Rating: 
Summary: Comment about Ang Poon Kah's review
Review: If I had read the reviews before seeing the movie, I would be really ticked off with Ang Poon Kah's over-revealing "review." Whether or not the plot was predictable was beside the point. You just don't reveal the end of a movie. <sarcasm>Amazon, thanks a lot.</sarcasm>
Rating: 
Summary: Incredible Performances All Around (especially Ms. Ryan)
Review: I just purchased the uncut version on DVD and enjoyed the film greatly. If you are tired of seeing the very talented Ms. Ryan in the same fluff or are just in the mood for something a little more edgy, than this could be for you. It's certainly not for the prude. It is raw and a little seedy, but it will certainly keep you interested. If you have an open mind and enjoy a good independent film ~ check this out!!
Rating:
Summary: Beautifully Shot
Review: The cinematography alone was worth watching this movie. The scenes are hypnotic and beautifully shot.
Rating: 
Summary: amateurish
Review: I wanted to like this film. I've been a Meg Ryan fan even back to her soap opera days, and I loved 'The Piano'. However, the plot and the screenplay are just horrible. They take such labored pains in creating false murder suspects that it comes across forced and faked. The "mystery" is not set up by good storytelling, but by contrived brute force machinations. I found the Mark Ruffalo character so extremely unlikable that I had a hard time believing Meg Ryan's character would even give him the time of day. Also, was ANY explaination EVER give for the killer's motives, or had I just ceased caring by the time the aweful ending rolled around? It seems like the screenplay was written by a college student who was probably thinking they were being very cleaver with all of this hoghwash. But in reality, it comes across as lazy, forced and amateurish. I thought the best part was Kevin Bacon's bizarre unbilled performance. The only other reason to see this is for Meg Ryan's nude scenes, which is apparently no small attraction for many of the previous reviewers.
Rating: 
Summary: sick chick flick
Review: I thought I had seen them all. Bad, stupid, ugly, gross, mean-spirited, moronic, sadistic, exploitative. But this one wins the prize as the all-time vilest movie I have ever seen. It reeks of exploitation & manipulation. The sex & violence, of which there is plenty, are totally gratuitous yet numbingly dull, moving neither plot nor characters in any direction at any time. There isn't one scene that rings true in any way. Ryan & Leigh play a pair of women devoid of all hope, joy, inteligence, humor or self-esteem. In fact, they act exactly like personifications of the fantasies of the movie's scumbag cartoon cops. Meg Ryan looks like a cardboard memory of Jane Fonda in Klute & Mark Ruffalo looks like a kid dressed up as Burt Reynolds for a school play. This movie demonstrates that there is no form of abasement low enough for an actor to turn down a chance to be watched. Pathetic vanity product. An insult to the intelligence & worst of all - a REAL time-waster.
Rating:
Summary: Who needs a story?
Review: Okay, this movie gets five stars form me. It might not have been the best movie ever made. The plot might be thin, the performances might be grim....but I've been waiting over 20 years to see Meg Ryan naked (one breast in "The Doors" doesn't count) and if I've got to watch a bad movie to see it, I'm going to do it ... !
Rating:
Summary: Why change the ending?
Review: Susanna Moore's urban novel, "In the Cut" has become a piece of film that doesn't seem to reel you in. As much as I like Meg Ryan and Mark Ruffalo in their roles, they cannot leap over the hurdle of a screenplay that doesn't work in their favor. The film is more faithful to the eroticism in the book, but not to the thriller aspects, and it is here that it loses. In the novel, we come close to our narrator (Frannie), yet in the book, because we do not have the benefit of first person, we are distanced. I'm glad, in a way that the movie ended the way it did, but the proof in the pudding is in the book -- the vulnerability of the main character is completely exposed. And why is "In the Cut" not explained to us as it is in the novel?
Read the book for one wild ride.
Rating:
Summary: Pathetic
Review: This movie is nothing more than a glamorised porno (and not even a hot porno). I'm pretty liberal and have no problem with nudity/sex but when the plot barely exists and there is sex and nudity for the sake of being "shocking"...it's a little pathetic. It is your run-of-the-mill pretentious crap that focuses so much on being different that it just turns out to be stupid. Normally I would at least give a movie 2 stars for appealing sex scenes but even the overtly sexual scenes were...nauseating.
Rating:
Summary: yuck
Review: what a depressing and crude film. this genre of psychological thrillers is really turning into a horror one. so sad that Meg Ryan put herself through this. I'd recommend checking out something uplifting instead. 'Invincible' by Werner Herzog comes to mind - that is very good.
And furthermore, isn't it pretty stupid that the villain turns out to have a cop investigating his crimes. If there is any plausibility in this it is never brought to the surface. (There is no plausibility - just a bad storyline.) Also, how stupid of the villain to go after his cop buddy's g/f and her sister. Talk about wanting to get caught. Let's give ourselves a little credit as an audience people and not get sucked into some shoddy stories. Blah.
Rating:
Summary: ...doesn't make the cut
Review: The cinematography was great. That's the nicest thing I can say about this film. There was just no reason to like any of the characters. The gratuitous sex and nudity was slimy. I think they were going for gritty...but it was just a waste of time.
|
