Simpatico (2000)

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Truly Dreadful Film

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Matthew Warchus directed 'Simpatico' has an interesting premise, but the advantage of it's promising concept, doesn't really reflect on celluloid. Reason? The Screenplay is stretched & slightly unspoken. It offers a few interesting moments in the first hour, but the second hour doesn't offer much.'Simpatico' is a tale of betrayal, greed, vengeance & complications. Though adapted by a play, this drama begins well, but, as told before, drags itself too much towards the end, and thus, the impact goes amiss.Matthew Warchus has directed this story fairly. Cinematography is perfect. Editing is passable. Acting Wise: Nick Nolte is just about okay. Jeff Bridges is decent, while Sharon Stone gets very limited scope. Albert Finney and Catherine Keener are noticeable.On the whole, An Average Fare, At Best.

I'm surprised at the negative comments on a movie that I found, if not a favorite, somehow **important** to watch. Every character, save Catherine Keener's (Cecilia), is basically a person who is broken on some level. American audiences are so used to the Hollywood formula of clear cut good guys and bad guys and people who overcome, story lines that have clear cut endings where the good guys win and the bad guys pay, where everything makes sense in the end. This is not one of those movies and it's not the way real life is anyway. If the ending doesn't make sense in that way, it does give the impression that by the end of the movie, the characters are on the precipice of finally finding some peace in their lives even though the audience won't get to see it.Viewers complain that the story meanders or makes no sense and that they don't understand the characters. I didn't find this to be true either. They were very easy to understand and the storyline ties together past events (shown in flashbacks to their youth) and the results of their actions--guilt, relationships torn apart, **everyone** paying (not just the bad guys) while trying desperately to reconcile with themselves and one another to find that it's not so easy to do so. Rather than "meandering", I found the story to be shown in a very linear fashion and that exposition is given bit by bit until it ties together at the end.One of the complaints that I found in reviews and on the message board is how Lyle, the one that attained wealth through their shady methods, ends up quitting, walking away from his money in what appears to be an "all of a sudden" fashion. By the end of the movie, after his story is told in flashback, it made perfect sense to me that he wanted to walk away for a long time and this was finally his opportunity to grab it. His reasoning, talking to his wife on the phone, "No more %*@#! lies!" and that "it's the smell of the alfalfa" said it all. He just wanted to go back (perhaps to his youth) before all of the nightmare began and start over. Makes perfect sense. I think it's difficult for some people to comprehend that someone would choose meaning in their life over money or that there are perhaps rich people out there that may have fantasies of walking away from it all. I just don't find that hard to believe.Nick Nolte's character, Vincent, is probably the most difficult one to comprehend because his is the most screwed-up and in the most pain. Because of his actions when young, his obtuse reaction at the time to his then girlfriend (and now Lyle's wife, Rosie, played by Sharon Stone) through in what I'll call "the event that tore them all apart" and his part in it along with his clumsy and confused attempt at rectifying it with Rosie (and Simms), make his character the most uncomfortable to watch. It's not because the part is badly written or badly played (Nick Nolte plays the part to perfection). It's just because this guy is **supposed** to be uncomfortable to watch.The worst things I can say about it is that there isn't enough Sharon Stone in it. I'm not a big fan of hers but she is a dynamic actress and her character deserved more presence while most of her story is shown in flashback with a younger actress. Catherine Keener isn't given enough praise for her part because her character is the only "ordinary" and somewhat sane person in the midst of all this and so **appears** less interesting although I didn't feel it was. I think that is the purpose that that character serves--as a sort of reflection to it all. Albert Finney, as the crooked race commissioner who makes one mistake too many and loses the things that matter, is also a prize to watch. But then he always is.While this movie isn't a "pick-me-up" kind of thing, I found it intriguing.

I really don't know where to start. The characters weren't that believable at all. The development they have gone through (as you see them in their youth as well) and the development they go through during the movie just doesn't make sense to me.And the plot, you can smell something similar to a plot here and there, but that is as close as you get. The first 15-20 minutes it works, it feels like an ordinary movie. But then it just breaks down and you wonder what the message is, what the story is, what the heck this movie is supposed to convey.In summary it's a pointless flick that doesn't strike any chords in me anyway.

Nolte and Bridges are great actors and prove it again - although they are not given a script with much gusto. The story left me waiting for more and not receiving it. The movie reminded me of "Affliction" (also with Nolte) in that it is a slow-moving story more concerned with character development than actual plot. All in all not really worth the time.