The Shape of Things
|
List Price: Our Price: $6.82 You Save: $8.16 (54%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $1.50 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Canada
Movie Reviews of The Shape of Things
Movie Review: The amazing performance of Rachel Weisz will floor you.
Summary: 4 Stars
Dark and comic look into relationships may be mean spirited in places but does get the point across with a real poignancy that is valid in more ways than one. All the actors are great here, but its Rachel Weisz who not only steals the show in more ways than one but also gives you a depth not seen in a performance in quite some time. Her performance is not only spectacular but haunting as well, and will stay with you after its done. The ending will knock you right out of your chair, and leave you cold.That what good movies should do.
Movie Review: Gets where it was going
Summary: 4 Stars
Weisz holds this together. It gets too talky at times but is nicely shot and paced pretty well. The ending is a nice nasty surprise. A little too bitchy for my taste but it does what it sets out to do, with a fair bit of aplomb and style.
Solid comedy of modern manners full of acerbic edginess, brought from stage to screen pretty decently.
Movie Review: thought provoking
Summary: 4 Stars
I knew nothing of this movie and didn't expect to like it, but I found it interesting. Once I became interested in the unusual pairing of Rachel Weisz and Paul Rudd, I had to watch the whole thing through.
There's a very sinister suprise ending that made me say...HOW COULD SHE DO THAT? Check it out, it's not too bad!
Movie Review: Mixed Feelings
Summary: 3 Stars
Neil LaBute's "The Shape of Things" (2003) is a film about superficiality. Unfortunately, the film also bears a kind of shallow, hollow, and superficial quality.The film's thesis is as follows: We are trained to measure and form our bodies against certain socially constructured images. When we drape ourselves in socially acceptable veils and disguises, or fashion our bodies in a way that is considered socially appealing, we also fill out the roles that are assigned to these forms. In other words, if you wear Abercrombie and Fitch clothing, you will become an Abercrombie and Fitch "type."
The characters, Evelyn (Rachel Weiss), Adam (Paul Rudd), Jenny (Gretchen Moll), and Phillip (Frederick Weller), are really nothing more than allegorical figures. Evelyn is The Artist (the name resonates with "Eve"). Adam is The Ethicist. Jenny is The Duped Consumer. Phillip is The Philistine (note the partial homonymy). Unfortunately, the characters never lose their status as abstractions; they retain their absolute, stiff, abstract quality throughout the film's running time. They resemble concepts more than they do human beings. Like theorems, they never step outside of their predetermined calculations. Evelyn, in particular, never relaxes or complicates her role as a revolutionary artist (she even wears Che and Mao buttons on her jackets). These "characterologies" are, at best, simple, and, at worst, simplistic. When Evelyn confesses to having a "human feeling" in the film's last bit of dialogue (what a downfall to end the film in this way!), it seems merely patronizing on her part, or, even worse, a plot convenience invented by LaBute to make her seem believable!
No matter how you consider them, the plot moves are excessively contrived. I challenge anyone to dispute this point.
The film's dialogue (heavily indebted to David Mamet, who is equally indebted to Harold Pinter) is excessively stylized. Now, I do not have a problem with cosmetized dialogue. In fact, I prefer it. When dialogue becomes OVERLY artificial, however, it distracts from the narrative. There is little room for interpretation when a character has the initials "EAT" inscribed on his thigh and the significance of this is spelled out for the benefit of the audience in the most condescending manner imaginable. Everything in "The Shape of Things" is overly emphatic and over-done.
The whole film has the air of condescension toward its audience. Now, I don't have a problem with low expectations when it comes to one's audience; what I do have a problem with is the way in which the film EXPLAINS ITSELF in a pedantic way at every turn.
The allusions in the film are, I'm afraid, quite blatant and obvious: for instance, the apple emblazoned on the T-shirt that Evelyn wears so fetchingly in the opening vignette; the references to "The Picture of Dorian Grey," Kafka's "The Metamorphosis," "Medea," etc. aren't particularly erudite or clever.
Given that the film tries so desperately to be perplexing, provocative, and shocking, it would be almost impolite not to be at least a little disturbed. I must confess, however, that I found the film's "surprise twist ending" (to use the catch-phrase employed by many of the film's commentators) to be less than "shocking." It simply wasn't as surprising as I had hoped (I almost anticipated a second "surprise twist ending" that never arrived). The reason, I suspect, for this let-down is that the climax is utterly predictable. Please do not misunderstand me: the climactic scene in the audiorium IS a brilliant conceit. And yet I saw it coming fifteen miles away! The film's intention to horrify its audience is transparent. Despite this, the climax left me unmoved, perhaps because it was clear from the very first vignette where the film was heading.
The film's course tends to move "full circle." When we first encounter Adam, he is dressed like a stereotypical "nerd." At the end of the film, he is dressed like an equally ridiculous and stereotypical frat boy. The obvious and overly emphatic character of Adam's presentation is, again, one of the film's most annoying flaws---however, if this is played for laughs, it works splendidly.
But this "full circularity" also raises certain problems: in the opening scene of the film, an art exhibit is vandalized. Why doesn't the film end with the Frankenstein monster destroying what was created?
The final scene is a conversation between two absolutes, neither of which changes its qualities in the slightest: the artist who refuses to concede to the ethical; the ethicist who believes that art has moral limits. Neither of the parties "win" the argument, per se (although the moment when Adam insults Evelyn to her face is priceless). LaBute seems to be suggesting that the art vs. morality debate will never come to a conclusion.
Neil LaBute seems more comfortable directing a stage than he does directing a camera. I say this because the scenes in this film bear a static, lifeless, "stagey" quality---they are "theatrical" in the bad sense. Similarly, the ending is as pedantic as anything you're likely to hear in a professorial lecture hall. It is, frankly, pedantic and didactic---in the bad senses of both of these words.
I have no problem with films the sole intentions of which are to shock or horrify ("In the Company of Men" and "The Shape of Things" are, strictly speaking, "horror movies"). But "The Shape of Things" isn't particularly shocking or horrifying.
Toward the end of the film, Evelyn stares at the camera and aggressively gives the audience an "indecent gesture" (two, in fact). This gesture is meant for those who are "indifferent" to her aesthetic agit-prop, and it isn't difficult to sense that this gesture is also the filmmaker's. Because the film left me relatively cold, I must confess that I felt that gesture was meant for me.
Movie Review: Depends on the way you look at it... it's all subjective.
Summary: 3 Stars
I gave this movie a three for a few reasons. I was very excited about seeing this film, as I am a big LaBute fan. I have watched his movies and one of the plays, and I know that there is usually cruelty involved. I was ready. I did like the film. I just think that I was a little confused because I figured out what was going to happen halfway through, and I don't know if it was supposed to be that way or not. I was disappointed though. I wanted to be surprised. I don't know if it was the preview, or all of the set-up, but I figured it out, and I usually don't!!!Evelyn and Adam met at the museum which he works when she was about to deface a statue because it was "fake art." He worked security, and instead of kicking her out, he asked her out instead. He was a little chubby, wore glasses, messed up hair, and was dorky with low self esteem. He didn't understand why she agreed to go out with him and stay with him, but she wanted him to be concerned with the "what" and not the "why."
They continue to date, all the while she makes him change his ways, from his haircut, to his weight, to the clothes he wears. His friends start to notice the difference and don't trust his girlfriend, because they think she is behind it. The end is the clincher though, along with Jenny and Adam causing some problems for the two couples along the way.
The problems I had: Normally, I think that Paul Rudd is a good actor. I felt that his inexperienced character was a little over the top and came off feminine as opposed to awkward. The guy who played Phillip, had this really irritating way of speaking. It was hard to watch him. He spoke very slowly and had kind of a James Spader thing going--bad boy, speaking like he was drunk all of the time--thing. The thing is, James Spader could pull it off well, Fred Weller couldn't.
Of course, I also didn't like that I figured out what was going to happen. Maybe this was the kind of movie where "the audience knows, the characters don't," but I don't think so. Maybe I need to be enlightened in that area.
What I did like: the writing was good, clever, I enjoyed the characters of Jenny and Rachel. I liked Rachel's cruel nature, and her ambivilence toward what she was doing, much like Chad's character in "In the Company of Men." I liked Paul Rudd's acting toward the end. He became more real to me. I think some people may enjoy it, like the previous reviewer. I did too, just not as much as I hoped I would.