Rating: 
Summary: Terrible!
Review: I want to give it negative stars but it won't let me. This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Movies like this make me go back to the video store and rent another movie hoping that it will cure this illness I feel from watching it. How did this movie get made? I would have gone into detail about what I didnt like about this movie but then I wouldnt have been able to say how much it sucked!
Rating: 
Summary: Just OK
Review: I won't go into a full synopsis of the movie. Suffice it to say, the "suprise" ending could be seen 20 minutes into the film. I thought it was so obvious, I just KNEW that there was going to be a "double reverse" with Adam coming out on top. No such luck.
The "play as a film" approach didn't work for me, as I felt the acting was somewhat stiff in places, especially the Phillip character.
Overall, just OK. LaBute's done better.
Rating: 
Summary: Rachel Weisz and Neil Labute make a great cinamatic team.
Review: Interesting yet true look at relationships is probably the best film we have had on the subject in a very long time. The topics raise are true in a lot of ways and it does require multiply viewing just to understand the underlying message that Neil Labute its trying to say. Its very easy to say that what Evelyn did to Adam was wrong but in essence if you saw the movie little more closely, you would have notice the fact that she had told Adam numerous time on what she was up to. So Evelyn is really not that responsible for the outcome of the film, and Adam is not as innocent as some might think he was. He did after all let her to it to him, and he did it willingly, despite the warnings and the hints she gave him. So to put it in a better perspective, the only honest character in the whole film was in fact Evelyn, and that is because you knew where she stood. The other characters in the film ether lived in denial or just did not know what they really wanted.
The acting in this film is a major factor, and the entire cast should be commented for their great performances. Paul Rudd gave a tight woven performance that walked the balance between innocents and desire. You root for Adam and feel sorry for him but deep down, you know that he was asking for the betrayal, and deep down you know that he somewhat deserved it. Gretchen Mol is fantastic as Jenny, the woman who had her eye on Adam since the beginning and is more attracted to him now since his makeover. Her performance is a contrast of character and emotions because while she desire Adam, she also wants to believe that her boyfriend Phillip can change, despite the fact that he will not. Frederick Weller is great as Phillip, a man torn between his own macho ego and his own insecurities. He wants to protect Adam from Evelyn but he is doing it more out of fear than friendship, even though his heart may be in the right place. He portrays the right amount of macho grace but lying beneath lies an insecurity that he wants to keep hidden. The best performance out of the entire cast belongs to Rachel Weisz, who brings a raw and uninhibited sense of independence to her role as Evelyn. She walks a fine line between rebellion and insecurity, displaying Evelyn's own strength and weakness in full view of the audience. Her role is the riskiest one of all and the most dangerous, especially in the last act where her speech to the audience is not only the pay off of the entire movie but a real look at a character who is emotionally damage in every sense of the word. Rachel Weisz is an extraordinary actress with uncanny talent, and she brings out the best in every movie she has ever done. She is simply amazing in this film, and her performance in this film will go down as one of the best performances I have ever seen an actor do in a film.
Neil Labute has an eye on the ugliness of the Human spirit, but if you look closely at his work, you would notice that he is simply warning people of the evil that we can inflict on others and ourselves. A timely message that I will not forget after seeing this movie.
Rating:
Summary: Exquisite Rachel and a mirror to take a look
Review: Labute made a good work in the direction of the ascendent Rachel Weisz and the funny and good partner Rudd. All of the characters involve in this film are so regular, like many others moralist in our world. This kind of cruelty is so common in many places with our current modern lives. All the staff understand this and show us regular people in regular situations with regular and raw ends. Noone like the sweettest Weisz to show us the cruelty between loving people that we live every day.
My wife still hate the movie, she can't believed that people like them exist but she know very well where to found them. Good movie to hate and remember in some crucial ocasions.
Rating:
Summary: How far will you go to change for someone?
Review: Neil LaBute directs Paul Rudd and Rachel Weisz (new crush of the week and who also produces) in a film where manipulation is really more than just an experiment. We all know LaBute is famous for making films that really dig into how women and men react around each other. This film is no exception in my mind. The transformation that takes place to Rudd under Weisz's suggestions shapes him like a piece of art into something completely different - and all for a specific purpose. That is something I won't say here and suggest you go watch it yourself.It's an interesting film. How far will a guy go when changing his appearence under the suggestion of someone else? Depends on the guy, and in the case of Rudd, he's the perfect target for such a transformation. The dialogue was also enjoyable just because it seemed very realistic in parts. The just the funny comments that Rudd makes gave me more then just a chuckle. I was entertained the entire time. It's the quick wit that gets me sometimes. Well worth a watch if you ask me.
Rating:
Summary: A Successful Stage to Film Transfer
Review: Neil LaBute is a force to reckon with. In THE SHAPE OF THINGS he has transferred his four character play (using the original actors) to the screen without resorting to a lot of cinematic chicanery to alter his message about art imitating life imitating art. Though the dialogue feels stilted in the beginning (the ending of the story is so well concealed that we the audience are literally part of the charade), LaBute guides his quartet of actors through vignettes that trap us deeper and deeper into the jolting ending with phenomenal ease. Rachel Weisz is the guiding charlatan on this adventure and her willing model is Paul Rudd, believably undergoing the transformation from an overweight nerd into a fit and classy man about campus (the college of scene is aptly named 'Mercy College'). The unknowing other 'players' in this tale are Gretchen Mol and Frederick Weller who add a dimension of reality to the progressing project. In the end we understand that we have been witnessing the dark side of comedy and we are left with the question "What constitutes Art?" - and it is at this point that we wish we could return to the beginning and fully appreciate just how fine is LaBute's writing. This is a difficult film to classify, but that again is part of its unique quality. Recommended.
Rating: 
Summary: Find this and watch it...
Review: Neil LaBute is known for making film where his main characters are forced into a very unfortunate position, usually by the cruelty and sadism of others. As I was waiting for the premiere of The Shape of Things, my friends and I were taking bets as to who was going to get screwed and by whom. I say this because as the events of the film unfolded, my group of friends was not only impressed with the film in spite of having those expectations, but that no one was able to even remotely guess what was about to happen, or how it was going to happen.
This film was first written for the stage, and it was performed in both New York and London before being adapted for the screen. That's something that shows in the film, as the scenes within the film are lengthy, without a lot of movement of location within scenes. There are any scenes of characters walking from one place to another, every action happens within the context of that particular scene. This has an interesting effect of the film, one I enjoyed on the grounds that Neil elected to leave the performances and the dialogue as the primary fireworks of the film, rather than attempting to use other devices to express the story.
The cast was the same group as performed the piece on the stage, Paul Rudd, Rachel Wiesz, Gretchen Mol and Fred Weller. All of who give the film its depth, humor and ultimate message, which, rest assured, Neil has not lost his desire to engage the audience in questions concerning societal conventions, in this case, concerning the boundaries of love and relationships.
Rating: 
Summary: Mixed Feelings
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Sick but poignant look at human nature.
Review: Neil Labute's deep psychological look at relationships is as provocative as his groundbreaking "In The Company of Men" All of the characters involve in this film are deprave in someway or another, and just as cruel. All four leads give great performances but the real showstopper here is the great performance of Rachel Weisz that pushes this movie along to its heartbreaking end. Her performance is haunting, and at the same time horrifying. Prepare to take some down time after the ending to catch your breath and take in what you just saw.
Rating:
Summary: Great movie with Rachel Weisz giving a great performance.
Review: Neil LaBute's is back in fine form with a story that even rivals his previous classic In the Company of Man. Rachel Weisz is superb as a strange and crazy art student who wants to remake Paul Rudd
Into the image of the perfect man. With all of Neil LaBute's plays, expect the unexpected. Rachel is stunning as Evelyn, and her performance makes this film as special as it is. Paul Rudd is great as well as Adam, plus Gretchen Mol and Fred Weller are great as Jenny and Phillip. Neil LaBute not only out does himself this time, but with Rachel Weisz's help makes a modern classic.
|
