The Shape of Things | | Cast : | Gretchen Mol, Paul Rudd, Rachel Weisz, Fred Weller | | Director : | Neil LaBute | | Studio : | Universal Studios | | Format : | Widescreen, Dolby, DTS Surround Sound | | Released Date : | January 01, 2003 | | DVD Released Date : | June 01, 2003 | | Language : | English (Dubbed), French (Dubbed), French (Subtitled), Spanish (Subtitled), English (Original Language), French (Original Language) | | Audience Rating : | R (Restricted) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | May 26, 2005 | | Summary | Rachel Weisz's performance is great but the movie is not. | Content
 | The Shape of Things is a decent movie but it feels awkward in a lot of places, and most of the dialog is a bit stiff. Rachel Weisz is probably one of the best actresses we have in our generation and she does carry this film on her back and for her performance alone, this movie gets three stars from me. The movie as a whole does not cut it in the reality department, and the whole process of Paul Rudd becoming a man was a bit ridiculous, and a bit hard to swallow because it was obvious from the get go on what she was trying to do and if he did not see what was coming, then he is much more at fault than she was because he let happen.
Like I said before, Rachel Weisz is the only reason I give this film 3 stars but the movie really needed to pull itself together in order for me to take it seriously.
|
| Rating | | | Date | May 17, 2005 | | Summary | disjointed but interesting and well-acted esp by weisz | Content
| The Shape of Things is one of those films whose ambition is greater than its achievement. It clearly provokes thought but to what price? The film had the potential to be a brilliant exploration of the morality of art and contemporary culture, but as it stands, LaBute's vision is challening, piquant, overly simplistic, and frequently just tonally off. Still, two days after first seeing this film, I long to revisit what I enjoyed- and like an oddly pleasing pressure point, endure the parts of the film that irked me.
The film, based on LaBute's stage play and featuring all the original actors, depicts a metaphorical and artificial conceit owing to such sources as Pygmalion and Genesis. Without revealing the central conceit, the unraveling of which, may surprise viewers, the plot is as follows: Adam (Paul Rudd) a truly nerdy museum guard meets Evelyn (Rachel Weisz) an "art terrorist" to quote LaBute. As the relationship progresses, Evelyn gradually persuades Adam to change his appearance and lifestyle. After getting a nose job (Rudd sports a hilarious prosthetic in the film's first half), several pounds, and a bad haircut, the handsome Rudd as we have come to know him finally emerges in the latter half of the film: the fruit, if you will, of Evelyn's labors. Jenny (Gretchen Mol) and Philip (Fred Weller)- an engaged couple and Adam's friends- seek to intervene, complicating the plot's outcome.
The story is told entirely through these four characters using point-and-shoot setups. In other words, this film is pure dialogue: rhythmic, intelligent, but inherently artificial and contrived. Frequently the characters sputtering out these pungent and quirky lines seem more like marionettes to LaBute's writerly wit than thinking, breathing entities. However, once in a while, LaBute lets the characters overcome the artificiality and emerge as real people. For instance, when Evelyn and Phil get in a fight about controversial art, the passions ignited between the two is palpable- and hilarious. Evelyn and Phil felt real in that scene and the fact that they both present their arguments poorly is refreshingly realistic and ambiguous. Another perfect- and hilarious- moment occurs after Jenny first sees Adam post-rhinoplasty and asks him, concerned and curious, "How much weight *did* you lose?" It's moments like these that present LaBute as a genuinely unique voice with an understanding of everyday human behavior.
However, the overarching themes that the film raises are frequently undermined by the aforementioned artificiality of the characters. For instance, how can we, as an audience, accept a treatise on the callousness of modern art- the way it dehumanizes- when LaBute himself fails to effectively present the realities of the human experience? LaBute has been called "misanthropic" for this failure. I think a more appropriate term would be "lazy." As an artist with a fixed agenda, he should realize that his perception of the world resonates better when it addresses multiple sides of the considered issue. Up until the weirdly melodramatic last scenes and excepting the intermittently brilliant little scenes, the human element- so critical in understanding Evelyn's perception of art- is all but replaced by the stagy artificiality of marionette puppets in the hands of a witty and angry God. (If the Adam and Eve reference holds true, then LaBute is surely the God).
Perhaps the crowning achievement of The Shape of Things is the way that LaBute elicits a tremendous performance from Rachel Weisz. An actress sadly known for her soulless blockbusters like The Mummy movies and Constantines, she shows a range of emotion as Evelyn- a darkly ominous restlessness that I found highly engaging and rare. She's alternately sympathetic and contemptible, sometimes at the same time. Weisz also happens to pull off what seems to be one of the most contrived and ridiculous endings ever- LaBute's weakest moment as a director. Rudd, Weller, and Mol all shine in their roles, but it is Weisz who most transcends her director's artificiality and achieves something that, ironically, her character most dismisses: humanity. |
| Rating | | | Date | March 26, 2005 | | Summary | Totally Twisted | Content
| This movie, to put it bluntly, was mean, sadistic, and beyond twisted. It showed how you appearance can change so much about you, how much some people would do for their lovers.
Now, I didn't really like the movie. I thought it was horrible how much that girl put that boy through for the sake of "art." But in the same sense, I think everyone should see it.
This movie really made me think about many things. It made me think of myself, my actions, things that I had done all in the sake of "love," all in the sake for being deemed attractive.
For the sake of art, see this movie. It will make you think. |
| Rating | | | Date | March 10, 2005 | | Summary | I could have gone my whole life without seeing this movie... | Content
| Ugh. I saw this movie a couple of days ago and I still can't shake the sick feeling it left me with. Paul Rudd was great, as usual, but I hated the see what his character went through in this movie.
The "dark comedy" description is misleading. It's flat-out dark and cruel with no redeeming features. The "artist" as sociopath theme didn't wash. I wish I'd never seen it, and I hope I don't encounter anyone who liked it. I don't need that type of person in my world. Yes, the end is exactly that creepy. |
| Rating | | | Date | January 25, 2005 | | Summary | Rachel Weisz Is Great, The (Awfully Nasty & Stagy) Film Not | Content
| 'The Shape of Things' has gifted acting talents marred by the self-indulgent director. I'm talking about Rachel Weisz and Neil LaBute, and if you love Ms. Weisz, anyway you like the film, no matter what taste it leaves in your mouth. One thing is clear; she can act, but has a straneg penchant for selecting the wrong project.
This film is based on the London stage production (in which Rachel Weisz was in), about four young art college students. Weisz is sexy and independent-thinking Evelyn, who meets an unassuming, slightly geeky boy Adam (Paul Rudd) in a museum. After the surprisingly light, casual conversations exchanged between them, they start to date each other.
Naturally, it is Evelyn who leads the relations between them, and she changes Adam into a more sophisticated, attractive guy. As this metamorphosis is going on, Adam's realtions with other friends (and a couple in love with one another) Jenny and Philip begin to be influenced, not always in a favorable way.
Neil LaBute loves controversial matters and shows it full-scale. I don't discuss the ending, or Evelyn's personality, but the origin of the film is too clear. 'The Shape of Things' is an inverted version of 'My Fair Lady' (to which the film refers briefly), and well, the diretor surely made the point.
But the film cannot hide its too stagy nature, and more damaging thing is, though the film is impressive in revealing the hidden (so he supposes) motives in our relations, more cool, rational thinking would inevitably lead you to the conclusion that the film's characters are just cyphers. If you know, directly or indirectly, someone who acts like Evelyn, please raise your hand. No one?
The good thing, and perhaps the only thing for you to see here, is the acting of Rachel Weisz. Her deft performance makes the character of Evelyn more human than the one found on Mr. LaBute's misguided script, and if you do not believe in the whole 'presentation' (which no college would allow, I am sure), Rachel Weisz barely makes you, giving a realistic touch to the otherwise monsterously incredible character.
Again, I say, Rachel Weisz's great acting is the only reason for you to see the film unless you want to see the 'Truths' about the manipulative relations between humans. No matter how these views in the film are distorted by someone's 'original' visions, her acting talent is a genuine one. |
|
Picture 01 (20)
