was impressive.
Maybe you need to look different at his acting style. Nowadays most actors are often overacting. Not my style.
Leone | June 13, 2012 4:53 AM

Then it's just you.. because I wasn't a Rpattz fan myself but DAMN! he's absolutely incredible in "Cosmopolis".. too bad your opinion is not important.. given he's getting plenty of critical praise over "Cosmopolis".
Elizabeth | June 13, 2012 3:33 AMReply

I wish Knegt, who is generally a good writer who I like reading, had refrained from using the Snow White lead-in because it isn't fair to Snow White and the Huntsman which carried its own unique risks and pressures that an indie film like Cosmopolis, with its lower budget and small box office expectations, never had to worry about. It isn't fair to either film or actor to put them in the same sentence.

But that aside, when 'Welcome to the Rileys' and 'The Runaways' (which are comparable to Bel Ami and Cosmopolis) opened to less than stellar box office and Kristen Stewart was taking knocks for 'not showing bankability outside of Twilight', it was accepted as a fair analysis even with the R-rating, troubled distribution, inexperienced directors, limited distribution and limited promotion. The analysis was considered fair and Stewart considered fair game. Even when those films were compared against the wide release of Pattinson's PG-13 'Remember Me', it was still considered fair to take shots at Stewart.

If Stewart can handle those shots and still feel proud of those projects (and she is proud of those projects regardless of the box office), then I think Pattinson is big enough to handle any knocks that come his way too and he'll still be proud of the projects.

While it is true that Bel Ami had little promo (except for VoD) in the US, you can't really knock Magnolia because Pattinson was not available since he was out promoting Cosmopolis. And Cosmopolis not doing better numbers in Canada is noteworthy because Canada is Cronenberg's home country and Cronenberg is NOT a first time director. He's considered one of the best working directors right now. Pattinson's presence aside, Cosmopolis was expected to do better numbers that $2,356 per screen in Cronenberg's home country because he's Cronenberg. So obviously, something seems off. Either EOne was lousy at promo or there is still some blahs over A Dangerous Method or Cosmopolis should never have been sent out in summer.
Kim | June 13, 2012 2:53 AMReply

I see you don't even have the Canadian BO numbers for other Cronenberg's films... Epic fail. Quoting you: ""Cosmopolis" also marks a huge drop from what director Cronenberg usual pulls in from limited release debuts. While numbers exclusive to Canada are not available"... blah, blah. Therefore, you can't make a comparison. This is a biased, pointless article, and you're not fooling anyone as to why you wrote it.
Jane | June 13, 2012 1:47 AMReply

I think Pattinson is glad with the rave reviews that has received thanks to this Cronenberg film
Greg | June 13, 2012 1:45 AMReply

fails indieWIRE this article is for fans of Pattinson and Stewart fight over which is better according to some comments...
I don't care if tanked at the box office Cosmopolis is one Amazing indie film & will come to be seen a one of Cronenbergâs purest accomplishments.
Sky | June 13, 2012 1:09 AMReply

This article is so laughable. You lose all credibility when you compare SWATH which had a 170M budget against Bel Ami which is an indie and had ZERO US promo and Cosmopolis which is out in a handful of Canadian theaters. You don't do this to any other actor. What pisses you off about Rob Pattinson? The fact that he starred in a successful franchise and made millions and has legions of devoted fans? How dare he tries to make some art films!
Plora | June 13, 2012 12:43 AMReply

Suddenly a Canada's B.O. report has importance ,much so that you can have something to right about,never heard you before care about Canada's indies B.O. for ANY MOVIE other than this particular art house one.I leave in the U.S. and it's not out yet here but apparently Cosmopolis is already a fail according to you.I heard it's also out in other European countries and doing well even getting good reviews but that's just too many countries for you to check the B.O. because it would be basically make the point of your article moot.Cosmopolis is not for everybody, not for every fan of his either but he is getting something from this movie compare to if say he did $150 Mil movie after Twilight and that is acting cred.He needs that more.
tay | June 13, 2012 12:05 AMReply

PETER KNEGT, you're very smart, really surprised me, how much you paid for writing this article? This article is totally stupid.
bluebird | June 12, 2012 11:58 PMReply

I like Rob with KRISTEN STEWART, not with anybody else!
bird blue crazy | June 13, 2012 12:24 AM

you're a fan of Robert's personal life, not his acting career. Your comment has nothing to do with the article.
p | June 12, 2012 11:08 PMReply

WOW ! This is crazy a site that rarely gets any comments , you guys should send a thank you to Robert Pattinson . It reminds me of the days of Keanu Reeves that guy could never get a break from the so called critics , the first comment from "Katie" was hilarious i guess she was trying to be witty ... anyway read the others and i must agree with the majority here in the states we get so caught up with box office $ we are missing the whole point of decent films , the crappiest movies that makes millions is "like the best movie ever" granted Bel Ami was not the best but it wasn't the worst . All of the movies he was in since Twilight all were very profitable and successful compared to their budget so it is a win win for everyone involved . someone mentioned Half Nelson right i guess it was a failure didn't make any money ..?? i guess if he was never in Twilight perhaps people wouldn't be so critical but he is after all an actor doing his job the best way he can under ridiculous circumstances . Most critics outside of the US praise his performance , but had mixed feelings about the movie itself so how is he the only one to blame ? Not that Cronenberg isn't one of the best why do you think he doesn't make movies in "hollywood" ... because the US is all about box office$$$ not art .. The book is a difficult read but i found it to be interesting and strange at the same time, i can't wait to see the movie myself , who cares about critics it's their personal opinion and they are usually very jaded specially those snobs at Rotten Tomatoes to me they are a bunch of clowns ! So for the ones that loves movies Go Ahead and enjoy your movies Critics be damned !!!
Katie | June 12, 2012 9:30 PMReply

I see all of the RPattz fans from IMDB have flocked over here to flood the comment section. LOL. Your boy doesn't bring in box office results. Sometimes the truth is a very hard pill to swallow.
jen | June 13, 2012 4:42 AM

and I see all of the crazy KStew fans from twitter/imdb spamming the comment section with their stupidity. They're so obsessed with him. swath can't keep them busy they have to focus on hating Rob. lol So pathetically laughable.
luvenRob | June 13, 2012 1:47 AM

Sarah, you are so right. He even recently said that if he could keep doin' films like Cosmopolis that'd be great.... and like you said ..when he decides to make a blockbuster we'll ALL know it. I think he's a magnificent actor, and I'm not the only one. There's millions of us who love his work.
Sarah | June 12, 2012 10:08 PM

The fact that you said RPatz outed you as a hater right away. His current movies are not meant to bring in blockbuster numbers. He is doing what he never got a chance to do before Twilight (make small indie movies). Something that other actors have already had a chance to do. This movie is in no way like Cronenbergs other movies and everyone seems to forget that it has brought in several million in the France and Italy and is being rolled out slowly elsewhere. It will do fine. The author of this article gets away with this slant because of people like you. Look at other small movies and the money they made or didnt. You can look at any actor and see it. Rob is doing just fine. When he decides to release a blockbuster you will know it. He obviously is not interested in them or just getting a big paycheck at the moment. He has more money than he knows what to do with and is more interested in honing his craft and making edgy indie movies. Give him credit for turning down the easy pretty boy lead in blockbusters that he could have chosen to make for years but instead chose to do Cosmopolis and the other movies he has lined up instead. He could have easily been a sell out but choses not to be.
jspattzfan | June 12, 2012 9:23 PMReply

I am in agreement with the other comments. Bel Ami ha no promotion at all and has been on VOD for over a month. I saw it there because it was easier than traveling downtown to see it (and I'm lucky enough to live in a metropolitan area that had one of the 15 showings). I think that Cosmopolis will have a decent showing in the US and Canada when it's more available. Most fans know that this movie is very different. It's not going to draw Breaking Dawn crowds.
By the way, Remember Me and Water for Elephants both made money and were decently received. Why is it that if a movie isn't a blockbuster, it's labeled as a failure?
Beverly | June 12, 2012 9:11 PMReply

Wow talk about a backlash for this once again biased article. Comparing indies to blockbusters is just sad. It shows your bias once again. I dont know what you have against Rob Pattinson but you show it over and over again in your unnecessary and slanted articles. Yes you stick some facts in there but always with a backhanded swipe as well. Is Pattinson a perfect actor. No, but who is. You bring up Kristen Stewart why. SWATH had 3 major stars in it, tons of money to make it and promote it and a PG13 rating. It is like comparing David to Goliath. You totally outed yourself on this one Indiewire. I always thought you had integrity, sadly you have proven me wrong. Lets try some actual facts:
1. Bel Ami was filmed so long ago and really did not stand a chance with no promotion and being put on VOD a month prior to release and actually its still on VOD. Not sure why they even bothered putting it in in a measly 15 theaters in US at this point, and Canada never even had access to it on VOD or theater. It did fairly well in some foreign countries and great in Russia. It will most likely (including VOD sales) finally end up breaking even at around 11 million when all is said and done. Alot of indies never even accomplish that.
2. As far as Remember Me and Water for Elephants both made over 3x what they cost to produce. RM had little to no promotion. And again it was US critics who bashed it mostly. Both movies ended up making a profit. Something ALOT of blockbuster films do not.
3. Cosmopolis is NOT a typical Cronenberg movie. It is not supposed to be. It will not be a blockbuster and was never meant to be. It is a thinking man/womans movie, not a superhero/blow something up/find your missing love movie. Dont get me wrong those movies are great too. But this is not that. It is however, a vehicle that has gotten Pattinson exactly what he was looking for credibility from most critics. Albeit there are still holdouts expecially in the US who still go by the montra,"he didnt earn his success yet" and refuse to see what is before them. But thats ok, because you too will come around.
4. As far as Rotten Tomatoes is concerned. It is a joke and everyone knows it. All the negative reviews from critics(predominantly US) are on there but the positive ones arent (even the positive one written by your site/reviewer/critic isnt on there.) What does that tell you? None of the excellent foreign, Canadian, UK reviews are on there either. It really says something about the integrity of that site. And your point that RT matters is moot because even movies that make 100's of millions of dollars such as SWATH (and I only refer to it because you did) recieved a squashed rating-actually its at 48% while Cosmopolis is currently at 55%. Proving once again that Rotten Tomatoes is useless.
Liam | June 12, 2012 8:16 PMReply

What the hell are Rotten Tomatoes doing? Who administrates/owns that site? Indiewire, are you in a position to follow or write a report on the lack of accurate coverage there regarding Cosmopolis reviews?
Stuart Mackie | June 12, 2012 7:50 PMReply

Rotten Tomatoes's coverage of Cosmopolis reviews has been woeful if not laughable. Omitting reviews by Indiewire,The Playlist,Variety,MSN,Slash Magazine NYT, Volture, Filmoria, Total Film, The Guardian and a slew of others; they have totally undermined their credibility as an objective aggregator. I couldn't care less how much Cosmopolis makes. I will see the film and judge for myself.
cudee58 | June 12, 2012 7:22 PMReply

I love Rob Pattinson and this comment is no reflection on him, but after watching Bel Ami and thinking the whole storyline seemed off ... I read the book very carefully.. That movie must have been edited to death, even though the book did help fill all the gaping holes, I am still wondering what possessed anyone to want to make this book into a movie. The best actor in the world couldn't have turned this strange, odd story into a great movie.
nikki | June 12, 2012 6:29 PMReply

Indiewire, aren't you supposed to support indie movies instead of talking about BO numbers?
It is old news that in these time period an actor alone isn't a garantee anymore for the success of a movie. Even the biggest A-listers saw movies of them tank when the audience didn't like the story.
Bel ami was the film debute of 2 respected British stage directors. It's a beautiful movie but it has some flaws due to their inexperience. The promo for it has been non existing, not in my country, not anywhere else, just a bit in the UK. I know people planned to see it but it was already out of theatres before they had the opportunity to go watch it.
Cosmopolis is a very difficult sell. For me it's a masterpiece but from the start I was afraid that it wasn't gonna appeal to the general audience. This isn't Rob's fault, he was perfect in his role as Eric Packer. It's just that people seemingly don't like talky movies. And the blockbusters are brainless entertainment, they prefer to see that in theatres and will wait for the art house movies to watch them at home on DVD.
In my country in Europe, Cosmopolis in on the 8th place, before On the Road although On the Road is much easier to watch than Cosmo. I've seen the movie twice and both times the audience in theatre was mixed in age with much more women than men, due to Rob's presence.
I had expected to see more men, was a bit disappointed that Rob's fans were more present than David's (though I am a Rob fan myself)
Why Rotten Tomatoes doesn't publish all reviews is beyond me. The Playlist, The New-York times, Anne Thompson in Hollywood and many more, all gave positive reviews and are always published but not this time. Why not foreign reviews? The 3 most important French papers Le Monde, La LibÃ©ration, Le Figaro and the most reputated magazines gave all positive reviews. Several Italian papers gave positive reviews. I call it manipulation to mislead the core audience.
Remember me, an indie movie that got slammed by the American critics ( not the European) had a budget of 16 million and brought in 57-58 million, a profit.
Water for Elephants, budget of 38 million, brought in 118 million, a profit.
It will be sad and not only for Pattinson but escpecially for Cronenberg and the whole art house industry if Cosmopolis won't be recognized for the excellent movie it is.
Don't expect Pattinson to change direction. He will do what he can to make art house movies more popular, more respected, wether his fans will follow him or not.
He earns repect for this attitude from indie movie sites in the first place. He could've choosen the easy path with roles in blockbusters and romcoms. He got a lot of offers, but his choices are based on quality, not on paycheck.
But you know what? The media will blame him and only him (as usual) if Cosmopolis won't become the success they expected.
Sorry for my rant and my mistakes, English isn't my native language.
Roma | June 12, 2012 7:59 PM

Your written English is better than most native-English speakers and I agree with every word.
MARTIN M. | June 12, 2012 5:35 PMReply

You did not just compare Cosmopolis and Bel Ami to Snow White & The Huntsman, man. Really? Comparing a movie that got no promo and another one that got next to no promo to a blockbuster on which Universal spent more than $80million just to promote in the past 5 months? Do you realize how crazy and absurd you sound? I'm not a Pattinson fan personally but let the guy do his thing. He's trying, he's getting good reviews for Cosmopolis and I'm pretty sure the movie is doing just fine in Europe. You're just embarrassing yourself with this article. So many popular actors that are part of a huge franchise or other blockbusters do indies and most of them flop hard. I don't see you or any other sites reporting on those though.
Bounce | June 12, 2012 5:02 PMReply

The RPatz fans did not have a problem when Kristen Stewart's indies were compared with Remember Me and Water for Elephants. How does that dose of your own medicine taste?
KM | June 12, 2012 6:46 PM

I just said the same thing. If it's okay to compare Welcome to the Riley's to Water for Elephants, then it's okay to compare Snow White to Bel Ami and Cosmopolis. What's fair is fair.
paul | June 12, 2012 6:17 PM

not even that big of a fan of either one of them, but man some of you sound like petty children.
Bounce | June 12, 2012 5:02 PMReply

The RPatz fans did not have a problem when Kristen Stewart's indies were compared with Remember Me and Water for Elephants. How does that dose of your own medicine taste?
aya | June 12, 2012 8:45 PM

well, we not kristen steward fans, so its not our job to defending her film, right?
cc1966 | June 12, 2012 4:42 PMReply

the author isn't comparing snow white with cosmopolis he is just referencing another twilight cast members movie debut. he is saying that the movies didn't do well period not just compared to kristen's movies but in general.
Elizabeth | June 13, 2012 3:07 AM

Vanessa: Remember Me is NOT comparable to Rileys or Runaways. Remember Me was PG-13 with a wide release. Rileys and Runaways were R with limited release and limited promo. Cosmopolis and Bel Ami are comparable to Rileys and Runaways. And since they are, it should be notable that Rileys and Runaways made more in their first weekend in limited release than Cosmopolis and Bel Ami, at least for North America. Globally, Rileys and Runaways didn't fare well at all. Cosmopolis and Bel Ami have done better internationally.
Vanessa | June 12, 2012 6:20 PM

Remember Me is totally comparable to Welcome to the Rileys and The Runaways. And RPatz is so 2008, grow up! While Cosmopolis and Bel Ami are not comparable to SWATH, which costed 4 or 5 times these 2 films combined, plus the very expensive promo. And hmmmm... doesn't Charlize Theron steal the show?
LeonRaymond | June 12, 2012 3:43 PMReply

To me , he doing creative heaven, stop this insane damn ass hole comparisons of Cosmopolis with SWATH.That film Mega budget and all and aiming at a totally different audience, Comopolis is aimed at guys like myself who adored actors and films from the 70's and 80's and 90's, Let Pattinson stretch, let him take risk wit risk making filmmakers and let us enjoy those risky films with some ass in a seat ass hole critic telling us why there should be a comparison and last for Christ sake's it's a indie, it's a indie, it's a Indie!
Molly | June 12, 2012 3:24 PMReply

Re: Rotten Tomatoes, I'd like to know what that reason is. Aren't all critics created equally?
Margaret | June 12, 2012 2:55 PMReply

Cosmopolis has received stellar reviews but Rotten Tomatoes has not posted most of them for some reason.
Mi | June 12, 2012 5:43 PM

RTomatoes didn't post good reviews from: Indiewire,The Playlist,Variety,MSN,Slash Magazine,NYT,Volture,Filmoria.
Blighty | June 12, 2012 2:53 PMReply

In one way Pattinson is making the films he wants to make, so none of this matters. Actors aren't meant to be bankers. This guy has also brought in enough green with TTS to earn the right to artistic freedom. If fans want to create a hit out of Cosmopolis, they should get into theaters and support it. They are what will make the difference.
Betty b | June 12, 2012 2:49 PMReply

Ok... Indie movies limited release aimed at niche audience..low budget maketing for both films.... controversial storylines rated" R." SWATH...commercial mainstream movie with a zillion special effects ...wide release...mega marketing budget... Familiar storyline with a wicked twist rated" PG" ahh where is the comparison here? They both (Kris & Rob) are very good actors..it is my understanding most indies do not become blockbusters.
loki'd | June 12, 2012 2:47 PMReply

"Wide studio releases "Remember Me" (2010) and "Water For Elephants" (2011) grossed $19 million and $59 million, respectively -- for a combined number that's just over half of what "Breaking Dawn, Part I" grossed in its first weekend"

Come on really?? Most movies these days don't come close to generating the same opening weekend figures that franchises like Twilight, Harry Potter, Transformers, Marvel comics, etc... can do. You can't use that as any kind of meaningful benchmark.
s
ciro | June 12, 2012 2:46 PMReply

bad marketing on the part of E One.
paul | June 12, 2012 2:47 PM

agree with that. knew they would mishandle this movie when they bought it. why they didn't wait till sep to release it at tiff is beyond me.
Sam | June 12, 2012 2:42 PMReply

Are you stupid? comparing Cosmopolis with SWATH?? Really? trust me I wasn't much of a Pattinson fan myself.. but Cosmopolis completely changed my opinion of him.. and that is what this movie is doing!.. making people believe that he IS a talented actor.. I personally LOVED the movie.. it's probably one of my fave movies of all time now.. and I think it's more important for his career to gain some critical praise than a commercial hit.. what is up with Indiewire these days! you guys need better bloggers seriously!