ametaphysicalshark Until I watched "The Shape of Things" a few hours ago my only exposure to acclaimed modern playwright Neil LaBute were a few clips of Nicholas Cage's apparently horrible performance in LaBute's apparently abysmal remake of the unforgettable British horror classic "The Wicker Man". With my interest in theater, modern theater specifically, growing rapidly with every passing day, it was inevitable that I would sit down and watch a Neil LaBute film, one adapted from one of his own plays for the screen."The Shape of Things" is a further extension of my lucky streak with recent movie picks, as I have either really liked or loved all of my past six film viewings, and this film belongs in the latter group. A comedy so dark I felt guilty for laughing, a film so dramatically compelling and ultimately devastating that I was left literally close to tears by the end of it. It's easy to see how many could really, really hate this movie. It's cruel, misanthropic, bleak, its sense of humor is twisted, and it's really not 'fun' at all.Although I'm sure some will disagree, "The Shape of Things" is one of that rare breed of film I like to call the 'night-ruiner'. LaBute's screenplay, which is probably almost exactly the same as his original play, is a deft, clever, interesting examination of a number of things: friendship, how easily influenced we can be, how we perceive each other, the nature of art, and more, but works ultimately thanks to its emotional impact. A play (or screenplay) of this sort never amounts to anything if the characters aren't compelling and from start to finish these characters most certainly are. Adam is the lead character, played excellently by Paul Rudd in one of the more demanding roles he's taken on, and along with Gretchen Mol's character Jenny he's really the only decent character in the film. Frustratingly naive, but nice enough. All the performances are good enough for the material, and LaBute's direction is very basic but effective enough. I can definitely see how he could fail when taking on a bigger project not adapted from his own work, but I'll wait and see for myself.Sure, nobody's going to call this a masterpiece of subtlety anytime soon, but lots of great drama is in-your-face, and this is rich enough that when a character stands up and speaks to us for several minutes about some of the things the film is about it doesn't feel dumb or unnecessary, but fairly effective and interesting. There's other stuff the screenplay and the film doesn't shove in our face, and the last half hour probably works because it's so upfront about things. It's a very theatrical presentation, and probably works better in that setting, but the film is still a fast-paced, well-written, and fairly enthralling examination of human behavior and how we look at each other.

johnnyboyz 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.

e_tucker 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.

lady_jane34 Rachel shocked the heck out of me when she turned the whole story around and humiliated that poor man..i almost wanted to cry but then i almost wanted to do the same thing to my bf...hahah THe movie itself is funny an sad and deals with risking everything you have for love, which may seem like the right thing to do at the moment but when it really comes down to it, you've probably made the wrong choice...if you chose the girl or the boy over your friends...This movie makes you want to jump up after Rachel the artist flips you off with both fingers...i was actually scared she might actually jump out of the TV and said FOol You..EVeryone should watch this movie when they are feeling angry at their girlfriend or boyfriend...