The Shape of Things with Rachel Weisz?
 

Anyone seen this movie?

I taped it on HBO.

I wanted Paul Rudd to punch Rachel's lights out in the end.


The ending kind of sucked.

Ending was

I loved it.

This movie fascinated me to no end (and I've seen ITCOM). I really loved the way the film was shot, especially Rachel Weisz. Very few shots have her center frame. Rather, she is off to the side of the frame or shot from a non-standard? angle. This movie is all-around fantastic. I figure it will gain some notoriety in the home video market.

Here's a review I wrote about it a while back. A little conflicted about it but it was definitely thought-provoking:

‘The Shape Of Things’
This may well be the worst ‘first-date’ movie ever.
“The Shape Of Things,” written and directed by indie filmmaker Neil LaBute (“The Company of Men,” “Nurse Betty”), starts off as what appears to be a fluffy romantic comedy. But it mutates and changes as it goes, flipping over into the dark side by the end. If you’re expecting a Meg Ryan movie, it’ll make you cringe.
And that makes it stick, in its twisted little way.
Adam (Paul Rudd) is a bumbling, geeky fellow who meets sexy, quirky art student Evelyn (Rachel Weisz) at the museum he works at. They fall for each other, and it’s true love — although Evelyn isn’t quite satisfied with Adam’s sense of style. She gets him to spruce up his wardrobe and his haircut, and soon, the changes come in even deeper ways. In the end, Adam is going to learn something startling about the true “shape of things.”
This movie’s ambitious, I’ll give it that. It’s a challenging debate on sexual roles, with some painfully raw scenes that will have delicate watchers squirming in their seats. It’s hard to talk about it without giving away the ending, but if gender politics are your bag, it’ll provide plenty of ammunition for discussion.
But after a while, the claustrophobic and stilted rhythms of “Shape” can wear you down. It’s based on director LaBute’s stage play, and LaBute hasn’t quite opened it up enough in the transition to film. Perhaps that’s his intention, but some of the scenes come off as long and static dialogues.
To LaBute’s praise, however, I didn’t even realize there were only four credited acting roles in the film until near the end. Much of the dialogue pops and sizzles, and often the film is reminiscent of David Mamet’s equally language-loving work.
In a movie like this, it’s all down to the actors. Weisz is magnificent, a panther-like, unforgettable woman, alternatively alluring and frightening. She holds the screen every time she’s on it, and it’s good to see this gifted actress getting roles better than “The Mummy” series. As her object of affection, Rudd is able and quite likable — although due to the nature of his character, he’s a little passive.
“Shape” is thought-provoking and smartly written, but it’s also slightly poisonous. Whatever you think of it, you won’t stop thinking about it right away. And that’s probably the point.

Yes, I like the shape of her "things" :D

For those that liked this movie, see. "Love Stinks" with that _____ French guy from 3rd rock from the sun, and Bridgette Wilson. Bill Bellamy is in it too, and the movie plays out like a twisted sequel to "How To Be a Player". Love Stinks is more light-hearted yet more misogynistic, but very enjoyable, and it has Bridgette Wilson looking hot in every scene. It also had one of the best twists in a movie ever.

What's unfortunate about the film version versus the theatrical 'Play' incarnation of the story is that LaBute really doesn't do the play version any justice, the film's ending is so specific and gives the impression that film audiences need to be dumbed down to. The 'Play' version is more vague and effective.

I saw the play w/ the same cast in NYC a few years ago & the story works MUCH better as a play. It's very stagnant as a film but I love the play. I think Rachel Weisz is amazing in both & one of the most beautiful women alive.

and the 'play' featured a great loud soundtrack of Smashing Pumpkins songs which is well integrated into the storyline

Paul Rudd was one person away from me in the audience/lecture scene.

so what's the ending?

well for starters,

This movie made me really angry and it felt like it was a waste of time. I thought this was going to be somewhat of a romantic comedy with smart writing but I was wrong. However, Paul Rudd did a great job.

What was the thing she "whispered" into his ear as referenced in the end?

I just watched this and am wondering the same thing. I assume that the whisper part was when they had had sex the first time. Anyway, any insight would be appreciated.

This was an awesome movie. Loved the script and the performances. Weisz certainly has come a long way since her blank and bland Chain Reaction/Stealing Beauty days. The kind of movie that's like salt to Michael Bay's slug.

Were the four leads the only ones with speaking parts? I don't remember.

The same thing Bill Murray said to Scarlett Johansson?

The contents of the briefcase in Pulp Fiction?

What the Rabbit's Foot is?

I loved this movie. And Neil LaBute is a smart writer, he clearly had different intentions for the movie than for the play. The ending in the film is effective, but goes for a different effect than the play.

this is one of those movies where a commentary track from LaBute would have been fascinating for the DVD.

awesome movie, i agree, i wish a commentary track were available. i wish i saw the play.

anyone with ideas of what she whispered in bed?

and can someone more clearly describe how the ending was in the play?