El secreto

Tale of long-past racing scam resurfacing to change the diverse lives of its perpetrators and victims isn't particularly subtle, with transformations and transferences flying around like abandoned betting slips, but it's very well acted by a dream cast (no less engaging for the fact that they don't all seem to be in quite the same film) and never loses its basic finesse. In its early stretches, as the pieces of the plot fall into place, the film builds a highly effective sense of escalating jeopardy, and the initial gambits on the theme of identity and impermanence are effective, leveling out a bit as thematic considerations seem to overtake the characters. Still, it has a sleek poise, and debuting director Warchus shows a distinct nose for the finish line - the film's closing scenes seem about right on their own terms, even if you're not sure about all the stuff that led you there (the horse Simpatico for instance seems ultimately to be carrying more symbolic weight than the course of the film supports).

When 5 past Oscar nominees headline a movie, naturally, one would have rather high expectations. Such is the case with `Simpatico' a high-profile drama which went by relatively un-noticed when it was released 3 or 4 years ago. But I am surprised that it only received a 4.4 rating on the IMDb. I'm not saying that the film was a classic or deserved enormous critical plaudits, but I definitely think that it deserved more than that. It is an adaptation of the stage play written by Sam Shepard. While it starts out promising, it is also surprisingly bland when it reaches the conclusion.

But the main problem is the lack of simple definition. It's hard to tell if this is a simple story, or a more complex one. It's unclear whether this is a film about friends reconciling or friends being torn apart by guilt. The film tries going both ways, but the result is a puzzling one to say the least. One thing that it avoids doing is falling into plot-holes, becoming predictable or using average movie clichés. This is done by creating thoroughly flawed but also very compelling characters that certainly aren't your average stereotypes. And they are lifted off paper by exceptional performances from the three Oscar nominated lead players.

Nick Nolte (Affliction, The Prince of Tides) gives yet another top-notch performance as the untrustworthy hobo. Jeff Bridges (The Last Picture Show, The Contender) is also very good as his polar opposite- the eccentric millionaire. About two-thirds the way through the movie, the two main character switch places for no apparent reason. It doesn't make logical sense why a millionaire would choose to live like a bum, just because someone stole his wallet. Both actors are better and more believable in their opening personas.

Sharon Stone (Casino) makes her first appearance in the movie at about the halfway mark. It's a shame she didn't appear earlier, because it's surprising how convincing she is as the rich and wrecked housewife. She's so far away from the icy sex-goddess of `Basic Instinct' it's hard to believe that this is the same actress. Albert Finney (Tom Jones, Erin Brockovich) makes great support, but Catherine Keener (Being John Malkovich) gives the blandest and most over-rated performance. Not only is her part boring and un-necessary, but she even over-acts in certain scenes.

Unfortunately, there are some evident flaws scattered around here and there. The `big twist' is uninteresting and it's ironic that Sharon Stone and Jeff Bridges are never on the screen at the same time- After all, their characters are supposed to be husband and wife! But the brilliant acting alone makes `Simpatico' qualify as a good if un-remarkable movie. The script is below average and sometimes the movie ventures into blandness, but most other aspects are good as expected. My IMDb rating: 6.1/10.

Just from reading the main cast of this, one would expect a marvelous drama. Nolte, Stone, Bridges and Finney... such grand talent in the craft of acting. The fact that the writer/director had never worked in movies before or since didn't worry me too much... The Wachowski brothers handed in first-class work the first time they tried their hand at directing, and their first script... well, OK, but they've later redeemed themselves for that turkey. The cinematography is not unique, but it has moments. The editing is much the same... effective at times, but rarely breaks away from the norm. The plot is fair... it develops nicely throughout, providing the back-story and evolving throughout. The pacing is OK. The acting is pretty good, I didn't really find any performances to be lacking. I think my main issue was that I could simply not understand why the people acted like they did, for the majority of the film. I never anticipated their actions, I never followed their motivation and got to the conclusions that they did. Also, the themes and ideas seem to be nothing more than side-notes... none are explored with much effort. All in all, I found this to be a decent-looking film with sufficiently good acting that just didn't make an awful lot of sense and didn't spend enough energy on giving the viewer anything solid, be it an idealist message or simply food for thought. I recommend this to fans of horse-racing, as it features a few very nicely shot sequences of horses, and, to a lesser extent, fans of the actors and possibly those who know the play(as I don't know it myself, I wouldn't be able to tell you if this were a good translation or not). 5/10

Somewhere buried deep inside the mess that is `Simpatico' there lurk the makings of a pretty decent little love story. Unfortunately, one would have to eliminate pretty much the entire main storyline and all the major characters in order to find it.

This tale of `three people caught in a web of their own making' is so thoroughly inept, overwrought and inconsequential that it seems more like a parody of film noir than a serious entry in the genre. The crime that these three people perpetrated in their youth – the one that keeps coming back to haunt them in their approaching middle-age - seems a piddling one at best for a film of this type. An even more serious problem is that the three lead performers seem stuck in roles that have come to define their métier as actors. Nick Nolte, for instance, plays his customary down-and-out, barely-teetering-on-the-edge-of-sanity middle aged loser whose capricious nature makes him forever a threat to the security of the group, while Jeff Bridges portrays the common sense, constantly put-upon ringleader who just wants to forget all about the past but who has a hard time keeping a leash on the unpredictable Nolte. Sharon Stone completes the trio as Bridges' now moody, alcoholic wife – a pale imitation of her much more meaty role in Martin Scorcease's `Casino.' Stone's over-the-top thespian simpering reduces the (fortunately) few scenes she is in to the level of unintentional high comedy. Moreover, in their attempt to provide a dual level structure to their tale – crosscutting scenes of the past with scenes of the present – the filmmakers have been forced to employ actors who look nothing like their contemporary counterparts. The result is, initially, confusing and, ultimately, quite ludicrous.

What is most strange about `Simpatico' is that, while the story itself fizzles and the audience could care less what happens to these three whining, puling, muking central characters, writer/director Matthew Warchus and co-author David Nicholls somehow manage to create a back story and two minor characters who engage both our sympathy and our interest. These come in the form of the always splendid Albert Finney as the man our intrepid band of halfwit con men managed to entrap into an extortion scheme twenty years earlier, and the charming Catherine Keener as the highly principled grocery store cashier who finds herself unwittingly a pawn in Bridges' plot to rein Nolte in. Finney and Keener provide so much warmth and humanity in their few scenes together that we find ourselves regretting that the film does not revolve around them entirely. Wisely, after we wheeze our way through all the hullabaloo and nonsense necessary to bring the main plot to its ludicrous conclusion, Warchus closes the film with a coda focused on these two winning characters. The finale, in some inexplicable way, seems more like a beginning than an ending and we find ourselves wanting to see what happens to this offbeat, likeable couple. By wasting our time concentrating on the Nolte/Bridges/Stone triumvirate of insipidity, the filmmakers end up making us feel even more resentful in the long run. Like the victims of the trio's racetrack shenanigans, we feel robbed!

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.