Rating: 
Summary: mystery & sensuality
Review: jane campion and susanna moore have inspired a cast to create a moving and thought provoking film.while some may argue that the stylistic elements of the film fail to make up for underdeveloped storyline and characterisation, i disagree.certainly, a considerable amount of the discussion surrounding this film will refer to meg ryan's image change, how sad that an obsession with image then criticises a film for being too concerned with its stylistic elements.how rare it is for elements of a female character to be studied so sensitively and how unsurprising that it be poorly received by an audience educated to explore female sensuality and sexuality predominantly for comic value - i.e. the romcom.campion's direction and stylistic eye enhanced a film which presented a sensual woman, at once beguilled and confused by her senses.the viewer gets a sense of franny, mistrustful of the information she receives from her senses, but transfixed and unable to ignore it...compelled to act, franny explores a world where the part of herself which frightens her most, is truly free...and the viewer is taken right along with her.beautiful.
Rating: 
Summary: Amazingly TERRIBLE movie...SO SO BAD!
Review: What is amazing about this terrible movie is that the movie itself was well-executed. There was suspense, and the acting was well done. However, the story line was...non-existant? There was zero character development, and the audience was not compelled to care about anything in the movie even momentarily. And then, the movie just ended...stupidly. This was so bad that it's not even a rental. It is just breathtakingly terrible and is completely irredeemable. So so bad. Everyone leaving the theater was making fun of the member of their party who had chosen the movie. People were saying things like, "Was that as bad as I thought it was?" and "J-Lo should have been in this one." That pretty much says it all.
Rating:
Summary: a cut above the rest...
Review: if looking for mr. goodbar had been made in 2002, you might expect to see something similiar to jane campion's in the cut. as always, just forget everything you know about psychological films or erotic thrillers so you can truly enjoy watching in the cut. before we get started, this is NOT your typical meg ryan vehicle as there is nothing light-hearted or cute here. if you're still interested, keep reading because this film is definately for those of us who want a little something different at the multiplex nowadays. unlike most thrillers in this genre, in the cut is more of a pyschological statement about sexuality as viewed by thinking women & some men or perhaps just a very dark poem. either way, i believe it's a terrific film by a genius director who gave us the piano nearly ten years ago. just like the piano, there are scenes of eroticism which will either entice you, haunt you, or just somehow linger in your head for days. most of the scenes aren't as graphic as the reviews might suggest but still are very deserving of a medium rare R-rating. no, most parents won't be taking their kids to see this one. also, there is a great deal of graphic dialogue describing sexual activity of all kinds so you may not want to watch this one in mixed company. again, very atypical of your average run-of-the-mill meg ryan vehicle. one of the greatest things about this film is the lighting & the jerky camera movement which you usually don't see in the mainstream films. trust me, the film makers here knew exactly what effect they were going for & the visuals add to the already gritty plot & the overall disturbing atmosphere of in the cut. as i can't really comment on susanna moore's book, i can only say that i do believe the film would be atleast a decent adaptation of her story considering she was involved quite a bit with the maing of the movie. i have been told(which i cannot substantiate) that the movie is actually more graphic than the book which may also shock some viewers. one more interesting trivia piece is that evidentally the film was so graphic that nearly 7 minutes had to trimmed from the original submission just to obtain the R-rating. for those of us who can only see the unedited versions of controversial films like this, we are hoping dvd world will release a special edition sometime down the road. the film starts out with one of the visually stunning openings i've seen in some time & will hold your interest until the last scene. unlike most films, everything you see here serves a purpose in the grand scheme of things. yes, even down to the charm bracelet gift & the wedding rings story told by our protagonist. watch for clues because everything here fits somehow & interlocks beautifully. for those of you who don't like artsy films, you will not be overwhelmed because most ends are tied up neatly when all is said & done so this may have a broader appeal than the piano or other great campion films in this repect. it's difficult to say more without giving away too much of the plot & the overall viewing experience but i will say that this is one of the best films i've seen in my local theatre in sometime. happy viewing!
Rating: 
Summary: Gruesome and sick - for no good reason
Review: I will not be trying to describe the plot - other reviewers will tell you, in enough detail, what happens in the film. There are generous helpings of blood and nudity - and there is very intense camera work, partial-focus shots and plenty of dark color. The trouble is, there is very little else. It is true that sometimes films that make you think have a lot of violence, and nudity, and sex, and disturbing scenes. I have no problem with that. Regrettably, not every film full of nudity and chopped body parts makes you think, and this one does not. It does get you depressed, it makes you realize how much Meg Ryan's charm is dependent upon her hairstyle, and the cops do admirable Noo Yawk accent. Is that enough to justify two hours in a movie theatre? Don't think so. As for camera work: yes, it makes you realize that some things are better in small doses. What works for 30 second clip, gets annoying in two-hour feature. The pumped-up dense ultra-arty camera CAN get on your nerves; there CAN be too much of a good thing. And finally, the use of the opening and closing credits tune (Whatever Will Be Will Be) is unoriginal: after Heathers (another disturbing film, which however is clever and thought-provoking; one of the best roles of Winona Ryder, incidentally), you kinda know that a childish, cute and melodic tune is an introduction for a couple of hours of sickening tension and horror.
Rating:
Summary: Too, too bad
Review: Very dark, dreary movie. Must have been cut in half and quartered because it did not tie together well. Obsessed and Overdone with nudity and sex.
Rating: 
Summary: Tom Hanks, eat your heart out!
Review: IN THE CUT has Meg Ryan doing sweaty, naughty stuff with Mark Ruffalo that she never did in SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE. Oh, lawdy, lawdy! Meg is Franny Avery, an English teacher/writer in New York that evidently spends her days dreamily writing down poetic sayings she notices on the adverts posted in subway cars, and her nights sweating through fevered prurient dreams. She also spends a lot of time with her half-sister Pauline (Jennifer Jason Leigh), another sexually needy woman, who rents an apartment over a strip club. One day, Franny is approached by homicide detective James Malloy (Ruffalo). "A piece of a murdered girl was found in your garden. Have you noticed anything unusual lately?" Avery did notice a distinctive tattoo on Malloy's arm. Disconcertingly, she'd seen a shadowy man with the same tattoo in the dark recesses of a bar's basement doing kinky things with a woman. The woman that was ultimately carved up. But, girls, does Franny have the good sense to avoid an emotional entanglement of the type your mothers warned you about? Nope. As a keen fan of Meg Ryan from her appearances in romantic comedies, I admit to being raptly attentive to her eye-popping and stereotype-busting role in this film. But, after slapping myself in the face with a cold, wet towel and saying, "Steady on, lad", I realized that IN THE CUT really doesn't have much to offer besides Franny's nudity and her fooling around with Malloy's handcuffs. Ruffalo is effective as the unpolished and often boorish Bad Boy detective. Even Dirty Harry had better manners. Admittedly, director Jane Campion adds some really nice tactile and sensory touches, like the opening sequence, which includes a "snowfall" of flower petals and the haunting sound of wind chimes. Or the close-up of Franny's fingers on Malloy's creased and worn business card. However, as a suspense drama, the film is oddly listless; I never felt that Avery was in mortal peril, not even at the end in the Final Confrontation. IN THE CUT is a hard, gritty, totally unromantic piece about as far from the SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE genre as one can get. Perhaps that's why Meg did it. You go, girl!
Rating:
Summary: What is Director Campion Saying About Us?
Review: With 'In the Cut,' Meg Ryan decided to take a bold step. She completely shatters the "nice cute girl" image she's maintained for years in films like 'Sleepless in Seattle' and 'You've Got Mail.' This time, Ryan plays a New York school teacher who's bored to death and basically looking for sexual fulfillment. She accidentally witnesses a couple in a bar and later discovers that the man brutally killed the woman. When she is questioned by a local detective, she suspects that she may be in more danger than she thinks. 'In the Cut' begins as a smart thriller that doesn't act like a typical thriller. The lack of thriller clichés early on is refreshing, and the performances, direction, and feel of the film give an eerie, satisfying experience. For awhile. Without giving away the plot, I can tell you that all of the characters in the film lose about 50 IQ points after the first hour. You begin to wonder what motivates these characters and question why some of them are in the film at all. Holes in the plot abound and some scenes will just plain leave you shaking your head. I felt really bad for Meg Ryan. She really risked a lot to play this role. It's unfortunate that it wasn't in a better film. This performance may surprise a lot of people. One final note. The film is loaded with sex and violence (although most of the violence occurs off-screen). Throughout the film, director Jane Campion focuses on the American flag for several seconds at a time. She seems to be saying that sex and violence are part of who we are as a country. For me, this was the most thought-provoking aspect of the film. Too bad the story wasn't as thought-provoking as the flag.
Rating: 
Summary: Bandages
Review: The New York City of "In the Cut" is the NYC of tenements, Spanish Harlem, West Broadway and sweaty Strip joints with almost naked performers. It's summer, It's Hot and a murderer is on the loose.
Into this jungle comes an English Teacher, writer and fish-out-of-water, Frannie Avery (Meg Ryan). But Frannie may seem out of place in this environment, what with her sensible below-the-knee skirts, her floral blouses and flat sandals, but she's not. Because what Frannie really is, is a domesticated cat that has learned to roam this jungle with the wild. untamed lions and tigers. She is very similar to Isabel Archer in Campion's "Portrait of a Lady" in that she is refined, educated but just below the surface there breathes a sensual, fully realized hedonist.
Until about 1/3 of the way through "In the Cut," Ryan's performance as Frannie is problematic. She chooses to lower her voice to a whiskey and cigarette snarl that spells fakery not acting. But after that, her performance evens out, her voice gets closer to its natural register and we start sensing that there is truth and honesty in her performance. In a lot of ways, Ryan's performance reminds me of Diane Keaton's in "Looking for Mr. Goodbar," in it's intensity and abandon. Oddly enough, Jennifer Jason Leigh as Frannie's sister, Pauline could have probably played Frannie with her eyes closed but here she plays a stripper with a heart of gold.
Mark Ruffalo is the real revelation though, playing a hard nosed, though pretty-boy NYC detective and Frannie's lover who fulfills and plays into all of Frannie's fantasies. Ruffalo has never been more virile and sensual on screen and for once he doesn't play the sensitive loser that everyone wants to protect. He's the protector here and he's first rate.
New York City has never looked more beautiful and the camera work is gorgeous capturing all that is ugly and garish while also capturing all that is lovely and breathtaking. Campion has stuck her neck out creatively and not every thing she does succeeds but at least she understands that she must risk the ridiculous sometimes in order to achieve the sublime.
Rating:
Summary: Where's the storyline?
Review: This is possibly the worst film I've ever seen (and I've seen Battlefield Earth!!) There is absolutely no storyline, no excitement, no nothing.
After reading reviews for this I thought I might be in for the sort of quality found in Spike Jonze's Adaptation, I'm afraid not. There is no possible way I could recommend this film to anyone unless they had trouble sleeping.
At the start of the film there were 15 people in the cinema, when I walked out after around an hour there was only one person left, she followed me out straight away (apparently I woke her up!!) I realise that some people may be tempted to see if it is really that bad, it really isn't worth it.
In case you havn't realised by now what I'm saying: DO NOT GO AND WASTE YOUR TIME OR MONEY ON GOING TO SEE THIS FILM!!!!!
Rating:
Summary: single girl's worse nightmare.......
Review: This was a difficult book to translate onto film. Frankly, I'm suprised that they even attempted it. That said, I was fascinated by the book. I found it peotic and beautiful but it is also v. graphic. The movie is getting a lot of mixed reviews and I think it's because it is about a frankly sensual woman, which always makes people uncomfortable. The actors do a very good job and are very believable. The sex scenes were pretty shocking, even having read the book, which was quite graphic. I'm not going to ruin it and tell you the story but they changed the ending and while it was sweet I think the ending in the book was more realistic.
|
