In the Cut (2003) User Reviews

Mediocre film; amazing sound design and nude scene

[squirrelsatemynuts · 6/10 · 26 January 2005]

"In the Cut" features solid acting and a nice color scheme but is mostly unremarkable in terms of story, script and visuals. Savvy viewers will recognize most of the plot elements and characters from other recent thrillers. The film does, however, have two remarkable elements: an amazing 5.1-channel sound mix and a nude scene that is notable not for its pornographic or fantasy-fulfilling qualities but for its stark realism.

Anyone who appreciates film sound should watch (or rather, listen to) "In the Cut" because it's one of the few existing films that uses 5.1-channel sound for more than SFX gimmicks or making sure the Dolby Digital logo appears on its DVD case. The film creates real ambiance and mood with its sound mix, which helped suck me into the story world and get a sense of the characters' environment. I first noticed this when Frannie descends the stairs in the restaurant (just before she sees the mysterious villain). As she walks through the noisy crowd and down the stairwell, the conversations, bustling and other background fade from the front to rear channels and mix with her footsteps as she descends. This, to me, is much more elegant use of 5.1-channel surround than sticking a few whizzing noises in the rear channels when a spaceship flies off the top edge of the frame. "In the Cut" makes full use of its available channels, which is more than 99% of high-budget films can say.

The other piece of the film that stuck with me was the nude scene with Frannie and Malloy that follows their inevitable hook-up. It's so rare to see a Hollywood nude scene that features characters just lounging with nothing on and in such an unromantic setting. It's especially amazing with an established star like Meg Ryan. There are no mysterious L-shaped sheets to hide their bodies but there is also no sense that Campion left them nude to attract voyeurs to her film. The characters don't assume erotic poses; they simply act as if they've already seen what they have to show each other, as most people do after sex. I don't often praise realism in films, especially stupid thrillers, but this scene stood out as much as the excellent sound design. If only the rest of the film could live up to those standards.

As muddled as a dirty puddle and left me befuddled

[clydestuff · 4/10 · 4 April 2004]

In The Cut is one of those films where you'll sit and watch with a certain amount of puzzlement. It's a film that is unsure of whether it wants to be a mystery thriller with sexual overtones, or a provocative story about erotic sexual liaisons with a suspense thriller tossed in as the side salad. It doesn't work on either level.

Franny Averey (Meg Ryan) is a New York English teacher who has this strange habit of collecting words. She collects them off subway signs, from conversations, billboards or wherever they may happen to pop up. She does this because she says it is her passion. Now you may be wondering what this word collecting has to do with the story. The answer is nothing. It provides us no insight into Franny's character, and is nothing more than one of those odd character traits given to someone for no reason other than the fact that it makes them look quirky. I only bring it up because it is mentioned often in this film with no point or relevance as to why and it clearly demonstrates why so much of this film ends up being a pointless melange.

Fran also has a sister, Pauline (Jennifer Jason Leigh) and their relationship is one of the few good things about the film. They talk as sisters who are close would, confiding intimately with each other and offering advise when needed. The problem is that Pauline's character is as murky as Fran's. She has an obsession with some medical doctor, lives over a strip club, and hangs around with the prostitutes that inhabit the premises. Pauline and Franny are two wild and crazy gals alright, but don't count on figuring out why.

One morning before heading to teach her English class, Franny stops at a local bar to meet and converse with one of her students Cornelius Webb (Sharrieff Pugh). From what I could figured out, she meets Cornelius because he has a new slang word for Franny to add to her word and phrases collection. Either that or they've had sex at some time or another. We are never told for sure. Perhaps Director Campion felt that if we knew for sure Franny was having sex with a student, it would sully her as a sympathetic character, although everything else she does in this film would be enough to degrade even the worst street corner hooker in any big city. At one point she travels down to the dark basement to use the Restroom, and in the shadows finds a woman performing oral sex on a man. Although it is very dark, and she watches from a distance, Franny sees a tattoo on the man's hand, but is unable to see anything of his face. Call it Creative Lighting 101.

It isn't long before Det. Malloy, (Mark Ruffalo)stops by Franny's apartment investigating the fact that some woman had lost her head, literally, in Annie's yard. There is supposed to be some underlying sexual tension between the two, but I never felt it. That must have come later that evening when Franny is lying in her bed having sexual fantasies about the good detective. We are never clued into why she is attracted by him. Malloy is a foul mouthed low class basic Neanderthal, and Franny is supposed to be educated and intelligent. I suppose some would call what Franny does as slumming.

It goes without saying that that eventually Franny and Malloy end up in the hay together in a steamy sex scene where Meg sheds her clothes and her girl next door image all at the same time. The scene is filmed with frankness and little modesty, but it is also a scene lacking in any kind of passion. It's as if Franny and Malloy are almost performing an act of self masturbatory gratification, and in a way perhaps they are. While watching scenes such as this one, I couldn't help but think of the film Looking For Mr. Goodbar with Diane Keaton. In that film, Keaton hopped from bed to bed of just about any who could please her on any particular night. It worked well in that film because we understood Keaton's makeup and motivation, and the self-destructive tendencies that came with it. Ryan's Franny lacks any kind of motivation about anything. Besides word collecting, we get pointless scenes of Ryan daydreaming about how her parents met. These daydreams pop up at the oddest moments, and are as useless to us as Ryan's word and phrase collecting habit.

After a while, more victims pop up. Franny begins to suspect Malloy might be the killer but sleeps with him anyway. Besides the student, Cornelius, Campion throws in a few more suspects such as Kevin Bacon playing Franny's obsessive ex, and even Malloy's partner. They don't add much to the story, except to keep you in some kind of pseudo suspense. They do have to have more than one murder suspect, don't they? The biggest problem with the murder story is Franny's own unexplained rashness and lack of intelligence. In other words, you'll earn your Nancy Drew merit badge long before Franny does.

If Campion was trying to create a suspenseful murder mystery, she didn't succeed. If she was trying to create a provocative film with sexual undertones she didn't succeed there either. If she was trying to create an artsy hodgepodge of meaningless and pointless images, well I guess she may have succeeded in that, and of course if that's the only thing you achieve than I have no choice but to give In The Cut my grade of D.

Woozy psycho-sexual thriller isn't preoccupied with logic or even with being seamless...

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 9 July 2006]

Half-baked, underwritten crime drama-cum-sexual thriller has Meg Ryan playing mousy English teacher in NYC attracted to a handsome homicide investigator on a serial murder case, one that has left body parts in Ryan's yard (and yet this barely fazes her!). Sub-plots involving Ryan's half-sister (Jennifer Jason Leigh, trying hard with a bad part), ex-boyfriend (an unbilled Kevin Bacon), her students, her job, and her fetish for the English vocabulary go absolutely nowhere. Meg, trying for an understated seriousness--but mostly just looking unhappy--gives a fairly brave and intriguing performance, and it's interesting to see her in these jittery, sordid surroundings, but the plot is alternately off-putting and curiously morbid; it's a fascinating misfire. Nicole Kidman co-produced (and perhaps was in line to star in the film herself), but Ryan does as good a job as any actress might have in the role. **1/2 from ****

A Cut Above

[Buddy-51 · 7 November 2004]

Meg Ryan gives what may well be the breakthrough performance of her career in 'In the Cut,' a violent, erotic thriller from maverick filmmaker Jane Campion. Ryan plays Frannie, a college English instructor who is instinctively drawn to the seamier side of life. When women in her Manhattan neighborhood start falling victim to a grizzly serial killer, Frannie, as a possible witness, becomes a prime source of interest, both professionally and personally, for a homicide detective named Malloy, who has some troubling sexual proclivities of his own to deal with. Attracted by his edgy darkness and smoldering sexuality, Frannie succumbs to his advances, fully cognizant of the possible danger he represents. Is the law enforcement official as much of a threat to this young woman as the psychopath going about town decapitating and dismembering the local ladies? It is this kind of moral ambiguity that informs the entire movie.

From the very outset, Campion makes it clear that we are not in for a conventional police procedural. She is obviously more interested in character and mood than in the niceties of a well-oiled plot and streamlined exposition. Frannie is far from being the helpless victim or plucky heroine one usually finds at the center of such tales; she is a complex, moody, taciturn woman who seems to be drifting passively through life, with little passion, conviction or purpose to make any of it worthwhile. Even when it comes to her sexual obsessions, it often feels as if she is just going through the motions. It is hard for us to get a bead on her, for she is a perfect reflection of the world she inhabits, a world without a clear moral compass - so much so that we often don't know what we are supposed to think of her or the other people with whom she comes in contact. The script plays up the sense of dislocation by having characters appear and disappear seemingly at random throughout the movie, sometimes serving as little more than red herrings for both the story and Frannie's life. This often makes it so that we in the audience feel clueless as to where exactly the film is headed and what the overall purpose of it really is. It's often hard for us to get our bearings, yet, it is this very ambiguity, this sense of being rudderless and confused, that lifts the film above the tired conventions of the genre. In fact, the film is at its weakest when it concentrates on the intricacies of the plot - the resolution is remarkably mundane - and at its strongest when it merely records the eccentricities and passions of its two enigmatic characters.

The sexual content of the film is highly charged but not overtly offensive, with one glaring exception, at least in the 'unrated' version (I assume this does not apply to the version released to theaters). Early in the film, we are treated to a graphic, hard core close-up of an act of fellatio that clearly is not simulated. Consider yourself forewarned.

Ryan has never been better than she is here. She plays Frannie almost as if she were one of the urban walking dead, just right for a modern woman who feels no real emotional connection with the world and the people around her.

Mark Ruffalo is excellent as the cop who may be more of a threat to Frannie than the killer who's terrorizing the area. Almost as an afterthought, Kevin Bacon makes little more than a cameo appearance, overacting in the role of Frannie's stalker ex-boyfriend.

'In the Cut' is a subtle little mood piece that is more about observing behavior than it is about searching for a killer. Those looking for an intensely plotted thriller may not be as intrigued by this film as those searching for a psychosexual character study. It's the atmosphere and the performances that count in this film.

A GOD AWFUL MOVIE!

[lotus_chief · 1/10 · 2 November 2003]

******WARNING! SPOILERS BELOW!!!!******

In trying to decide what movies to watch this weekend, my girlfriend mentioned In The Cut. Hmm...okay i know that Meg Ryan departs from her squeaky clean, cute innocent image and gets nude. What's it about? 'O well she goes out with some cop and body parts get buried in her garden and she thinks its the cop she's with.' 'Great, a crime thriller' I said. BOY WAS I WRONG! In The Cut constantly struggles to figure out just what in da HELL it wants to be. Is it a crime thriller about a serial killer or some erotica love story? To put it bluntly, this movie is HORRIBLE!

Just WHAT was the deal with Meg Ryan and her sister? They looked like a couple of crackheads...cmon, isn't Ryan a English professor/writer? why does she spend most if not all of her time over by her depressed, sex starved sister who lives on top of a sleazy strip club? Were they sisters or lesbian lovers??? and just what did the cop do to allow her obviously demented mind to suspect him of murder? what, lie about not being at a club getting 'oral pleasure'? uh ok....i'm not exactly sure how you went from that to the guy being a serial killer. give me something more, that's not enough. CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT, ANYONE?? ive yet to see anything that would have me suspect the cop of those murders. this is why everyone watching the movie KNEW it couldn't be him. and then to top all this off....da guy who's had only about 6 minutes of total screen time before the end ends up being the murderer? between Ryan's boyfriend cop and his partner, who else could it have been? Ryan's student, who later comes on to Ryan? Was that supposed to fool me? PUHLEEEZE!! I have NEVER been so uncomfortable and frustrated watching a movie. It takes SO DAMN LONG to get the ball rolling, and in the end it never really does.

This film is a bunch of cliched ideas thrown together, and then trying to throw in some feminist 'sexual exploration' to spice it up with all it does is misdirect the movie even more. It seemed that the only point of this movie was to get Meg Ryan nude on screen and do some racy sex scenes. In The Cut tries to do too much, its full of pointless flashbacks about Meg Ryan's mother (what exactly happened again that has you and your sister TOTAL nutcases?? no one ever thought to expand on that), lack of a real plot/direction and too many sex scenes that seem to have been in the film just because they were with Meg Ryan (in the nude of course! Dammit this is HISTORY!) It's as if the makers were like 'ok, we're getting Ryan to do nude, insert sex scene here, here and dont forget there, and here, and here, and here..... o and lets not forget the male frontal shot! GOOD GRIEF! The so-called 'climax' was like 30 seconds long, gosh I could go on and on but ive wasted enough of my life on this piece of TRASH! Whoever made this movie needs to be dragged out in the street and shot. I said Cabin Fever was the worst film I've seen this year. Well In The Cut just might have taken that title. An AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL 'movie'. Fellow IMDb'ers, our time on this Earth is precious. PLEASE, I beg you not to waste one minute of it watching this God forsaken 'movie'. Meg Ryan's finished.

-0.5* out of **** stars.

Jane Campion's film has something that makes it worth seeing

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 7/10 · 21 May 2007]

In fact, much of Frannie's allure is that she isn't shy about her body, or even afraid to engage in sexual activity with Detective James Malloy (Mark Ruffalo) in her two room apartment on Washington Square…

In the Red Turtle bar, Frannie (Meg Ryan) inadvertently watched a man, with a tattoo on his wrist, receiving oral gratification from a girl with blue fingernails having diamonds in them…

Soon after, there was a homicide in Frannie's neighborhood… The body of the woman, or part of her body, to be exact, was found in the garden outside her window…The girl who was murdered was Angela Sands with the blue fingernails …

As the psychopath strikes again and again, Frannie embarks on a powerfully physical sexual relationship with Malloy, despite her rising suspicions, later on, that the serial killer in question may very well be the 'good cop' with the 'three of spade' she saw once…

Meg Ryan plays a very interior character living out of her unconscious emotions and actions, seeming always scared of what she wants… Her only passion was poetry… Her former lover Kevin Bacon— mentally unbalanced—thinks he should stick around because he slept with her twice… Bacon maintains a threatening presence throughout the whole picture… Jennifer Jason Leigh— exquisitely sexy— graces the screen as Frannie's half-sister Pauline… In his few scenes with Ryan, Sharrieff Pugh proves to be sweet and charming but also bad and scary

A Plotless, Characterless Movie

[chron · 4/10 · 5 July 2004]

I didn't have too high of expectations for this movie, but it still fell well short of my already lowered expectations. None of the characters in this movie were endearing in any way. Now, I like characters who are complex and flawed, but there has to be an appeal in there somewhere. The Franny character (Meg Ryan) was never developed. She character was enigmatic, which is a good start, but the plot never developed anything within that character. I still don't know why she found the detective (Ruffalo) interesting. I thought the character was rude and unappealing.

The relationship between Franny and her half-sister, played by Jennifer Jason Leigh, is never fully developed either.

The plot, though based on an interesting premise, plodded along much too slowly. Since the character development was lacking, this made for a very boring movie. It's interesting that a serial killer movie with sex and top notch actors can be boring, but it was.

Stay away from this dog of a movie. You will do a lot better renting "Basic Instinct" one more time.

My extended review of the film

[sol- · 7/10 · 19 January 2005]

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.

painfully bad

[jeff-90 · 1/10 · 27 July 2004]

I had low expectations as I thought the book was overrated but this was so much worse than I thought possible. The whole movie made me squirm it was so awful. The dialogue is terrible, there is no motivation behind ANY of the actions or words of any of the characters. The sex scenes were uncomfortable, not sexy. Every word spoken by the 2 cops was cringe inducing. Nothing rings true and there isn't a likeable character in the whole movie. There is no suspense, no tension. And while Meg's body looked fine her face looked awful.

Jane Campion owes her an apology. The worst movie I have seen in years.

SLEAZY DISTURBING NEO-NOIR...GOOD BOLD ACTING & GREAT GUTTURAL ATMOSPHERE

[LeonLouisRicci · 7/10 · 4 August 2021]

The Slick Neo-Noir Streets of NYC Pop-Out at the Viewer as Striking as any Art-Film.

The Beautifully Gritty Pallet of the Raw City is Accompanied by Bold Acting Turns,

from Meg Ryan, Jennifer Jason Leigh, and Mark Ruffalo.

This is All a Come-On for Liberated Women to Watch an Exercise in Inner-Thoughts About Sex from the Female Side.

With a Serial-Killer De-Articulating Women Underneath the Lady's Libido.

Ruffalo is Along for the Ride and is Foul-Mouthed Sleazy and Openly Liberated,

and that Attracts Ryan and Their Sex has Both of Them Coming for More.

The Strength of the Film is its Nightmarish Mood Established Throughout by the Look and Untamed Dialog.

Also Untamed are the Sex-Scenes.

Timid, Shy and the Easily Unsettled About Erotic Cinema Should Stay Far, Far, Away.

The Serial-Killer Plot is Mostly Back-Ground for the Fore-Play,

and is a Frame that the Unabashed Sex is Hung.

All the Actors do a Great Job...

Kevin Bacon Shows-Up as a Wack-O Ex-Boyfriend, Nick Damici is Ruffalo's Cop Partner, and Jennifer-Jason Leigh is Ryan's Half-Sister and Confidant.

Meg Ryan Answers the Call Astoundingly Well,

Willing to Change Her Squeaky-Clean-Image and Boy, Does She Ever.

Not for Everyone.

Sensitive and Easily Offended Types Should Skip This Audaciously Sexually Active Movie that Begs You to Feel Uncomfortable.

Maybe That's the Point, but it's Doubtful.

Perhaps it's Just a Woman Director and a Woman Writer Making a Move on Their Film-Maker Opposites.

The Male's Who Dominate the Sex-Thrillers of This Type and are Confident Enough to Let it All Hang-Out.

Worth a Watch...

But be Prepared for Uninhibited Dialog and Images About Slightly-Off-Beat and Sometimes Disturbing Sex. Upfront and On Full Display.

What's the point?

[maulwurf-2 · 1/10 · 22 January 2005]

When I view a movie, I like to come away with something positive. It doesn't have to be a happy or uplifting story, but it should leave me with something other than a bad taste in my mouth. If this movie was an attempt by Meg Ryan to lose her clean cut sweet image, then it succeeded, but that's the only thing positive I can say about this sordid mess.

There was not one likable or believable character in the whole cast. (OK, maybe Kevin Bacon's dog. ) Ms. Ryan's, Mr. Ruffalo's , and Jennifer Jason Leigh's characters were all totally disagreeable lowlifes masquerading as; a college professor, one of New York's finest, and a totally disagreeable lowlife (at least one of them got it right.). It was sad to see this waste of fine acting talent.

There wasn't any suspense or plot worth the effort either. Much of the story was a not too subtle collection of red herrings aimed at making the viewer suspect one character of the grisly crimes but they were so obvious that I discounted them from the get-go. If that character had indeed been the killer, that would have been a surprise and would have earned this a higher rating.

I saw this movie FREE on cable. Still had the urge to ask for a refund. Time is money and this was a total waste of time.

Obviously Cuts Too Deep for Some

[richard-mason · 9/10 · 17 November 2003]

Deary me, some people get upset when a film isn't what they want it to be, don't they? How dare the film be what the film-makers set out to make, instead of what someone's narrow expectations dictate it should b?

Fancy In the Cut being gritty, seamy, sexy and deeply disturbing ... just like all the publicity (and the rating) warned us it would be. What a shock. How did the people expecting another Piano, or Meg Ryan Finds True Love Yet Again ever find themselves in the cinema?

As for those who have said they have walked out completely unmoved ... either they must be aliens or robots, or are fooling themselves, not wanting to acknowledge the truth of what they've seen on the screen. Seldom have I seen a film that so truly examines the dark side of our sexual impulses. I walked out quite shattered, and wandered around in a daze for a while.

Meg Ryan completely miscast? Ridiculous and insulting. How dare you tell an actress she has to be Little Mary Sunshine for the rest of her life. And she pulls it off brilliantly. She and Mark Ruffalo give the most stunning lead performances for a long time. Why? Because they're playing real, multi-layered people. Not goody-goodies or baddy-baddies.

Didn't like any of the characters? Must have a very limited range of acquaintances, or alternatively, don't like the real people you do know.

Thriller plot not thrilling? Admittedly it's not the strongest point in the film, but it has all the required shocks and surprises (and, you'd think enough gore for the modern audience), and while the revelation of the murderer is not the biggest twist ending ever, the final shot takes your breath away.

And anyway, Campion, while handling the thriller genre competently, is using it as a means to explore sexuality. And attraction. And how much of love involves physicality, carnality, trust, the desire to dominate, the desire to be dominated, and above all, the attraction of the DANGEROUS. Yes, adult stuff, not often tackled in mainstream films.

I think it's her best film ever (possibly excepting Sweetie), and I give it 9 out of 10.

no development in the characters and disappointing.

[tijdelijk12 · 6/10 · 3 July 2004]

A woman teaching English gets involved in a murder investigation. The police officer leading this investigation is instantly attracted to her. Also, from her point of view, this officer incorporates all she loves in her poetry and literature: rough and manly but also protective. She immediately feels this is an opportunity for her to put into practice all she has read about.

Out of her usual environment she finds it dangerous but also feels the excitement of the moment.

Quite cliché all. It is a simple detective story. The characters remain shallow. There is not depth in them and they do not evolve in any way.

I thought Jane Campion would do a much better job. Alas, even she makes mistakes.

What really annoyed me were all the references to "To the Lighthouse" by Virginia Woolf. All this quasi literism makes this film swanky.

I rated this movie a 6. Disappointing for Jane Campion. But not the worst movie I ever saw. There were some nice shots.

Mishit by Jane Campion

[Lemos · 3/10 · 19 March 2004]

By now we are all more or less familiar with Ms. Campion's filming style and tempo. While she has been successful with this style on previous occasions this time I think this was a total mishit. Meg Ryan wallows through the movie in a poetic trance, Ruffalo can't make up his mind if he's a tough or a sensitive cop, the killings are totally unexplained and unmotivated, the sex scene are limp and bland, with porno type dialogue, no chemistry whatsover between the actors, I could rant on forever and ever. In fact I so disapointed with this movie that I could nit-pick on it all day. Okay so Meg Ryan plays against type. Wow! I personally think she should stick to her day job.

I don't get it

[fuzaborsky · 8 March 2004]

Why do we have to sit through two hours of a movie to find out that the killer is some character we know nothing about? Not fair. At least fill us in on what their about, their history, the "whys" I really thought about this movie afterwards. Characters were very bizarre, strange, dirty in a way. Bacon seemed to be in it so the makers could say we had Bacon in it. Slow, slow movie. Didn't enjoy it.

Two Hours of My Life I Can't Get Back...

[knkcoleman · 2/10 · 15 May 2006]

In a word, this film is disappointing. From the beginning, things felt disjointed and confusing. I had the sense that the director was trying to bring me into Frannie's world through visual tricks, but they seemed forced. It was apparent early on the color red was going to play an important part in the end of the film, because almost every scene had some red peppered through it, but it was done is such an obvious way that it became distracting. And every time I saw the red hat or the red shoes or the red newspaper box, I was struck that it seemed so dated - I remembered how effective a trick it had been with the movie 'The Sixth Sense' and how long ago was that? I found nothing sympathetic about the main characters. And while I didn't expect Frannie or Malloy to have a heart of gold I would have preferred to care about whether or not she gets killed in the end. As it goes, I didn't. Casting baby-faced Ruffalo as a tough-guy, sex-starved cop seemed a confusing choice. I love Ruffalo, even in his darker films, but throwing a Village People mustache on a guy does not necessarily make him appear more menacing.

And I know this will make me seem like a prude, but I did have a problem with the first sex scene, where Frannie comes upon a couple in a sex act. There is a close up view of a portion of a penis on screen for several seconds. I don't have a problem with the act itself, but I do wonder why it was necessary to show the penis. It was fully apparent that the guy was getting a blow job, I'm not sure what cinematically was gained by showing that level of detail. I can only think that it was put in to push the boundaries of the rating system, or to fulfill some strange agenda. It seemed pointless and arbitrary. Well, I guess that is in keeping with the rest of the film.

Professional murder mystery.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 18 November 2009]

It's an old-fashioned plot at heart. A young woman is a witness to, or in some other way involved in, a murder. A detective enters the picture. The attraction is immediate. But as one suspicious incident after another unfolds, one of them comes to believe the other is the murderer.

This is all seen from the point of view of the woman, Meg Ryan, as a lonely and desperately horny New York teacher. Usually, it's the other way around, with the detective as the central figure, as in "Laura" or "Basic Instinct." The homicide detective is Marc Ruffalo. He's Ryan's dream boat. He's rough-hewn and dark, uses street language and talks dirty to her, but he's soft spoken, compassionate, and frank. And he has a crude but sometimes fey wit. After he discovers Ryan is an English teacher, he tries to get the spelling of someone's name correctly. "Cornelius Webb," he says. "Is that with two Bs or not two Bs?" Not the kind of guy who would ever cry in front of someone, though. Too masculine for that. He's also a terrific lover, concerned first about her pleasure, and he's gentle.

Well, the plot may be formulaic but the execution is original enough. The first thing one notices is the lighting and photography of New York City and its appointments. That would be Dion Beebe's bailiwick. The images are gorgeous without being excessively decorative. The set decoration is by Andrew Baseman. Everything seems all rose and green and amber. If it were any better done -- if there were billowing scarlet curtains -- it could be a soft porn movie. The Sound Department should get its share of applause too: ticking clocks, chimes, and the most convincing rumble of traffic on the overhead GWB that I've ever heard.

The intentionality behind the images is feminine. The director, Jane Campion, lends the film some insight into how women speak and behave off stage that a male director might have missed either our of ignorance or plain old disregard. When Ryan and her sister, Jennifer Jason Leigh in the film's best performance, enter a coffee shop they order a decaf double latte with Devon cream or something equally fancy. (One wonders how the slightly brutish sensibilities of the homicide detective will fit into this cozy picture, what with his preferring raw coffee out of a paper cup.) The two sisters talk about relationships. Neither seems to care about her work or her career. They're alone and they suffer. They think about marriage and babies. Ryan weeps frequently while discussing her emotions. Ryan also has three guys lusting after her, not including the killer who disassembles his victims. That fantasy is to women what the conquering hero fantasy is to men.

Campion wisely has made a kind of gender crossover movie. Yes, it's all intimately seen from a woman's point of view but there is always that gory murder business lurking in the shadows to keep the men interested, not to mention some explicit fellatio (not involving Ryan), considerable nudity of both male and female, and some compelling simulated sex. I must say I didn't particularly care for the moaning and gasping of Ryan's heavenly orgasm. Not that I minded her getting off, but that it made me wonder about my own prowess. For the same reason I kind of disliked the Ruffalo character. What's he got that I ain't got? What makes the Hottentot so hot?

The identity of the murderer comes as a bit of a surprise but the way the plot spells it out leaves nothing in doubt about the outcome. Strictly by the numbers, Ryan becomes aware of the fact that the guy she's with is the notorious disarticulator of women. Still, the execution of the scene is highly innovative. We don't see the final shooting. There's a high overhead shot of a dead body lying atop a live one. And the dead body never springs back to life! The camera is often hand held and it wobbles, and this has become such a cliché, especially in dumbed-down action movies, that it's a little irritating, but here the camera's movements are modest and appropriate to the setting -- a jolting subway train, for instance.

I like the thing. Smoothly done.

Just awful!

[eggartrealty · 1/10 · 12 April 2004]

Wow! I couldn't believe how bad this movie actually was. It's no wonder why the studio delayed releasing this one. I usually enjoy Meg Ryan but she was terrible as the lead. Bad cinematography, bad direction, bad acting, and bad sound didn't help this one either.

We rented this one last night hoping to see a good thriller instead we wasted two hours of our lives (this movie is way too long). The director created no excite, suspense or thrills in a movie that has the formula for all three. Boring sex scenes and characters no one could identify with.

A SLIGHTLY PORNOGRAPHIC BUT ULTIMATLY EFFECTIVE THRILLER!

[rcavellero · 7/10 · 10 February 2004]

I have to say that I was pleasently suprised by this film. Having doubted it's potential on it's initial thatrical release. I just finished viewing the unrated director's cut. And I must say although I found the sexual imagery and non chalant nudity shocking the overall film took me by suprise. The film is tautly directed by period piece filmmaker Jane Campion of Piano fame and stars Meg Ryan in the most honest and effective performance of her career and the super sexy Mark Ruffalo maintaining a noteworthy prescence and the appearence of his full frontal manhood which is to say quite impressive. But thats not what the film is about although all those things do power it to maintain a highly defining and poetic atmosphere laced thick with filth and realism. Meg Ryan stars as a middle aged woman whom accidentally sees a young woman whom will be victimized later in the day giving an unknown figure oral sex. The film has the makings of a brutal serial killer thriller like Seven but it never strays into formidable, predictable or cliched territory. Instead it handles it's subjects respectfully making it all the more investing as the film continues somewhat slowly but suspensefully to it's suprising and fulfilling conclusion. Let it be said that I stray dangerously away from Meg Ryan movies after Proof of life, Hanging up, etc. but she really makes her mark here I truly haven't seen her this good ever the closest coming would be Courage under Fire. Maybe the material she's constantly offered is beneath her beacause she does better with more emotionally rich and depthful charachters. Mark Ruffalo definatly entertains sex symbol status while also supplying his performance with spine of realism and Jane Campion should definatly be celebrated for a film that devours cinematic fakeness and turns it into a heartfelt realism. This film is brave, This film is original and this film features one of the best performances of the year by Meg Ryan. Although slightly pornographic In the cut remains a truly effective thriller and a mood setting masterpiece!

Hated it.

[shempsstuntdbl · 1/10 · 4 March 2004]

In the Cut just didn't do it for me. Maybe Meg Ryan is trying to shed her "good girl" image, but all she managed to do for me was shed her "good movie" image. Profanity in movies has never offended me, but the profanity in this movie just seems to be thrown in for its supposed shock value. This movie appears to be nothing more than a vehicle for Ryan to get naked and Ruffalo to talk like some prank-calling pervert at a payphone. The plot was, well--absent. The characters were despicable and repugnant and the atmosphere was grimy and foul, like a back alley crack house. I had only one persistent emotion during this entire ordeal, and that was escape. The movie was misery from the opening credits, and couldn't wait for it to end.

intriguing character without thrills

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 23 October 2016]

Frannie Avery (Meg Ryan) is a New York City high school English teacher. She is hounded by her ex John Graham. Her half-sister best friend Pauline (Jennifer Jason Leigh) pursues a married man. Frannie meets her student Cornelius Webb at a bar where she becomes entranced by a woman giving oral sex in the back room. Detective Malloy (Mark Ruffalo) interviews her about a body part left outside her window. She fantasizes about Malloy who asks about the incident at the bar. Richard Rodriguez is Malloy's foul-mouthed police partner.

Meg Ryan was trying to play against her romantic type casting. She is at least able to achieve that. Filmmaker Jane Campion delivers a indie-verier erotic thriller although the thrills don't get there. Frannie is a disconnected and fractured character. The movie is able accentuate that concept but it does need more paranoia in order for the thrills to land. The murky weird stuff in her character is great but the movie falls flat overall. The plot simply does not move enough.

Two hours spent with ugly characters...yuchh

[Otto_Partz_973 · 1/10 · 23 February 2004]

From beginning to end, an uninteresting, incomprehensible, unrewarding waste of time. Lack of sympathetic characters in itself is not always a bad thing (I'm thinking Taxi Driver, Bad Lieutenant, Goodfellas) but without some performance to draw you in, some attitude or conflict with which to identify, you're simply left in the company of dullards or cretins, both of which are in good supply here. I know Meg Ryan's character is supposed to be bland and timid, but she's also supposed to have some fire burning within, some unfulfilled desire that makes her enter into a risky affair (remember Diane Keaton in 'Looking For Mr. Goodbar?). She shows this in her sex scenes, but none in other moments. Mark Ruffalo? Wonderful performance, if being both wooden and extremely repellent at the same time was the requirement. Kevin Bacon, slumming once again (he seems determined to make 'Three Degrees of Kevin Bacon WAY to easy to play) provides the only interesting performance, but his character is such an obvious red herring that the fun of it diminishes under the formula. The worst offense, however, is the total lack of motive for the killings. 'In the Cut' is apparently (and I'm just guessing here) a skating reference, but what's the point? All the sturm and drang about the mother and father's romance on skates, and the ridiculous dream sequence...why? After nearly two hours spent with ugly characters in ugly surroundings amidst ugly circumstances, there is no payoff, no explanation, no insight. Yuchh.

Later: I read the book. Somehow I was compelled. And it made this abortion of a movie all the more egregious since the author had a hand in it. The book was honest and compelling and had an ending that was DEVESTATING and COMPLETELY in sync with the rest of the story. Why, why, why, do these filmmakers think they can't offer an honest, violent, sad ending to an American audience? This sell-out on the part of the author ranks right up there with the one inflicted by the director of both the original 'The Vanshing' and the US remake. Shame on you for selling out your vision.

Beautiful film.

[victor7754 · 10/10 · 4 November 2003]

Campion always impresses. Do not go into this film seeking a tightly woven suspense thriller. This film deals more of what happens when a woman is continuously victimized by the idea of true love and the world it places her in. Meg Ryan? I gave her the benefit of the doubt. It paid off. She is marvelous. Her character is enigmatic and sexy. The fact that they washed away her Hollywood image delighted me. Her sexual demands are tastefully perverted. Mark Ruffalo? His primitive macho cop demeanor plays well for Ryan's repressed desire to have sexual fulfillment. Why does sex effect so many of us? Why not just tell us all about it as children. We're not stupid. Just tell us the truth.

Ryan's character has lost connection to the world. Her wisdom and insight comes from banner poems on public transport. Ryan displays an inner coolness that I find attractive. She does not respond to silly questions and reacts slightly to incredible events such as being hit by a car. She is in her own world of thought lost in an idealistic vision of happiness and love but lives her reality in perverted surroundings and grime. The people in her life all seem to be disconnected.

There is a serial killer on the loose and Ryan's interaction with him is hauntingly chilling while at the same time beautifully shot. There is a mystery as to whom he might be. The riddle was of minor concern. I was more fascinated watching Ryan's character. The film is filled with fabulous shots. Highly stylized. Several closeups of Meg Ryan's world. The film drags a bit and lingers into the unknown at times just as the protagonist Ryan.

It has moments of beauty that is rarely seen on the screen in this day and age. I give this film a 10.

Victor Nunnally BFA Dramatic History and Theory BFA Film Theory and Production

When Frannie meets Malloy

[jotix100 · 7/10 · 10 November 2003]

Jane Campion the director of this film seems to be telling this story from a woman's point of view. In her take of Susanna Moore's novel, Ms. Campion's emphasis is about the state of mind of Frannie. The impression one gets is that the director is more interested in how the sordid surroundings where Fran lives, in a seedy section of Manhattan, plays in the story.

We are giving a clue at the beginning of the film when Fran witnesses a very erotic scene in the basement of the bar she has gone with one of her students. She cannot get it out of her erotic mind. In fact that scene is a key to the character of this sexually repressed woman. It also brings a new dimension to films in which this aspect is only allowed to men to have erotic fantasies, but at no time can a woman be permitted the same.

The crime that is being investigated at the beginning comes to haunt Frannie, played by Meg Ryan. She meets the detectives working the case and falls for Malloy with such abandon that it comes as no surprise. Meg Ryan shows she can play this woman. Her scenes with Mark Ruffalo are very explicit. Luckily, Jennifer Jason Leigh doesn't have much to do. Her Pauline is not a very vivid character in the film version; one wonders if these two are really sisters.

After all is said and done, had it not been for the involvement of Ms Campion this film would have been given a different treatment. It is to her credit that it has stayed true to the original text.

Deeply cynical, sellout movie...

[edinburghstoryteller · 1/10 · 7 February 2006]

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.