Rating: 
Summary: should have been redone as a comedy with a happy ending
Review: I don't know about other people, but generally I don't go to a movie in order to feel depressed after watching it. If I want to be depressed, all I have to do is read the daily news. There's plenty of stories there that have people behaving in bizarre, manipulative, or incredibly callous ways towards other people.That's what this movie is all about. Boy meets (cute) with girl. Boy gets the "pygmalion" treatment by girl. Boy gets devastated by girl. No happy ending. No changes of heart on the part of the girl. Proceed directly to credits and walk out of theater thinking, "Maybe I should be a monk." The bottom line is that the character played by Rachel Weisz (who is so attractive that she probably raises the temperature of a room by at least twenty degrees)does something that is uniquely cruel to another human being. She does it as an insane sort of art project (probably because if she had been cast as a psychology major she would never gotten permission to conduct her experiment). No, it's not the stuff of Auschwitz or serial killers, but it is still a pretty horrible thing to do. In the end, I found myself wanting her "sculpture" to punch her lights out. And that's a bad thing. Rachel Weisz is heart poundingly beautiful, and tremendous hostility is not something I would ever want to feel toward a character played by her. So if you're a masochist, go see the movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Depends on the way you look at it... it's all subjective.
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Intriguing movie
Review: I have never seen any of this directors other films, so I wasn't prepared for the shocking conclusion of this one! From reading about his other movies, those who are fans of his would be more likely to see it coming I imagine! The basic story involves only four characters and from what I've read, is adapted from a 4-person play which explains a lot of the extended scenes. Adam (Paul Rudd) is an overweight nerd who works in a museum. When Evelyn (Rachel Weisz) comes in and attempts to deface a statue's genitalia, the two meet. Adam is immediately smitten and is surprised when the beautiful, artsy Evelyn flirts with him. The two begin a relationship and Evelyn steadily begins to change things about Adam. At first, she just gets him to change his hair style and start jogging. The changes get steadily larger and include getting plastic surgery on his nose, getting rid of his favorite jacket and him getting a tattoo of her initials. She also gets him to ditch his best friends, engaged couple Phillip and Jenny (Frederick Weller and Gretchen Mol). While I say I wasn't prepared for the shocking conclusion, I did realize soon in to the film exactly what Evelyn was up to. I was expecting there to be some sort of twist to it that would make Adam wise up to her, but there wasn't any of that. I was a little disappointed because it seemed way too obvious what Evelyn was going to do. Also, the way the ending was pulled off was a little awkward and stiff. The rest of the movie was much better, I don't think the ending did it justice. Overall the acting in the film was good, the only complaint I would have is Frederick Weller was a little over the top with his character. There are some scenes, especially the one in the park between Adam and Jenny, that were obviously shot in one take, which is impressive! Rarely do you see a 10-15 minute scene done in one long take anymore. The film was shot in very few locations, I think only around ten. I'm assuming this is because it was originally a play, it wasn't meant to have dozens of sets. The dialogue is overall well written (until the end) and despite being somewhat disappointed by the conclusion, I still enjoyed most of the film.
Rating:
Summary: Dark Illusion
Review: I have seen many films but I have never reacted to a film before like I reacted to "The Shape of Things". Towards the end of the film I could't believe what I was seeing. I found myself indentifying with the character of Adam as I experienced the awful feeling that Evelyn had just cut up my insides and put them on display for everyone to critique. What Evelyn did to Adam was a complete violation of trust and a total disregard of consideration toward a human being. By utilizing a false premise of love Evelyn was able to manipulate Adam into doing almost anything to make her happy. She treated Adam like he was a test rat and all he ever did was love her and worship her(it's hard to count Adam's unfaithfulness against him since Evelyn was deceitful from the start). Although it was unfair and cruel, I actually liked this film and highly recommend it to anyone who likes to argue about morality vs. art or for those out there who just think Paul Rudd's cute; he is just adorable in this film (from beginning to end)!:)
Rating:
Summary: Dark Illusion
Review: I have seen many films but I have never reacted to a film before like I reacted to "The Shape of Things". Towards the end of the film I could't believe what I was seeing. I found myself indentifying with the character of Adam as I experienced the awful feeling that Evelyn had just cut up my insides and put them on display for everyone to critique. What Evelyn did to Adam was a complete violation of trust and a total disregard of consideration toward a human being. By utilizing a false premise of love Evelyn was able to manipulate Adam into doing almost anything to make her happy. She treated Adam like he was a test rat and all he ever did was love her and worship her(it's hard to count Adam's unfaithfulness against him since Evelyn was deceitful from the start). Although it was unfair and cruel, I actually liked this film and highly recommend it to anyone who likes to argue about morality vs. art or for those out there who just think Paul Rudd's cute; he is just adorable in this film (from beginning to end)!:)
Rating:
Summary: Dark Illusion
Review: I have seen many films but I have never reacted to a film before like I reacted to "The Shape of Things". Towards the end of the film I could't believe what I was seeing. I found myself indentifying with the character of Adam as I experienced the awful feeling that Evelyn had just cut up my insides and put them on display for everyone to critique. What Evelyn did to Adam was a complete violation of trust and a total disregard of consideration toward a human being. By utilizing a false premise of love Evelyn was able to manipulate Adam into doing almost anything to make her happy. She treated Adam like he was a test rat and all he ever did was love her and worship her(it's hard to count Adam's unfaithfulness against him since Evelyn was deceitful from the start). Although it was unfair and cruel, I actually liked this film and highly recommend it to anyone who likes to argue about morality vs. art or for those out there who just think Paul Rudd's cute; he is just adorable in this film (from beginning to end)!:)
Rating: 
Summary: Very profound
Review: I really enjoyed the movie THE SHAPE OF THINGS. It's an incredibly smart movie in terms of it's simple message painted throughout the plot. The movie is a dark comedy. We follow Evelyn, an art student, and Adam, who works in a museum. He asks her out, but feels self conscious about who he is and why she is interested in him. Basically she manipulates him, and he is more than willing since he doesn't believe that he is good enough for her. The movie basically paints the realistic picture that we as people take on when we are with someone, we change for them so they will like us. That's what happens here. She tears through his life, changing everything about him to the point where his friends barely recognize him. The ending brings it all together, and is ultimately a very memorable ending, bringing all these elements together in a nice twist. Overall, the acting was superb, and the movie was interesting. Highly reccomended.
Rating:
Summary: Should have left this one on the stage for all its pretense
Review: I really wanted to like this film. I've seen two of the cast members in other projects, and liked them quite well. The film is about a different perspective, thinking outside the box, the meaning of things subjective versus a collective reality. All that kitschy, philosophical stuff. But like its subject, the piece falls flat on its face. Art must connect in some way in order to affect its subject. You cannot annihilate your audience, then expect them to love you and your work when you show them how stupid and uninformed you think they are. That's pretty narrow-minded, and is anything but artistic. How easy it must be to think you have all the answers, to be able to force-feed your perspective and walk away feeling superior, whether or not you are agreed with. It's offensive. It sets up a road block the size of the Great Wall of China. The Shape of Things may be art, but my reality is that I think it's pretentious, psuedo-pious manure. Not one likable character, actor or piece of story is to be had in this obviously filmed play. It feels at times like we are watching an acting class on conflict: everyone running around in improvised states of anger. Now let's try anger with walking, anger with stomping, anger with hand gestures. Rachel Weisz should be sent over to get Saddam to talk. She's more irritating than a hangnail while you're peeling an orange. The only thing saving it from a goose-egg in my book is the Elvis Costello score. He really has some gems in this film. And I don't mean his grandmother's (see the film for the joke). 2/10* I'm insulted by this "art"
Rating:
Summary: NEIL LaBute's WORK OF ART
Review: I saw "The Shape of Things" when it was running on Broadway and was amazed-- then I saw it as a film when the movie came out with the same 4 original stars, directed by the same director, Neil LaBute.. both ARE AMAZING (I also read the play.) "The shape of Things is a compelling story.. deep, yet comical -- it will definitely make you think and start conversation immediately afterward (some people get into heated arguments about the morality of the main character (beautifully played by Rachel Weiss.) A DEFINITE must own !!! (The cost of a ticket was about $80. and the DVD is only about $20 - $25...) ENJOY!!
Rating:
Summary: Greatly Misunderstood
Review: I think that many people are surprised at this film and do not view it in its intent because they do not know the story behind it. The film is actually a stage play and is therefore set up as one. The actors performed the play onstage for several months before beginning shooting and therefore their portrayal of the characters is much like that of actors onstage. The delivery of the lines is a little overexaggerated because the script is written that way. The scenes are comprised of long chunks, not like films are made today. With modern movies, there are cuts everywhere, usually not allowing many scenes to last longer than five minutes without cuts back and forth between character and giving more of an illusion of movement. However, becuase this film is based on a stage play, it is shot very much like it has been staged in a theater, not cutting back and forth between the characters every ten seconds and giving more of a lingering view on the characters. This is not to highlight physical movement, but to allow the viewer to absorb the main focus of the film: the dialogue. The key to understanding and enjoying the film is to listen closely to what is being said and the subtleties of the language. As far as film to screen transition, I believe the director did well, considering he was trying to preserve the feel of the film as a staged play. It is executed very well, especially since it was shot in under twenty days and is an independent film. I would agree that if I had not known that this had been a play before it was a film, I would be greatly confused. It is clear that the purpose of the film was not to make a big motion picture based on the play, but to preserve the feeling and nuance of the play in a film version. Knowing that this is the motivation behind the movie, I feel that people would be able to enjoy the film more and really allow themselves to think about the issues it raises, for that's what the purpose is; not to impress, but to inspire thinking.
| 
