Rating: 
Summary: Not So Brilliant Cut
Review: I bought this DVD in expectation that I could see a different aspect of Meg Ryan. Actually, I could see Meg acting a character totally differnt from those I saw in other movies. But what I saw was not what I expected. I was so disappointed because the story is so weak and tells me nothing. And I thought that Nicole Kidman could have been more ideally suited for the movie.
Rating: 
Summary: sexy, sexy, SEXY
Review: I've read many of the negative reviews here, and I cannot help but wonder what some of these people are THINKING! This movie was (for the most part) awesome. I will agree with those who mentioned that the plot tended to lag in some parts--indeed, whenever the camera left Frannie (Ryan) and Malloy (Ruffalo). Also, a few of the characters were not really needed/utilized (what was the purpose of introducing Frannie's student, Cornelius? Also, Kevin Bacon was under-utilized; they either needed to build his character or not bring him in at all).
However, all of this is forgotten when Ruffalo and Ryan share the screen. The heat between them is practically palpable- never have I see such chemistry between two actors. And in actuality, the sexiest moments are not always those spent between the sheets (although they are very graphically depicted), but rather in the shared glances, heated discussions, and other comparable moments. Ruffalo smolders; his very presence adds excitement even when the plot lags. I am currently working on my PhD in Film and Literature, and my classmates and I agree- this was a tense, satisfying drama which was absolutelty ELECTRIFIED by the superb acting of Mark Ruffalo.
Rating:
Summary: "When I was thirteen, my father left me in Geneva..."
Review: That has to be one of the most groan-inducing lines ever. (Am I supposed to feel sorry for this wispy, privileged little heroine now?) I can't comment on the film's middle section since I dozed off for a bit -- when I asked my friend what had happened, she said "Nothing!" -- but from what I did see, I would call IN THE CUT tedious and disjointed. First of all, the plot is nothing special and its details are unreal. (Jennifer Jason Leigh, as a low rent stripper in Manhattan, keeps her key in a flowerpot outside her front door. New Yorkers do that all the time, especially in rough neighborhoods.) Meg Ryan is all wrong for the supposedly sexy lead role, and I'm sorry, but Botox or something seems to have immobilized her face. She has very little expression here, and she's adrift temperamentally as well. Ryan doesn't come across as hip and reckless whenever she drops her clothes to embrace some new man, but like a frozen librarian hesitantly embarking on her first one night stand. Consequently, the star's onscreen chemistry with Mark Ruffalo is nonexistent and this further flattens out what's already a slow pace. Aside from the key-in-the-flowerpot business, the story is dotted with other ridiculous plot points. (SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT) For instance, the heroine glimpses a mystery man ...across a shadowy room in an early scene: why is it that she can make out a tiny tattoo on his wrist, but not his face? And when the killer brings Ryan to a lighthouse at the climax, why does she meekly follow him inside? All of this is just unreal. Nicole Kidman was excited about doing this film for years and it's hard to understand why. Perhaps one has to read the book. (Doing so might explain the title, for starters.) While I'll always have a special place in my movie-going heart for sordid thrillers, IN THE CUT is too stiff to be either truly dirty or thrilling. In short, it's no fun at all.
Rating:
Summary: Bad gamble for Meg Ryan
Review: Meg Ryan took a big gamble by taking a role that casts her against type in a dark film that uses her in a number of semi-porn scenes. She lost the gamble, but it wasn't her fault. The blame rests squarely with Jane Campion, who directs this movie with no clear vision of where it should go, how it should affect the audience, or even what it's about. It contains a rudimentary serial-killer plot line wrapped in a moth-easten blanket of psychosexual sleaze. The camera work is annoying and self-concious, adding tedium to a movie that's already a chore to watch. Many reviewers here have applauded Mark Ruffalo, the male lead. I can't understand why. He seems like a second-string actor, with an uncharismatic screen presence. Meg Ryan looks beautiful, and she really is quite sexy, but her beauty and sex appeal are defiled here, not because her body is exposed, but because it's exposed in a hopeless attempt to legitimize a crummy movie. All this film will accomplish is to alienate Meg's fans. When we finally find out who the killer is, it's a let down, just like everything else in this film. I think Jane Campion has a facination with the mutilation of women (remember the piano?)and she uses it in spades here. The one scene with Meg clutching that object (which I won't identify here)wrapped in a shower curtain should win the stupidly tasteless award for the year. And those dream sequences ultimately shed no light on anything, leaving us wondering why they were even used. Poor Meg.
Rating: 
Summary: If she only had a brain
Review: Jane Campion continues her brainless quasi-feminist propaganda that like most feminist thinking makes no sense at all. You've seen it all before folks, including an adaptation of "Portrait of a Lady" so poisoned by her contempt for men that it makes a nonsense of the women in the story - including the heroine - who like them. And who could forget the complete mess that is "Holy Smoke"? Even "The Piano" was victim feminism 101. When Campion stops making men into nazis from some old war movie she'll make a good movie. She writes like a martian who has never met a human in its life. Forget it! This thriller is entirely unbelievable, and flawed by having no connection with any possible reality whatsoever, except for those who share her prejudices. A total mess. And ugly looking too.
Rating:
Summary: Meg Ryan: PORN STAR
Review: I used to like Meg Ryan and looked forward to her movies. No longer. This movie was one of the WORST I have ever seen. Meg Ryan has lowered herself to the typical Hollywood sicko depths. Besides her X-rated performance, the director has no clue. After the movie I was left saying - What Was the Point??? DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY.
Rating:
Summary: " Boring and uninspired"
Review: In the Cut is about a middle aged empty and depressed English teacher named Frannie (Meg Ryan) who witnesses an important part of a murder case. She meets a police detective, Malloy (Mark Ruffalo) who is investigated the recent murders and develops a sexual relationship with him. As more murders start to take place Frannie has no clue who to trust and suspects Malloy of being the killer.
In the Cut was uninspired and very hard to watch. The movie's strong sexual content isn't what bothered me the most; it was the films lack of suspense and an interesting plot. It sounds like a good movie by reading the description but once you watch In the Cut; the film's lack of interest starts to rise. The acting wasn't horrible but it didn't help In the Cut become a better film nor did it make the boring dialogue anymore interesting. I have always had a problem with Meg Ryan movies; they never seem to be any good.
There was a major lack of character development that is clearly visible. Most of the characters were obnoxious, annoying, and made me feel unclean; on the other hand Susanna Moore's novel In the Cut wasn't very good to begin with. I found the ending to be extremely predictable in many ways but it was also very unsatisfying. The ending was very unsatisfying because it didn't seem like a good way to end this film.
I hate how In the Cut tries to pass itself off as this dark, emotionally disturbing film; it's nothing more than a mere Hollywood cliché that should be avoided unless you are extremely desperate or you can just avoid all Meg Ryan movies all together; either one is good.
The DVD features were no bad or good; they were average. Do not buy the DVD; it's a waste of money that could be spent on better movies. Don't encourage mediocre, Hollywood dark films like these.
Rating:
Summary: Would the real Meg Ryan please stand up?
Review: Unfortunately, they don't let me put 0 stars, but that's what my rating is. It should be negative stars! This is by FAR the MOST GOD AWFUL, WORST movie around!!! Meg Ryan is known for her adorable, cutesy roles and she certainly does a 180 in this movie. Seeing her in this role, of a school teacher by day, slut by night was such a shock, it ruined the entire movie. Add to that the boring plot and not so wonderful costars and you've got a night from hell. I would definitely not waste a cent on this movie!!
Rating: 
Summary: Awesome.
Review: A break out performance by Meg Ryan, who hits Frannie Avery's character perfectly along the lines of Susanna Moore's book. Excellent cinematography; one can almost see through Manhattan through the killer's eyes. -HIGHLY recommended
Rating:
Summary: Not a good movie at all
Review: This movie was as embarrassing for me as it should be for Meg Ryan. No artistic value whatsoever. The gratuitous sex was not worth the trouble.
| 
