The Shape of Things (2003) User Reviews

The Shape of Art as Manipulation

[lawprof · 8/10 · 12 May 2003]

Rachel Weisz seems to be everywhere. From a Soviet partisan in besieged Stalingrad in "Enemy at the Gates" to a self-assured single mom in "About a Boy" and most recently as a grifter in "Confidence," she inhabits her roles with deft assurance.

Here, in Neil La Bute's play-brought-to-the-screen, "The Shape of Things," Weisz is a disturbing, thought-provoking challenging character: an artist in pursuit of a master's degree but in reality a tester of uncharted waters as she combines the creation of art with her relationship with a man who, like a canvas, is transformed from without. In this case by her.

Paul Rudd is Adam, an art gallery guard who Evelyn, the art student, first encounters in a quirky exchange that suggests an unfolding comedy. There are humorous moments but a darker side slowly emerges as Evelyn carefully encourages Adam to shed his dorky exterior. There's nothing new, of course, with the theme, "Change if you love me," but here Adam's relationship with his close friends, Phillip (Fred Weller) and Jenny (very well acted by Gretchen Moll) takes some disturbing turns. Is Evelyn a catalyst or an agitator? Is her commitment to art part of her persona or its sum total? These questions are increasingly explored in this short film. Does the name "Adam" have some esoteric meaning here?

Some plays don't travel well to the screen. This one does. La Bute's play seems to have been little altered by him for a screenplay.

What is the place of ideas and intellectual experimentation in the creation and fostering of an intimate relationship? Are there boundaries that must be respected even if truth is sacrificed in the process? Does art illuminate or camouflage the reality of a relationship? No ready answers and no final ones here but the effort yields a thought-provoking study.

Rachel Weisz's emerging and brooding intensity is the anchor for this unusual film. She also produced the movie.

The score is by Elvis Costello. His fans will appreciate the soundtrack.

8/10.

Misogyny-Misandry-Misanthropy

[dranonyme · 8/10 · 23 March 2006]

The premise set in large type on the gallery wall of Evelyn's art school installation,"moralists have no place in an art gallery," seems such a blatant contradiction to her stated intentions (and by extension to Neil LaBute's) that it is hard not to suspect that there is some irony (or self-delusion) intended by its conspicuous signing as the backdrop for LaBute's compelling and open-ended denouement. (The quote is attributed to Han Suyin, pen name of the Chinese-born Elizabeth Comber, whose fascinating career, for those interested, is summarized on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Suyin). LaBute's thinly veiled allusion to the Fall played out by Adam and Evelyn, noted by many commentators, is perhaps the most fundamental and complex of morality tales, with Adam and Eve each owning their proper share of responsibility for the outcome. (The premonition of Original Sin is played out in the opening scene, when Evelyn, in her hubristic pursuit of "truth" prepares to spray paint a penis on the monumental, fig-leafed Hercules in the art gallery, to which Adam, by walking away, symptomatically acquiesces). It is difficult, as such, to find in this morality play a clear expression of LaBute's misogyny or misandry. Adam and Evelyn are fundamentally co-conspirators, perhaps true to their fallible, gender-determined natures, who in LaBute's canny postmodern twist on Original Sin, are left to contemplate the harsh realities of their hard-won knowledge. If the ostensible purpose of Evelyn's sophomoric MFA project is to rail against "indifference," surely in the metamorphosis of Adam, who hurls the painful, "potty-mouthed" expletive at Evelyn in the final scene ("F**k you, you heartless c**t"), we find that a greater knowledge has been won, as much about his own weakness as about the putative nature of women. Evelyn, for her part, played with complex ambiguity by Rachel Weisz in this final scene, exits conspicuously diminished by her "triumph." She no longer displays the confidence, and barely a shadow of the former diffidence that is her signature throughout the play. She has sacrificed all for her "art," which is laid bare as a dubious conceit regarding art's moral purposes. If her purpose was to expose Adam's lack of a center, she no less exposed her own. The gallery is empty -- none of the large audience that attended her performance (save Adam) is inspired to explore the installation, and she stands pathetically alone and forsaken, it seems, vulnerably clutching herself in the gallery (the body language seems to acknowledge representations of Eve handed down by Masaccio, Michelangelo, and Rodin). Paradoxically, she asks Adam as she makes her exit: "Are you coming?" The presumption is that in spite of the travesty she has vested upon Adam, they are inexorably linked to each other, each the fulfillment in their way of each other's worst nature. Adam demurs, of course (there is much to be said for knowledge, in spite of its costs). In this morality play, LaBute leaves it to us to sort out the consequences of fallible human behavior, and whether or not we find either of the principal players redeemable, he nevertheless leaves no doubt regarding our need to acknowledge the moral deficiencies of our archetypal ancestors. He is fundamentally a moralist in this regard, deeply rooted in the vague hope that art (in this case his, not Evelyn's) may transform us. In the last analysis, this is a humanistic impulse that transcends the superficial misanthropy suggested by the weaknesses of his all-too human characters.

An intelligent, sophisticated comedy that gets off to a slightly lame start but ends brilliantly

[Potty-Man · 8/10 · 11 December 2007]

After the first 30 minutes I felt like the film lacked energy. The pace was a little too slow for my taste, and the intensity too low. I wanted it to be snappier, more sizzling.

But then, about halfway through, it got really interesting. The second half, although it still suffers from some pacing problems, makes up for the first. And then the third act is one of the most brilliant and satisfying third acts I saw in a long time. The ending brings together all of the elements and themes that were planted throughout the movie (our obsession with the way things look, the line between art and real life) to form insights about our lives that are as brutal as they are true.

I am generally fond of Neil LaBute's work - most of the time his works contain more than what they initially seem to be (I haven't see "The Wicker Man" remake yet, but I heard it was horrible). Here, what starts off as your run-of-the-mill romantic comedy/drama, develops into a cynic's paradise, presenting insights into our lives which are as brutal as they are true.

Three of the four actors do a splendid job (Weisz, Rudd & Mol). I especially liked Paul Rudd's performance, and the way his character changes throughout. All three, and especially Rachel Weisz, are convincing in their roles, and deliver multi-layered performances with lots of subtext. Fred Weller's performance leaves something to be desired, but the fact that his role is well written somewhat makes up for that. LaBute has successfully made all four characters three-dimensional and they feel like real people.

Overall, I'd say it was a pretty great movie, certainly entertaining, and an important one to watch and analyze if you are into writing, directing or acting. Somewher, though, I feel like it didn't live up to its full potential. This script, if directed with more intensity, could have become one of my favorite movies, up there with films such as "Closer", "Glengary Glen Ross" or "Oleanna". Maybe it's the transition from the stage to the screen that made LaBute feel like he should make everything more minimalistic and restrained. But it's definitely worth checking out.

A brilliant piece of modern film-making.

[bluewavetraveler · 26 October 2004]

Terrifying but so true tale about the way people can control us and the reasons we just let them do it. Rachel Weisz is amazing as art student who makes changes to a lonely guy who just wants to fit in. The story in true Neil Labute fashion takes a macabre turn and makes you question everything that you have done in your relationship and gives you a well deserved punch in the stomach in the reality department as well. The acting is beyond top of its game with Rachel Weisz proving once again to be one of the most talented and gifted actresses of our generation. Her performance is beyond brilliant and she single handily carries this movie on her shoulders with her performance. Paul Rudd, Fred Weller and Gretchen Mole do great work as well and Neil Labute proves once again to be a profound playwright of uncanny wisdom of the evil that resides in the human heart.

I do hope that Weisz and Labute work together again.

Cold satire with precise ending

[mg-soikkeli · 7/10 · 26 July 2014]

Surprisingly cold satire with too much empty dialog, but you must really appreciate the attitude: the message is against the feel-good-romances as well as against the gender-politics. If you feel betrayed just because Rachel W says everything you loved was actually art and performance under construction, the film was worth of seeing. And you should note that the "art gallery" in the end of the film has nothing to do with art itself... the meaning of this metaphorical place you can decide yourself.

It may not be a good example of play adaptation, but there really should be more films like this with good self- consciousness, and also more actors like Rachel W who understand the point of irony.

Rough but good

[BandSAboutMovies · 7/10 · 25 September 2022]

The Shape of Things was directed and written by Neil LaBute and based on a stage play he also created. It tells the story of Adam Sorenson (Paul Rudd), whose life is changed after he begins dating Evelyn Ann Thompson (Rachel Weisz). She convinces him to eat right, work out, change his clothes, be more confident and even get plastic surgery. His life gets better, even if she ruins the relationship between his best friend Phillip (Frederick Weller) and his fiancée Jenny (Gretchen Mol), as well as tell Adam to leave them behind.

The darkness within this film is that everything is a lie. Adam is part of Evelyn's MFA final project. She set out to change his world through their relationship and presents everything in their life together in an art gallery, including a sex tape and the engagement ring that Adam gave to her. We're left with her telling him the only bit of honesty was what she whispered to him while they made love; he keeps watching the clip over and over again in tears, straining to remember what she said.

Not since The Last American Virgin has a female character so utterly devastated the male protagonist.

Cruel and Heartless Tale of Seduction and Manipulation

[claudio_carvalho · 9/10 · 11 April 2006]

Adam Sorenson (Paul Rudd) is a simple, insecure and shy student that works half period as a security guard of a museum and in a rental. He meets the anarchist and transgressor student of Arts Evelyn Ann Thompson (Rachel Weizs) trying to paint a penis in an important statue, and after arguing with her, in the end they schedule a dinner. Evelyn becomes his girlfriend and he introduces his best friends, Jenny (Gretchen Mol) and Phillip (Frederick Weller), to her. As long as they stay together, Adam's behavior changes and his appearance and confidence improve influenced by Evelyn. He has an affair with Jenny, betraying and lying to Evelyn and to Phillip, and destroying their friendship. When Evelyn presents her thesis for the Master degree, Adam is surprised with revelations.

When I saw the cruel "In the Company of Men" in 1997 or 1998, I became a great fan of Neil LaBute. However, his next good movies have never been in the same level of his debut. In "The Shape of Things", Neil LaBute is in shape again and presents a magnificent cruel and heartless tale of seduction and manipulation. I felt the same surprise as Adam with the plot point of the story, which is a great study of human behavior, with excellent performances of Rachel Weisz and Paul Rudd. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Arte, Amor e Ilusão" ("Art, Love and Illusion")

Not as good as I hoped, but it left a mark

[Pantalaimon60107 · 7/10 · 4 July 2008]

I was a little disappointed with this as a movie. I believe it would be wonderful to see as a stage production. However, after reading a few of Neil LaBute's plays, I've found that only a fair few absolutely need to be translated into a screen adaptation. Take, for example, Reasons to Be Pretty. It's an excellent play, but how can you sell a movie based on the idea that a man said something about his girlfriend that might have been taken offensively? The Shape of Things is somewhat similar in the problem of being translated to the screen. A large portion of the film seems to be going nowhere until the climax takes over. Granted, it's an excellent climax that speaks wonders about human nature and the nature of relationships, as well as our fascination with the surface of things, the shape of them. It warrants repeat viewings, yes, but there's something about the extremely long rising action that kind of pushed me away. Like Reasons to Be Pretty, it seems to be built on too small of an idea to be made into a film. Still, for the most part, and in both cases, the movie is largely enjoyable. My only problem with the film was that Fred Weller occasionally seems to be overacting. Either that, or Evelyn is right when she says that Adam doesn't need someone like that in his life. It's hard for me to see any real connection between Phil and Adam, regardless of the fact that they were roommates. It's also hard for me to see how someone as nice and friendly as Jenny could be engaged to Phil. That problem aside, the film is definitely worth watching. Rachel Weisz is definitely the highlight here. Evelyn's character is fascinating, even moreso after the climax. Paul Rudd and Gretchen Mol are both excellent in their roles. Like I said, Fred Weller seems to be overacting on occasion, but this could perhaps be his character. Regardless, the film is good. For an climax as great as it is, I would have liked a better rising action, but I can overlook that. I'll warn you that a large part of the film is dialogue-driven, but if that doesn't sound off any alarms, you'll be in for a treat.

Labute's best work since "In The Company Of Men

[gilmoresmore · 10/10 · 23 December 2004]

Heart wrenching and captivating look and relationships that is Neil Labute best film since his horrifying " In the Company of Men" Rachel Weisz literally hold the movie and the viewer in the palm of her hand with a supercharge performance that will be talked about for years and Paul Rudd does good as well as her object of desire. The movie starts off being one thing and ends up being something completely and terrifyingly different once it was over. This is one viewer who is still blown away by the climax and will probably always remember the lesson that was learned by watching this film. Special Thanks to Neil Labute and Rachel Weisz for making one of the most compelling movies ever made.

Intellectually and artistically provocative

[Manal1987 · 6/10 · 3 June 2011]

Rachel Weisz is the only one for whom I should take my hat off compared with the catastrophic performance of Mol, Weller and Rudd; they have totally spoiled everything with their stiff overacting. I like movies about art, and this one exhibits the darker, subjective and immoral side of art and pretty much justifies it. It also shows how much we, human beings, are obsessed with the outer shape of things and not their essence: beauty, money, recognition... etc. and the more we work on the outside, the more corrupted the inside gets. The movie is a typical case of the artistic embodiment of the human follies, which quite reminds me of The Picture of Dorian Gray. Movies which are intellectually and artistically provocative are not to be missed, and this is certainly one of them.

It's 'In The Company Of Men'...For Women

[flickershows · 4/10 · 27 March 2004]

Six years after his savage debut ('In The Company Of Men'), Neil LaBute decided to steal from himself and churn out the same formula again. 'The Shape Of Things' is really just 'In The Company Of Men' for women. I won't elaborate further on that point or I'd give too much away, most of which you should be able to guess anyway. Both his freshman film and this one are not without fascinating moments, but at least he came up with an original idea his first time out as a filmmaker. The final 20 minutes of 'The Shape Of Things' won't come as a surprise to those who pay even a little bit of attention to the story. I pretended to be stunned when the plot turn happened just to amuse myself. After all, the movie wasn't amusing me anymore.

LaBute gives only four actors speaking parts. Paul Rudd and Rachel Weisz are the leads, college students Adam & Evelyn. [That's almost Adam & Eve, isn't it? And there's even a fall from innocence after an act of treachery. No Garden Of Eden, though.] When they meet, he's fleshy and shy. She's another in the overwhelmingly long line of female free spirits who show their guy a whole world of fun & sex they never knew existed. Whee! Gretchen Mol and Frederick Weller are the other two actors who get to speak (only four actors get lines in a psychological drama...ooh, ooh, I know, it's 'Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf?', right?] and they play Adam's engaged friends. Their relationship with Evelyn is never wonderful and it changes as the movie plays out. They don't like seeing their friend change so much just to please this new girlfriend.

Rudd gradually transforms, physically and emotionally. The title of the film refers to what concerns too many of the superstar-gazers out there, the surface of things or...anyone, anyone?...the shape of things. Our society DOES put form over content far too often, but average-looking guys like me don't need a movie to tell us that a Hollywood-ugly Paul Rudd (who's still quite handsome) must get plastic surgery, contact lenses, and different clothes to get laid. As he gains material "value", he loses his sense of morality. The climax pounds and pounds that point home for those who walked into the picture very late.

I've been harder on the film than I probably should be. The actors do the best they can with such obvious material. This was a stage play first, then LaBute adapted it---just barely---for the screen. It's stagy and overly wordy, with some quaint actorly touches that The Actor's Studio would just love. All the same, some of these devices seem forced. There's not much else here if the characters don't interest you because LaBute is no technical visionary. He takes pictures of people talking. In this case, that got old before the credits rolled.

It's interesting that Weisz flips the bird to the audience during her character's artistic summation because the director himself could have stood in for her and taken care of that gesture himself. This is a man who must stare at the ceiling at night and wonder just how brutal his characters can be. LaBute's lead actress' double fingers say more about what he thinks of his audience than anything else in 'The Shape Of Things'. Now, where's my copy of 'Nurse Betty'? There's a movie of his that won't make me feel like diving head-first into a sponge bath.

Surprisingly surprising

[gtodmon · 9/10 · 4 September 2005]

This film was absolutely not what I expected it to be. In the first half an hour, I even got a little bored, because it seemed like the story was going nowhere. Fortunately, I got my happy ending - no, not at all a film with a happy ending, just an ending that makes the film precious! It really makes you stare at the black screen, with the cast moving in front, and think about what you've seen over and over again. Of course, the brilliant play of Rachel Weisz cannot be left unmentioned, but I think that the others did a great job as well. "The Shape of things" is a film with actually just four actors and one great idea, and trust me, it is worth seeing. I am just wondering how would I feel the second time I watch it!

Looses some power from stage to screen

[jsjarrold · 6/10 · 1 September 2005]

This film, while well filmed, directed and acted on most counts, loses much of its power as it was transformed from play to screenplay. Though much of the original script remains intact, many strong sequences in the play are cut, leaving the film's potential power diminished. For example, both Jenny and Adam have monologues which have been cut, as well as some great lines which just add power to the script. Additionally, as an actor who played Evelyn in summer stock,I thought Ms. Weiz gave a rather timid performance, and seemed afraid to really commit to a decision or to play her actions through. For example, in her climactic monologue, the just never quite gets to the emotional height she should, although this can be blamed to some extent on changes within the text. The rest of the cast was strong for the most part, but Mr Rudd especially suffered due to Ms. Weis' playing it safe. Her stakes are never quite high enough On the whole, the movie is well made, but loses much of its force between stage and screen due to its unwillingness to take that extra step, falling just between soap opera melodrama and real . But, I suppose, that is the peril of making a movie in modern America. However, worth seeing simply due to the fact that the film does raise some interesting questions.

Close Encounters of the Vile Kind

[Rogue-32 · 2/10 · 14 April 2004]

When he was much younger, Woody Allen said that he would most likely have been a sniper on top of a building if he hadn't had his writing career. After seeing 3 of his self-penned movies now, I have come to the conclusion that the same fate might have awaited Neil LaBute if he hadn't gotten his writing 'thingie' off the ground.

The Company of Men was vile, Your Friends and Neighbors was more subversive about it but vile just the same (even though I actually really liked that one), and now we have The Shape of Things, a 4-character indulgence which involves a personal betrayal of the vilest nature. Vile can be valid, don't get me wrong, but in LaBute's hands it seems to be more of a way for him to exorcise his own demons rather than attempt to consistently present us with believable situations and thoughtfully well-written characters. Of course he SHOULD exorcise those demons (the Woody Allen statement comes to mind again), but it would be much better if he could start doing it in a more constructive, less selfish way.

This movie itself is very much like the character LaBute creates in the film (which was a play originally and feels like it, also not good)- the character played by Rachel Weitz, who portrays "EVElyn", a lovely little Gemini sociopath, to Paul Rudd's Adam: -=- this is NOT a spoiler because it's mentioned in the film's synopsis here at imdb -=- Weitz' character brutally exploits Rudd's character under the guise of an 'art' project for school, but in reality, her project would have been more appropriate for a psychology class experiment or even more appropriately, for a dissertation in Sadism 101.

The film does the same thing - from the title, it seems like it's some sort of commentary on our society but in reality it's just an excessively mean-spirited indulgence on LaBute's part. There is no truth here, not really, and because of this, the acting isn't very good either, especially in the scenes where Rudd is supposed to be devastated by Weitz' betrayal -- at no time do we actually feel anything resembling reality in his reaction to her cruelty. He doesn't transmit genuine hurt or anger or any combination of those two, and when he sort of acts like he's crying, it's even less believable. Sort of like the film itself.

Like spending two hours with evil

[melaniehorn · 15 March 2003]

While a well done film, it's not enjoyable. There are enough mean people in the world without voluntarily subjecting yourself to another one that is the heart of this film. Rachel Weisz plays convincingly in this film as a heartless art student who subjects Paul Ruud to her talents as a sculptor of humans. The best thing about this film is Paul Ruud's subtle transformation from geek to chic. By the end of the film, you've realized how convincing his change was. However, just because a movie is well made and well acted does not mean it is worth watching. When I left this movie, I felt as if I had spent two hours in the company of evil and meanness. If you like a think piece that leaves you feeling negative, then this is the perfect movie. But if you're looking to spend your hard earned money on a movie that leaves you feeling better for having spent it, choose another flick.

A morally ambiguous film that almost works.

[maeander · 7/10 · 18 May 2004]

Given a choice in a relationship, would you rather care for the other person more or less than they care for you. Of course, equal is best. But if you couldn't have that, which would you pick?

Why do we get into relationships? What is love? What is dependency? What is manipulation? Does it matter more who cares the most or who gets the most out of it? At the end of this film you will wonder which of the two main characters has actually benefited from the work.

It is one of the better filmed stage presentations I've seen. Opened up for the camera in such a way that you will at times forget it's source is in theatre. The acting in the small ensemble is incredible. Considering the amount of times they appeared in the theatrical version, that is to be expected. There is, however, one major problem.

The actors are just too old for their characters. These actors are as much age appropriate students as the cast in "The O.C." or "Beverly Hills 90210". How more devastating the story would have been if played by 19-22 year olds. Film demands truth. With the exception of Rachel Weisz (still 10 years too old for the part), the cast is just too good looking for their roles.

It would have been interesting to see this film done with actors that looked like what the characters are supposed to be, Still, intellectually, it's an interesting film worth seeing.

Women, those mean creatures...

[rainking_es · 7/10 · 3 August 2004]

Initially set out to look like a romantic comedy, Shape Of Things lead us through the relationship between Adam (Paul Rudd),an ungainly and boring guy who work as a Museum keeper, and Evelyn (Rachel Weisz), a rebel and nonconformist girl who studies art and is preparing her doctorate. They meet at the Museum where Adam works and soon he gets off with her against all forecast. Since the very first second of their relationship Evelyn tries to change Adam's look and personality (and sure she makes it). She even tries to get him apart from his best-friends Phillip and Jenny (and again she makes it). As I said before up until this point everything looks like a romantic comedy, with some infidelities, couple arguments, misunderstanding, and lots of funny dialogues that reminded me of Woody Allen... The script is so wisely constructed that we have no idea of what's really going on. NO IDEA! Till we get to the last 20 minutes and ... holy shhhhh...!!!!

Now, since I cannot talk about the final sequences I'll just say that Shape Of Things is a cruel and mean and lucid and acid look at how stupid men are. How we'd sell our mothers in order to get the girl of our dreams, and how we'd let her manipulate us as she will. The movie clearly shows that stereotypes (to be the cutest, and the coolest, and the more elegant...) are meaningless and useless. To give up what we are is not a good idea, and Shape Of Things is a good example of what may happen to us if we do.

Rachel Weisz is splendid, just perfect as manipulating and mysterious Evelyn (when I first knew Rachel Weisz, in The Mummy, I just thought she was one more "pretty face"; but how wrong I was). Paul Rudd is mostly dull, but he sure has some funny sequences (the one in the bed, discussing about the play they've just watched, the tampax...the final sequence, just great!!!), and anyway, his dullness fits perfectly with his character.

Fresh, funny, nasty, no goddamn happy endings, worth watchin' it!

My rate: 7.5/10

Very impressive!

[stevehuison · 10/10 · 6 January 2004]

Very impressive in the way that it leaves a lasting impression, which good films should. The details keep returning to me long after seeing it. Obviously the kind of film that deserves a second viewing. Great cast, their ages being immaterial to me. The crafting of the story and the conviction of the actors was what mattered, and what a breath of fresh air to observe such long scenes, one after the other, without any flashy, distracting camera work. Ms Weisz and Mr Labute have created a modern day Femme Fatale - how refreshing! This is the first film I've publicly applauded in a cinema since The Magdalene Sisters. Get out to the cinema and see this now before it hits video.

Is this really the way it is being someone for someone else

[mrbc811 · 7/10 · 5 January 2013]

My 1st time watching I gained some insight what the purpose of the film,however I prefer watching a film 2 or 3 times before I get real comfortable with what I know about its realness.As the film progressed it reminded me of my days working in mental health and as a Pastor-Chaplain. People and relationships are unique and sometimes strange. This film challenges how, why we do what we do within relationships. How some can be toxic and explosive yet to the person in the relationship all is OK. The film brought this reality forefront in the couples relationships and expanded relationships. Challenged too are how to deal with intimate feelings for someone within a established relationship that has longevity yet the relationship has expanded evolved into a more intimate awaking beyond the original individuals. What would you do if buried hidden feelings exploded but that person was 'off limits'? Be prepared to be shaken in you belief system. As you watch pick a character you feel you relate to Evelyn a manipulator,Adam so needy he loses self to have what he thinks is real, or Jenny and Philip. As you watch you may want to change the character that you have chosen,if so ask why. Also ask would you act the way? That is why this film is perhaps is a reality show more than fiction drama. Perhaps this is what the writer was trying to do, expose the crazy we sometimes get into in relationships.

Remember change for you not someone else it will last longer! Chaplain Bubba

Don't read comments or reviews before watching the movie!

[ArthurDental · 9/10 · 17 December 2004]

This warning applies to comments without spoiler warnings as well. I'm not good with the mystery drama, but I may have figured out the secret of this movie before the majority of people. In other words, even my review, which technically doesn't include spoilers, can give away a crucial hint.

Anyway, onto the review. This is a must-see movie, I think, for the Western world, or at least those Americans, Britons, and others who are so enamored with "reality TV," which has overtaken the likes of Jerry Springer to become the most manipulative, deceptive, arrogant, egotistical form of "entertainment" to grace the screen. There are far more words that apply to this genre, which is nothing but a line of money-spinning products. "Contestants" are encouraged to act in the most ethically and morally unacceptable ways to garner attention. For those who love to "push the envelope" without care as to what is being pushed, this hopefully can be a wake-up call. Alas, most people will not watch this movie, and hardly all of those who do will take away the most crucial lesson.

*Biggest Spoiler-let* Entertainment at the expense of others, just like "art" without morals as depicted in the movie, is not entertainment (or art).

A bold performance from Rachel Weisz, sharpened by Neil LaBute's nonconforming concept, focused script

[ruby_fff · 6/10 · 8 June 2003]

Since "Beautiful Creatures" 2000, Rachel Weisz has taken fearless steps beyond the boundaries of mere beautiful woman roles. In James Foley's "CONfidence" 2003, opposite Edward Burns and Dustin Hoffman, her role as Lily is equally dauntless and surprising at the same time. Here in Neil LaBute's "The Shape of Things" - well, what can I say, she bowls over everyone. Yes, all along from the beginning - no, I wouldn't call it deceptive - she as Evelyn (or Eve) is quite determined with her plan which she follows meticulously with no hesitation what so ever. She's a woman with a mission and design not to stray from. Now you might say she's almost like a brain-washed robot from "The Stepford Wives" (d: Bryan Forbes 1975). Maybe. Well, that could be a 'cop out' on our part for not being able to accept that such a thing can actually exist, and happen. Is it truly art? Is it humiliating? Is it betrayal? Does she have a heart? 'tis in the eye of the beholder, however/whatever you can swallow. In LaBute's world, social morality may not be part of the 7 habits of highly effective people.

Neil LaBute is such an observant source of man and woman relationships in particular. He is absolutely tickled with acuity, pungent or thorny (or horny) - he delivers his points of view as they are. We're kinda blind to it all as the suggestive elements are all there right in front of us - probably real close under our nose. A modern Shakespearean barb (no pun intended), you might say. He is not heartless - he's simply confidently daring. I came out of "The Shape of Things" determined to see LaBute's 1998 "Your Friends and Neighbors." It turns out not as cutting as "The Shape of Things." In hind sight, LaBute actually brings out the humor of it all - making us look at how couples behave and treat each other and friends, and neighbors - ourselves, in truth.

Paul Rudd is malleably perfect as Adam. He is so amiable and 'nudgeably' stripped bare, so to speak. Gretchen Mol and Fred Weller as Jenny and Phillip are the complementing foils being Adam's close friends - reactions as expected.

You might think there's no match to LaBute's trilogy: In the Company Men (1997); Your Friends and Neighbors; The Shape of Things. But I think w-d Patrick Stettner's 2001 "The Business of Strangers" has the intensity and acrimony from the women's point of view - the pairing of Stockard Channing and Julia Stiles is fascinating to watch; Fred Weller was the target opposite sex involved. The French film "Read My Lips" (Sur mes lèvres, 2001) from director Jacques Audiard did remind me of "In the Company of Men" - they both included a woman character with hearing loss. Audiard weaves an exciting substantial tale of intrigue, suspense and action, too; Emmanuelle Devos' Carla is absolutely captivating to watch, and her chemistry with Vincent Cassel steadily sizzles.

Neil LaBute's written & directed films are mostly cerebral and plenty of verbal exchanges. If you appreciate such and the pairing of Weisz and Rudd, go for it. Be prepared to have an open mind. Judge not and you shall enjoy the ensemble creativeness of it all. Alternatives: try "Nurse Betty" (2000) which he directed; with Renée Zellweger, Morgan Freeman, Greg Kinnear and co. "Possession" (2002) which he co-scripted and directed; with Gwyneth Paltrow and Aaron Eckhart, Jeremy Northam and Jennifer Ehle.

boring and dumb

[smeierhofer · 1/10 · 16 November 2003]

Basically the movie is a series of 1-on-1 conversations which in itself wouldn't make the movie uninteresting except that the conversations are uninteresting and go on and on. On top of uninteresting scenes, the whole story is pretty dumb. Although, I'll admit, if you see it with a date, you'll have something to talk about afterwards.

Manipulation at its finest!

[GOWBTW · 9/10 · 15 October 2005]

All I can say about this movie that it's all about art, right? Maybe, it's all that anyone can say in their own point of view. Here you got an art student(Rachel Weisz) who meets a meek man name Adam(Paul Rudd). These two hook up, they talk about art, meets his two friends, then the fun really begins. When the meek Adam hangs with Evelyn, the disaster is ready in the making. After a full transformation, Adam is the talk of the town, in all ways. Mostly, Evelyn gets her way in which everyone in town gets the word. So in my word, what's next? This movie has a great cast, a superb plot and a terrific outcome that you wouldn't find in any other movie I've seen. Sometimes you gotta beware who your friends are, some will be helpful, some will be self centered, and there are those who will say anything who would help themselves. Evelyn was as cold as the catch of the day and anyone would paint a picture perfect detail of everything she did. This movie deserve an A!

Not quite the gripping and seductive tale of deception it wants to be but it's an interesting and constantly mysterious character piece.

[johnnyboyz · 6/10 · 6 December 2008]

Within The Shape of Things lies a quite tragic tale of phoney romance, threatened friendship, manipulation and temptation – they are strong ingredients that wouldn't go amiss in a serious or a 'proper' coming of age film, either that or a neo-noir of some sort. The ideas and ingredients behind the film are interesting but the most annoying thing about it all is that it didn't feel like it all came together in the manner I wanted it to in this film. By the end I felt frustrated and disappointed; not with the film but with a lot of the character's actions – the payoff to do with human beings as works of art transformed from one thing to another whiffs of a ball of clay being moulded into a masterpiece of the human form; but on a dramatic level it just didn't work for me and it's interesting to note that a lot of the dramatic scenes that do work happen much earlier in the film.

But I suppose the thrill is always in the chase or at least in the 'getting there'. The scenes revolving around who's lying and who's telling the truth; who's having affairs with who and what everyone's priorities are when it comes to friendships are the most interesting ones in the film, the finale is merely the thread that sews everything together and proves it is possible to mature as a person through interaction with other people – would lead character Adam Sorenson (Rudd) have had a fling with another woman in the film had he not met Evelyn Ann Thompson (Weisz) in the first place? Would he have had the confidence to engage with her in the manner he did? Probably not, but the manner in which we can visually see Adam prior to meeting Evelyn and the manner in which he dresses post the meeting means we can work it out for ourselves; without the dénouement.

So Adam is a part time security guard working in a gallery; a student with what we have to assume to be a maximum of two friends in Phillip (Weller) and Jenny (Mol). But it is at work where he meets Evelyn, a girl with strong beliefs and a great deal of passion towards art as a whole and it is her passion for art that acts as the catalyst for the study of the film, that being Adam's moulding which is supposed to be a work of art in itself. The Shape of Things is a film that lasts a little over an hour and a half but only ever spans about a half dozen locations and contains a cast of about four people. In this sense, the film is an achievement because it remains somewhat engaging on a character driven level as there isn't anything else to distract it from its study. When I found out after viewing it that it was based on a play penned by the same director, I could really see the link between stage and screen and how a lot of the scenes in the film might work as a simplistic, 'cut to the chase dialogue', driven piece with only the people that matter.

But this is all I can give the film credit for bar the feint drama that evolves to do with: who's lying to who and who's having an affair with who and blah, blah, blah that occurs at random points throughout. Truth is Rachael Weisz does not come across as the seductive femme fatale I think director LaBute was looking for any more than she does a strong and independent young woman who just happens to take an interest in art. I think it is more down to Adam's naivety that she gets what she wants out of him and perhaps his own lack of exposure to the opposite sex in the first place that gets him where he goes. One minute Adam is wearing glasses and a 'nerdy' jumper that hindered his and Phillip's attempts to pull women years before; the next he has shed it all and is on the brink of getting nose jobs but while this study, or at least 'idea', of an individual doing something through the blindness of love is apparent, it just doesn't work on a dramatic level mostly due to the speed of which events progress.

Evelyn's plan is to do with shaping someone from one thing into another; she needs two things to work in her favour for this to happen: firstly, Adam needs to have had minimal contact with the opposite sex in order for her to come across as quite alluring and secondly, Adam needs to have kept a journal of events in his life. Subtract these two things, especially the second point, and you don't have a film. The notion is highlighted by Evelyn's inability to communicate or indeed get along with Adam's egotistical friend Phillip who doesn't fall into either of these boundaries.

These plot contrivances are the essence of the idea and although I don't know an awful lot about the stage or stage performances, they are not really cut out for inclusion in a film and consequently aid in the diminished atmosphere when the twist is revealed – rather than grip us and force us into thinking how events got to this point, the twist lets loose the grip the film may have had on us somewhat and consequently falls minutely flat. To make matters a little more disappointing, the film deems necessary to include a whispered sentence from one character to another from earlier on in the piece which, I feel, is supposed to paper over whatever cracks the finale plus twist may have brought – it is the maker's get out of jail card just in case the finale falls flat on certain viewers and it doesn't work. The film as a whole, however, does work but only just about.

One of the worst films I have ever seen!

[bubsnews · 1/10 · 28 January 2006]

Just watched this last night (I'm in the process of adding all the Focus Features films to my collection and my wife and I both like Gretchen Mol), what a huge disappointment.

This is quite possibly one of the worst 10 films I have ever seen, and I've seen a lot of films. The acting is atrocious, nothing redeeming at all, maybe Mol and Weisz. I blame most of this on the author, he just never gives them anything intelligent to say. Rudd's acting was awful and Weller's a complete joke.

For those claiming at least the ending was surprising, give me a break! You could see this one coming a mile away. The scene in the doctors office waiting for the nose job was the last straw.

This movie was painful to watch.

Also, I don't like when reviewers who have a 'vested interest' in those involved with the movie, bombard us with their biased opinions.

Avoid at all costs, trust me. If I had only one word to describe this movie, it "SUCKED".

George -bub