The Shape of Things (2003)

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.

This is one of those movies that stops and you say, "You're kidding, that's the end?" Apparently, this was first a play, which shows in several overly-long scenes. But, even if I had seen this on stage, I would have been unhappy with the abruptness of the ending. I can handle ambiguous endings. In fact, many of my favorite films just sort of trail off, but this movies takes a very long time setting up an admittedly dramatic situation . . . and then just stops. Where's the rest of the story? There really should have been a more fully developed Act III or at the very least an epilogue. Since the movie has neither, it comes off as a one-trick pony, or worse yet, a cruel joke on the audience. I cannot recommend this one.

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.

There is not much that is really thought provoking here. Mostly I see posters having violent reactions to the questionable 'morality' of this film, airing their gender driven grievances or arguing endlessly about 'truth and art'. Basically this film is a pretty transparent and misanthropic diatribe vs gender relationships that focuses almost exclusively on the power struggles that happen within them. There is a lot more to interpersonal relationships than this, but LaBute doesn't seem to know that.Clearly LaBute hates artists, or at least performance artists. And he wants us to hate them too. That is why Evelyn is such a shallow, self-important poser. We are allowed to see only a superficial caricature. What makes her tick besides a chilly artistic ambition, remains a mystery to us, because he has made sure that there is nothing else there. A little teary eyed discomfort in the last scene is not going to rescue Evelyn's humanity. It's a case of too little too late, cheesy and hypocritical. LaBute is the bad artist here, trying to manipulate our perception of this woman-as-artist, by taking away our ability to see her as an actualized person. So physical attractiveness empowers people, and as with any other form of power, it can challenge their fallibility, making them prone to abuse of it. Especially poor saps like Adam who have no prior experience of the potential moral pitfalls. Is this searingly insightful? Is this news? To anyone? Who hasn't, at one time or another been the victim of, or employer of this kind of power? This is an easy button to push. Do you feel manipulated yet? This is a very petty kind of misanthropy. If you are going to despise your fellow humans, at least do so for imposing war, greed, starvation, slavery, torture on one another. But despising them for trying to muddle their way through the pitfalls of gender relationships, and trying to manipulate your audience into jumping on that bandwagon seems absurdly small-minded to me.