What makes it different from others?

Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

I don't think I have ever written a review on here, but felt compelled to for the waste of 97 minutes. Unless you are looking for the one last straw that will push you over the edge and give you the motivation you need to kill yourself, don't watch this movie. The movie is the quintessential example of artists (in this case the writer/director) who, like Weiss' character, are so delusional that they think because they change something they have made art. The irony is that anyone who can rationally think and empathize will arrive at the end and despise Weiss' character for being exactly what the director is. Just because you *can* do something does not mean you *should* do something. With so many things, maybe the reason no one has done it before is because everyone else realized it was a horrible idea. Weiss never learns that in the movie, the director unfortunately didn't learn it before making this, and Focus films apparently has managed to stay in business without grasping the fact either. People who cannot create amazing art apparently create crap and then spend their time in Art Philosophy class so they can teach themselves how to try and rationalize and convince the world that they are somehow on par with those that actually have talent. The world would be better off if they just stayed working at Blockbuster and hating their lives by themselves instead of being dark clouds on the world.

I was a little disappointed with this as a movie. I believe it would be wonderful to see as a stage production. However, after reading a few of Neil LaBute's plays, I've found that only a fair few absolutely need to be translated into a screen adaptation. Take, for example, Reasons to Be Pretty. It's an excellent play, but how can you sell a movie based on the idea that a man said something about his girlfriend that might have been taken offensively? The Shape of Things is somewhat similar in the problem of being translated to the screen. A large portion of the film seems to be going nowhere until the climax takes over. Granted, it's an excellent climax that speaks wonders about human nature and the nature of relationships, as well as our fascination with the surface of things, the shape of them. It warrants repeat viewings, yes, but there's something about the extremely long rising action that kind of pushed me away. Like Reasons to Be Pretty, it seems to be built on too small of an idea to be made into a film. Still, for the most part, and in both cases, the movie is largely enjoyable. My only problem with the film was that Fred Weller occasionally seems to be overacting. Either that, or Evelyn is right when she says that Adam doesn't need someone like that in his life. It's hard for me to see any real connection between Phil and Adam, regardless of the fact that they were roommates. It's also hard for me to see how someone as nice and friendly as Jenny could be engaged to Phil. That problem aside, the film is definitely worth watching. Rachel Weisz is definitely the highlight here. Evelyn's character is fascinating, even moreso after the climax. Paul Rudd and Gretchen Mol are both excellent in their roles. Like I said, Fred Weller seems to be overacting on occasion, but this could perhaps be his character. Regardless, the film is good. For an climax as great as it is, I would have liked a better rising action, but I can overlook that. I'll warn you that a large part of the film is dialogue-driven, but if that doesn't sound off any alarms, you'll be in for a treat.

While it's very dialogue-heavy (the nature of being written as a play first, movie second), "The Shape of Things" is a story with the premise of a romance, but plays out like a drama. While there is a good amount of humor in script, it is an ensemble-driven drama that is told through the interactions between the four characters. With all the same actors from his stage version, Neil LaBute has found a way to not only address image and deception in his film, but also with his audience."Shape" begins when Adam (Rudd) meets Evelyn (Weisz) when he's on his shift at a museum and she's threatening to vandalize a statue to make a statement. When the two become involved and Adam introduces her to his friends, Adam begins a sudden transformation and it changes and affects himself and his relationship with his friends Phil (Weller) and Jenny (Mol).An ensemble-driven drama needs great characters and great actors to make the dialogue really work and be believable. Weisz gives easily the best performance in the film. Her range and technique in a role that demands a lot of it seems a great fit for her. She likely won't be in many more films of this caliber. Rudd is also outstanding, demonstrating comedy is not his only strong suit. He brings an honesty and believability that fits his character perfectly. His scene with Mol's character is superb as both really work the inner-monologue."Shape" is very much a play. While LeBute does some good things with the camera, anyone expecting a film with things actually happening will be left bored. "Shape" is a story that requires thinking. That said, it's really good at that. Excellent storytelling is storytelling with layers of meaning and ideas to consider. Through the last 20 minutes of "Shape," everything will suck you in completely and make all your story-intaking senses go numb. The choice to make it a movie only seems to give the story broader exposure.

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.