In the Cut

Many people out there do not understand the difference between the Best Picture and Best Director Oscar. After all, if the director is responsible for making sure all the elements mix well together, then surely Best Director should be the same as Best Picture? Well that is not quite the case, as far as I understand it. The writing of the film, or the story itself, is at least the main thing that a director does not have complete control of. There are other elements too of course. But the reason why it is so hard to explain the difference to people is that it is rare to come across a film that is well directed but nothing much else. However, 'In the Cut' is an example of such a film. The plot is a thriller about some serial killer who is killing young women. Sound familiar yet? However there is a (pseudo) erotic romance involved too. Our protagonist is an outgoing female, but yet one with weaknesses. The storyline revolves around a primarily sexual relationship that she starts with a detective investigating the case, however all along she suspects that he is the killer, because she saw someone with the same tattoo receiving oral sex from one of the murder victims. I won't reveal the rest of the plot, which may sound slightly original, but yet I can reassure you it is quite hackneyed in the execution. The film is based on a novel written by Susannah Moore, which I am yet to read, and after seeing the film adaptation, I am in no mood to. Campion takes to writing the screenplay, but helped along by Moore. In 1993, Campion did a superb job writing 'The Piano', for which she received a well-deserved Oscar. The characters in the film were all interesting and well developed, and the story was no difficulty to understand. It was also quite original. The material for this movie however revolves around a familiar plot that has a thriller element. More time in the script is dedicated therefore towards the thriller – and romance – aspects of the story, and less towards the drama. That's not to say that the characters are poorly developed or anything, but it does not help. The main problem with the writing of the film is the story itself. It has so many familiar elements and at times it is predictable and clichéd. The acting is not much better than ordinary either. Ryan has a few good moments, but is often over-the-top. The rest of the cast is, well, satisfactory, but nothing special, give or take Kevin Bacon. However Bacon's character is perhaps the most questionable one of the lot. So if the writing and acting in the film is ordinary, can it be a great film? Not really. How then, one might wonder, is it well directed? Campion is a very good director. She knows exactly how to direct a film to give it the right atmosphere and make it look good. In the Cut is one of the best-looking thrillers I've seen of this decade. As in 'The Portrait of a Lady', Campion demonstrates an acute eye for colour and light in the film. The execution is very polished. On a surface level it does not look like a cheap Hollywood film. It does not look like a vehicle for Ryan or any of her co-stars. Kudos especially goes to Campion's vision of the flashbacks used in the film, which are reminiscent of the vignettes Kidman's worldwide voyages in 'The Portrait of a Lady'. Even Campion's use of black and white aids the visual style. This is certainly one of the most unique films I have come across, but I don't say that in an overly positive manner. It is a very good-looking film, and ignoring camera angles and editing techniques, it still looks very solid on a visual scope. There is plenty to admire about Campion's direction of the film, but under this polished surface that Campion has created lies an ordinary, predictable, clichéd and only semi-interesting thriller. It is a film worth seeing to admire Campion's craft as a director, but the film is otherwise rather unrewarding, though it surely will still keep one watching until maybe the last ten minutes.

Meg, we know you can play serious roles. Flesh and Bone was very good, but why this Looking for Mr. Goodbar redivus. What a piece of trash; even my soulmate, who dotes on Meg, could not stand this convoluted story where the evildoer could have been anyone: the detective, his partner, the young black student [that would not be PC], Mr. Meg Ryan or his little dog too. That ugly creature at least had a reason, since Frances/Meg did not want to take him for the weekend. Since a killer was needed, the writers went back to Sea of Love and grabbed the sidekick. Hmmmm, there's a lighthouse on the sidekick's desk, so we should know the thrilling conclusion will take place in one. We know this too because Frances is teaching her students about V. Wolff. It's obvious, isn't it? Surely all those messages Frances kept reading on the subway, on city walls and every other place in between were clues. The first time, okay, but after that these only marked spots where the writers ran out of ideas. Next time, read some Baudelaire, Frances, and in French so we can't understand it. Why doesn't this board have a zero rating?

Did not expect much from a "non comedy" Meg Ryan movie. Watched it frankly because I am a Mark Ruffalo fancier. I was rewarded on both counts. More explicit than expected but more Mark for me... I believe this movie did more for Meg Ryan than a dozen of her romantic comedies. She showed some acting gumption that should keep her in good stead, I hope. Mark Ruffalo is reliably charismatic, albeit not having enough viewing time in 'Collateral'. They were both very open to nudity but I suspect Meg Ryan did not do ALL of hers. Regardless, this is a very satisfying movie and recommend it to all those, fans of her or him. Bravo!

This was dreadful. I had high hopes for this film, because I'm a big fan of Meg Ryan's acting abilities - she's very good. And indeed, it's not her that I fault for this travesty of a movie - the part they gave her was awful. I wasn't shocked by this movie, it wasn't 'too edgy' for me, it was just pointless. I spent the whole thing hoping it was going to improve and trying to give it the benefit of the doubt, but it started out pretty ordinary and continued to be that way for the whole picture. It was dark for the sake of being dark, Meg's character was really badly overwritten and by the end of the film I really couldn't give a crap if a nuclear weapon suddenly went off and killed everyone involved. In fact, that might have been a better way to go. There was just no substance - it was all about trying to be edgy and dangerous, but without some real meat to base that on, all you have is a second rate picture with poor lighting and a bad script. Overall, a disappointment. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone.

SPOILER ALERT! I'll freely admit to not being a fan of Meg Ryan's, and I was more than a little surprised to discover that she can act and act very well. And I like Jane Campion. But this was one of the most tedious films to come my way in years. There was no sustained tension to speak of, no humor to break up the monotony, no likable characters, just a few pointless and really tiresome sex scenes scattered throughout a terrible story with lots and lots of talk about sex. And what's with Meg Ryan's long walk to Manhattan from the lighthouse, across the George Washington Bridge while she's drunk, covered with blood? After the anticlimax of her killing the murderer, her struggle to get home on her own -- exhausted, drunk, emotionally devastated by the last 12 hours -- struck me as just completely stupid.

Some movies are so bad one sticks with them to see just how awful things will become. "In The Cut" does not disappoint. The story is so convoluted and murky it is impossible to follow. Although we have learned to tolerate one mandatory humping scene in most modern movies, this film has them one lingering copulation after another, each reaching new depths of tastelessness. The dialogue is horrible and sprinkled with needless profanity and gutter language. The "creative" cinematography looks like something from an overzealous freshman film student on heroin. It is an incredibly ghastly movie which if nothing else offers eloquent proof of the depravity of the American cinema.