AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
6,6/10
12 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Adicionar um enredo no seu idiomaA quiet, unassuming man begins to change in a major way as a result of meeting a new, art-student girlfriend, and his friends are unsettled by the transformation.A quiet, unassuming man begins to change in a major way as a result of meeting a new, art-student girlfriend, and his friends are unsettled by the transformation.A quiet, unassuming man begins to change in a major way as a result of meeting a new, art-student girlfriend, and his friends are unsettled by the transformation.
- Prêmios
- 1 indicação no total
Avaliações em destaque
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.
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!
Neil Labute's shocker is nothing short of breathtaking with amazing performance by Rachel Weisz who is becoming the best actress we have around. The story is intense and the performance is great all around, and it will floor you once you finish seeing it. The biggest praise goes to Rachel Weisz, who single handily makes this movie as great as it is, and she carries this film on her shoulders all the way. Her performance is a tight rope of nerves and guts, and she does it all with style.
If you are looking for an intelligent movie with a great and fearless performance by one of the best actresses of our generation, this is it. If you can't take reality, then go hide under a rock.
If you are looking for an intelligent movie with a great and fearless performance by one of the best actresses of our generation, this is it. If you can't take reality, then go hide under a rock.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesWas originally a play starring Paul Rudd and Rachel Weisz, which played in London in the summer of 2001.
- Erros de gravaçãoIn the park scene where Adam and Jenny kiss, Adam's nose looks normal, but at this point he hasn't had the surgery yet. The surgery happens in the next scene.
- Trilhas sonorasLover's Walk
Written by Elvis Costello
Performed by Elvis Costello and The Attractions
Courtesy of Demon Music Group, Ltd., by Elvis Costello
By Arrangement with Rhino Entertainment Co. and Warner Special Products
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is The Shape of Things?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- Países de origem
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- The Shape of Things
- Locações de filme
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- US$ 4.000.000 (estimativa)
- Faturamento bruto nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 735.992
- Fim de semana de estreia nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 173.246
- 11 de mai. de 2003
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 826.617
- Tempo de duração1 hora 36 minutos
- Cor
- Mixagem de som
- Proporção
- 2.35 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente