Directed by:
David CronenbergScreenplay:
Bruce WagnerCinematography:
Peter SuschitzkyComposer:
Howard ShoreCast:
Julianne Moore, Mia Wasikowska, John Cusack, Olivia Williams, Evan Bird, Robert Pattinson, Sarah Gadon, Niamh Wilson, Kiara Glasco, Jonathan Watton (more)VOD (1)
Plots(1)
David Cronenberg's tale of of a secret-filled Hollywood family on the verge of implosion forges both a wicked social satire and a very human ghost story from our celebrity-obsessed culture. (official distributor synopsis)
Videos (11)
Reviews (7)
The film is absolutely excellent in terms of acting, and especially Julianne Moore demonstrates her talent and naturalness in essentially every role. However, the whole story, as it unfolds, isn't really about how difficult it is to be a star, but rather about the fact that we're all a bit crazy in our own ways. David Cronenberg continues to delve into the psyche, but this time he simply doesn't have a well-written screenplay to support it.
()
“Secrets Kill.” Cronenberg scrutinises the American film industry as a malignant outgrowth of the industry capitalist system. The relationships between the characters are almost exclusively of an opportunistic nature. Parents give business priority over their children. Friends, even dead ones, serve only for gaining fame, or a role. The human body is seen as a commodity that can be monetised in various ways and kept in good condition by applying the right products. The pathologically narcissistic, self-centred characters are guided by the logic of “everything must be kept in the family”, which is also the defining characteristic of Hollywood and the central theme of the film. ___ Hollywood here is a model of a morally bankrupt society whose members have lost their awareness of the real world and even their own identities. They have become characters in a limited number of constantly varying stories in which they have performed or would like to perform. Cronenberg himself does not make it clear what kind of story we are watching. The narrative is intentionally ambiguous and at least on the first viewing does not make it possible to distinguish where the cruel satire ends and the degenerate family melodrama begins (only on the second viewing will you appreciate how the film works with the motif of blood from the visit of a non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma patient). ___ Agatha’s arrival in Beverly Hills promises the fulfilment of the ”rise-to-stardom” formula about a girl who gradually achieves fame (see, for example, All About Eve). But as suggested by her burn scars (the film’s most obvious connection to Cronenberg’s bodily horror), the girl is not completely untainted by the world of show business and she will clearly not be a passive observer of the excesses around her, which she could subsequently turn into a novel or screenplay. ___ The gradual revealing of how exactly Agatha fits into the web of twisted relationships happens at roughly thirty-minute intervals (after half an hour, she goes to work for Havana; after an hour, she visits Benjie). The gradual doling out of new dark secrets and the disturbing soundtrack, which connects the characters long before we find out how they are connected in reality (Éluard’s poetry, recited by the dead and read by the living, serves a similar connective purpose), keep us in constant suspense despite the (intentional) formalistic rigidity. Almost the whole first hour of the film is presented using static shots of the characters talking. In the second hour, both the relationships between the characters and the camerawork have greater dynamics. From the beginning, the formalistic simplicity and minimalistic mis-en-scène are offset by the characters’ outlandish behaviour. ___ So that it won’t be easy for us to create our own map of the relationships between the stars, not only does the film spend a long time keep important information secret, but the characters also lie to each other (for example, Agatha disowns her father in front of Havana and fabricates a story about how she got burned). As mere media constructs, the film’s characters are not much more real than the ghosts of the past that visit them at night and force them to confront the past that they have obstinately denied and who they really are beneath the caricatures of themselves, to which they have become unhealthily accustomed. Instead of helping them to find answers and inner peace, Cronenberg grants some of them a different wish in the conclusion – to appear in an eccentric arthouse film. This spiteful gesture clearly expresses the director’s distaste for playing by Hollywood’s rules (even if it’s a Hollywood satire), while finally obliging his fans, who see him mainly through the prism of his perverse early works. You will most probably fully appreciate the fact that Maps to the Stars is comparably perverse, though not in the sense of physical repulsiveness, only after a repeat viewing. 75%
()
(less)
(more)
Cronenberg's critique of capitalism and the hypocritical society of deception is as superficial as Wagner's screenplay and as artificial as the digital barbecue at the end. The show of half-details, which in the case of A Dangerous Method really created the image of the world as an integral mirror, which gradually cracks and turns into something desperately anachronistic and toothless in this postmodern stylization. There is in it some vain preaching and the inability to get to anything sick (beyond the sick endeavor of the screenplay). A freak show full of superficial caricatures and patterns, the innards of which can be seen from the very first moment. There is something wrong with a film in which Robert Pattinson is the most sympathetic and believable character. Master, it's time to film your harvest festival.
()
An incomprehensible abomination, the theme of which could have turned out to be more than intriguing in the hands of other filmmakers (Sam Mendes, David O. Russell). I used to have Cronenberg in my top ten directors and I still love most of his work (including films with mixed reviews like Crash). He’s unique in how comprehensibly and acceptably he manages to portray pathological deviations from “normal” and make them part of a riveting story. With Maps to the Stars, however, he falters, as the film is an indigestible dead weight, a show of characters allegorically so far removed from reality that their definition and the escalation of their interactions dissolve into nothing. I’m giving one star for Julianne Moore, who’d excel even in the role of a cucumber.
()
Maps to the Stars is your typical Cronenberg film – strange and twisted, though it's less captivating and explicit than some of his other works. It starts off almost like a comedy before morphing into a deep psychological drama that explores the perversions of the human soul, especially those living in excess. The plot culminates in a very interesting and shocking conclusion, but the journey there can be a bit dull at times. Despite the excellent cast, I struggled to connect with the characters, so I found myself largely indifferent to their experiences and fates. The film does offer a few intriguing and spicy moments, along with some truly WTF scenes. Regardless, I hope Cronenberg keeps bringing his unique and often twisted ideas to the screen. Not everything he does completely absorbs me, but I'm always excited for his new films, even if this one ranks among the weaker entries in his otherwise stellar filmography.
()