|
|
Post by Bartwald on May 18, 2004 11:52:36 GMT -5
Here we go again! And this time the movie is controversial for two reasons: some people like it, some people hate it - that's a must to get to our poll - but it's also a shocker for all Meg Ryan fans, as this is the flick where they finally get to have a glance at what was so far hidden under Meg's blouse.
This time though, I ain't gonna be defending the movie in question.
GOOD THINGS:
- good actors (but in crap roles),
- Meg's courage - or whatever you call it,
- good final five minutes,
- pretty photography.
BAD THINGS:
- crap roles (for all those good actors),
- no erotic tension at all,
- no any other kind of tension at all,
- no surprises,
- not much plot
- dialogues worth shit.
So... anyone was tempted to see it? Anyone actually did see it? Please confess!
|
|
|
|
Post by ZapRowsdower on May 18, 2004 15:57:45 GMT -5
I can't really form a valid opinion on this movie, because I've only seen about 45 minutes of it. What I saw of it wasn't bad, it just wasn't good either. It didn't seem to go anywhere. I like what they did with the cameras, but in all, it just seemed like a porno that they tried to put a story in...
And Meg Ryan ain't that bad for an old chick.
No opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on May 19, 2004 13:16:20 GMT -5
I can't really form a valid opinion on this movie, because I've only seen about 45 minutes of it. What I saw of it wasn't bad, it just wasn't good either. It didn't seem to go anywhere. Yesss: that's the problem with this movie! It goes nowhere for most of its running time, and when it finally starts going somewhere (near the end, in fact) I the viewer stop caring about it at all! |
|
|
|
Post by dwpollar on Jun 1, 2004 0:57:09 GMT -5
I have to disagree with the opinions so-far about "In the Cut." This was a deep movie, in my opinion because it was more than just a Meg Ryan flick, more than just a thriller(as it has been advertised in video stores), and more than a sex movie(although it does have sex). As I said in my review on IMDB, the movie basically is about people who can't seem to get anything good out of life although they struggle through it just as hard as others who receive a lot with very little sweat & tears. The great thing about this movie is that it overcame the hype(Meg's 1st nude scene) and became it's own movie with or without Meg and her flesh-revealing. The flesh-revealing was also not done like, here I am, I'm Meg Ryan look at me instead it was done in character as we may see the woman in real life. I realize that my opinion is only 1 opinion but Jane Campion was the creator of this movie not Meg Ryan and she is known for controversial european-like movies made right here in the good old USA and I hope she keeps doing movies that create controversy because of their story and candidness not because a cutesy girl who everybody likes bares it all.
Later,
dwpollar
|
|
|
|
Post by Michele on Sept 12, 2004 22:31:17 GMT -5
Oops, I screwed up by voting on this. I have not seen this flick and by "bravest role" I was thinking of the part she played in a flick with Robert Downey, Jr. as a madwoman. I thought that was her bravest role, and that she was very good in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Sept 12, 2004 22:39:56 GMT -5
I think you were thinking of RESTORATION. I haven't seen it, but I know that it stars both Downey Jr. & Ryan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michele on Sept 12, 2004 22:50:29 GMT -5
Yes, RESTORATION, that's it! Not that great of a movie in my opinion (drags on) but I must say Meg Ryan did a character that shocked me -- to have her doing it, and to have her do it so well.
|
|
|
|
Post by spacer on Nov 5, 2004 8:52:43 GMT -5
I agree with most opinions presented by dwpollar. It was a deep movie, yes it was much more than just a Meg Ryan flick, and definitely not a thriller, and more than a sex movie. But I don't agree that the main merit is that it is "about people who can't seem to get anything good out of life although they struggle through it just as hard as others who receive a lot with very little sweat & tears". The great thing about this movie is surely Meg's 1st nude scene. And Yes,Yes,Yes it was't not done like" here I am, I'm Meg Ryan look at me" but as you said it was done in character as we may see the woman in real life. The candidness is the great advantage of this flick. But what I think was the best in it was that that flick was completely different from plentifully made mainstream films. And everything that was declared as bad and lame in this movie is in reality a great virtue of it  Yes the plot is slow but it creates the unique dreamlike atmosphere in which the thriller elements are essentially not important. It was not important to me to learn who killed who but the way the main protagonist and the policeman percieved the outer world. That is why I marked it as perfect.  |
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on Nov 5, 2004 13:23:11 GMT -5
Perfect?!! My, what Meg's nipples do to some people...  |
|
|
|
Post by spacer on Nov 17, 2004 6:46:18 GMT -5
You mean I got blinded by her tits ;D Not at all  , I wasn't that close to the screen |
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on Nov 20, 2004 5:06:50 GMT -5
You think I'm going to believe that, spacer? |
|
|
|
Post by Termination on Dec 14, 2004 12:34:00 GMT -5
Finally watched this last night. The story to me seemed to be romance that wasn't there, suspense that wasn't there, motive that wasn't there. The film need these 3 elements to be strong in order for In The Cut to be a really successful film. I liked the supporting cast as well as Meg's performace. If you throw any other non-famous actress in that role, those sex scenes would probably go un-noticed. Kevin Bacon was a surprise to see. I watched Marc Ruffalo in another picture which too me seemed like this guy isn't a good actor or not that great an actor. Well I was definitely surpised by his acting performance. Aside from Meg Ryans courage in doing those sex scenes, out of the bed, her acting in the film really wasn't anything special. The theme this film needed was more musical score & or stronger motive or ending. Is it even present during the film? barely, I didn't notice & because of that I give the film 3/5 stars. 1 star for Meg's performance, 1 star for Mark's & 1 star for the supporting cast. I would of given this film 5/5: 1 star for musical score, 1 star for excellent motive, or ending, but they were not present.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on Dec 14, 2004 14:42:47 GMT -5
Kevin Bacon was a surprise to see. That is true! I liked his crazy character a lot! |
|
|
|
Post by Phoenix on Dec 28, 2004 23:27:09 GMT -5
I watched this movie on Showtime only because I saw it was directed by Jane Campion, who directed The Piano, one of my favorite art house type films. WOAH! Was this movie different. Same feminism, different era and style. Still emphasis on relationships, but the murder-mix made for a strange film. AND I hadn't read this thread so I wasn't expecting the full frontal Meg Ryan. Campion has a way with getting her leading ladies to undress! I say it's not bad, but the pacing is definitely slow and tension between the two leads was poor. I think that is Ruffalo was a poor choice...he's not exactly a 'passionate' actor. His lines were read very flat. Doubt I'd see it again, and doubt I'd recommend it to anyone. I do love Campion's directing style though. |
|
, I wasn't that close to the screen 
