The Shape of Things (2003)

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Just what I expected

Best movie ever!

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

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.

Has anyone ever told you a long involved joke that ends in a very weak punch line? You thought, "That story wasn't worth the time it took. It might have been a little funny if it hadn't taken so long." That's how this movie is, except it takes nearly two hours to get the equivalent realization. Even more the pity because the movie is a very good setup to probe an intriguing question: Not, how important is honesty in art, but how important is honesty in the creation of art? As it is, the middle of the movie is way too long for the ultimate point it is trying to make and somewhat frustrating because this big implied question is left unaddressed. It's a sophomoric let down, one of those movies where you get to the end and ask yourself, "That's it?" Neil LaBute fans will like this movie in any case, plus Rachel Weisz makes any movie better.

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.

LaBute doesn't like people, either his characters or his audiences. He does like to shock with a tale of cold-hearted sadism, manipulation,& degradation. All four characters & the audience are degraded. You wind up hating her. A sensationally cold calculating feminist monster. But she is not real.A one off deliberately created to shock by the male writer.It is rare for a couple to have repeated sex without affection.It is one of the tricks biology plays on us to ensure the survival of the species.It's why some men fall in love with hookers. The film's notions of the morality of artists are more than somewhat jaundiced. As Damien Hirst says "Life is more important than art".It is incongruent that she is so upset by the fig leaf & the quest for artistic "truth" yet blacks her victims face out while publicly humiliating him. An ugly & dispiriting film. It does make you think, but that is because she is so lacking in any human warmth as to be unbelievable & monstrous.