Genres

Visitors Review

Charles Taylor 2012-05-19 18:23:17

Warchus seems as at ease with the complexity of the style as he is with directing actors.

Matt Reichl 2012-05-19 05:30:45

Despite a dream cast and an interesting neo-noir setup, his film races straight into tedium.

2012-05-10 02:46:21

Great Performanc by LLoyd Catlett in an otherwise Lousy Film

This one stars a very derelict looking Nick Nolte, a handsome Brooks Brothers suited Jeff Bridges and a very young looking Sharon Stone. The story is about three friends that were involved in fixing horse races twenty-five years ago, on the periphery of organized crime. They have some deep, dark secret from those days. The Nick Nolte character is letting the secret leak out. He seems to be trying to sell some allegedly pornographic pictures that are somehow connected to their secret. When his old partner Jeff Bridges finds out what hes been doing, he goes on the warpath. The problem is we have no idea what this is about or whats going on. Nick Nolte is too drunk and too disheveled to believe. Jeff Bridges is the opposite; we have too hard a time believing his character was ever a fixer. The one and only strong point in the movie is the race track mobster played by Loyd Catlett. He is evilly charismatic. Nick Nolte makes an attempt to sell the alleged pornographic photos to him. Catletts character is totally cool and on top of his game. Hes so sharp while acting cool that hes riveting. Hes playing his end of the game like a grandmaster. You really cant wait to see how he plays his side of the game. Unfortunately, his was a wasted performance, because the rest of the movie is hopeless, so bad, it should never have been brought to screen. The presence of three major stars couldnt salvage it. Sam Shepard, normally a great screenwriter, should be ashamed of this one; its a stinker.

Bob Thompson 2012-05-09 15:02:38

Full of exaggerated holes.

Roland E. Zwick 2012-05-03 02:17:09

very weak film noir with great secondary characters

Somewhere buried deep inside the mess that is `Simpatico' there lurk themakings of a pretty decent little love story. Unfortunately, one would haveto eliminate pretty much the entire main storyline and all the majorcharacters in order to find it. This tale of `three people caught in a web of their own making' is sothoroughly inept, overwrought and inconsequential that it seems more like aparody of film noir than a serious entry in the genre. The crime thatthese three people perpetrated in their youth – the one that keeps comingback to haunt them in their approaching middle-age - seems a piddling one atbest for a film of this type. An even more serious problem is that thethree lead performers seem stuck in roles that have come to define theirmétier as actors. Nick Nolte, for instance, plays his customarydown-and-out, barely-teetering-on-the-edge-of-sanity middle aged loser whosecapricious nature makes him forever a threat to the security of the group,while Jeff Bridges portrays the common sense, constantly put-upon ringleaderwho just wants to forget all about the past but who has a hard time keepinga leash on the unpredictable Nolte. Sharon Stone completes the trio asBridges' now moody, alcoholic wife – a pale imitation of her much more meatyrole in Martin Scorcease's `Casino.' Stone's over-the-top thespiansimpering reduces the (fortunately) few scenes she is in to the level ofunintentional high comedy. Moreover, in their attempt to provide a duallevel structure to their tale – crosscutting scenes of the past with scenesof the present – the filmmakers have been forced to employ actors who looknothing like their contemporary counterparts. The result is, initially,confusing and, ultimately, quite ludicrous.What is most strange about `Simpatico' is that, while the story itselffizzles and the audience could care less what happens to these threewhining, puling, muking central characters, writer/director Matthew Warchusand co-author David Nicholls somehow manage to create a back story and twominor characters who engage both our sympathy and our interest. These comein the form of the always splendid Albert Finney as the man our intrepidband of halfwit con men managed to entrap into an extortion scheme twentyyears earlier, and the charming Catherine Keener as the highly principledgrocery store cashier who finds herself unwittingly a pawn in Bridges' plotto rein Nolte in. Finney and Keener provide so much warmth and humanity intheir few scenes together that we find ourselves regretting that the filmdoes not revolve around them entirely. Wisely, after we wheeze our waythrough all the hullabaloo and nonsense necessary to bring the main plot toits ludicrous conclusion, Warchus closes the film with a coda focused onthese two winning characters. The finale, in some inexplicable way, seemsmore like a beginning than an ending and we find ourselves wanting to seewhat happens to this offbeat, likeable couple. By wasting our timeconcentrating on the Nolte/Bridges/Stone triumvirate of insipidity, thefilmmakers end up making us feel even more resentful in the long run. Likethe victims of the trio's racetrack shenanigans, we feelrobbed!

Pewee Hale 2012-05-02 18:00:04

A touching, and heart warming tale.

I really enjoyed watching "Simpatico". I liked it so much I bought themovie. Jeff Bridges, and Nick Nolte are at their best. At times my heartdidbleed for Nolte. Yet Jeff's character too drew my sympathy, but it was thehorse who I felt the most saddened for. Even though it's an excellentmovie,I would caution a parent against letting a child watch it, if the childwasunable to tell the difference between reality, and fiction. It pulls attheheart strings in much the same way as "Old Yeller". It covers love, lies,greed, and true friendship in one brilliantly wrapped package. It is abeautiful, heart warming, and intriguing movie. A must see if you are aJeffBridges fan.

Lisa Schwarzbaum 2012-05-01 02:08:33

A movie hobbled by unwieldy visual ideas.

Geoff Pevere 2012-04-30 18:19:41

Simpatico never pulls together long enough to amount to much more than a series of prematurely aborted encounters, scenes from a movie sketched but unfinished.

Goomba01 2012-04-26 20:00:03

An affecting movie. . . .

I'm surprised at the negative comments on a movie that I found, if nota favorite, somehow **important** to watch. Every character, saveCatherine Keener's (Cecilia), is basically a person who is broken onsome level. American audiences are so used to the Hollywood formula ofclear cut good guys and bad guys and people who overcome, story linesthat have clear cut endings where the good guys win and the bad guyspay, where everything makes sense in the end. This is not one of thosemovies and it's not the way real life is anyway. If the ending doesn'tmake sense in that way, it does give the impression that by the end ofthe movie, the characters are on the precipice of finally finding somepeace in their lives even though the audience won't get to see it.Viewers complain that the story meanders or makes no sense and thatthey don't understand the characters. I didn't find this to be trueeither. They were very easy to understand and the storyline tiestogether past events (shown in flashbacks to their youth) and theresults of their actions--guilt, relationships torn apart, **everyone**paying (not just the bad guys) while trying desperately to reconcilewith themselves and one another to find that it's not so easy to do so.Rather than "meandering", I found the story to be shown in a verylinear fashion and that exposition is given bit by bit until it tiestogether at the end.One of the complaints that I found in reviews and on the message boardis how Lyle, the one that attained wealth through their shady methods,ends up quitting, walking away from his money in what appears to be an"all of a sudden" fashion. By the end of the movie, after his story istold in flashback, it made perfect sense to me that he wanted to walkaway for a long time and this was finally his opportunity to grab it.His reasoning, talking to his wife on the phone, "No more %*@#! lies!"and that "it's the smell of the alfalfa" said it all. He just wanted togo back (perhaps to his youth) before all of the nightmare began andstart over. Makes perfect sense. I think it's difficult for some peopleto comprehend that someone would choose meaning in their life overmoney or that there are perhaps rich people out there that may havefantasies of walking away from it all. I just don't find that hard tobelieve.Nick Nolte's character, Vincent, is probably the most difficult one tocomprehend because his is the most screwed-up and in the most pain.Because of his actions when young, his obtuse reaction at the time tohis then girlfriend (and now Lyle's wife, Rosie, played by SharonStone) through in what I'll call "the event that tore them all apart"and his part in it along with his clumsy and confused attempt atrectifying it with Rosie (and Simms), make his character the mostuncomfortable to watch. It's not because the part is badly written orbadly played (Nick Nolte plays the part to perfection). It's justbecause this guy is **supposed** to be uncomfortable to watch.The worst things I can say about it is that there isn't enough SharonStone in it. I'm not a big fan of hers but she is a dynamic actress andher character deserved more presence while most of her story is shownin flashback with a younger actress. Catherine Keener isn't givenenough praise for her part because her character is the only "ordinary"and somewhat sane person in the midst of all this and so **appears**less interesting although I didn't feel it was. I think that is thepurpose that that character serves--as a sort of reflection to it all.Albert Finney, as the crooked race commissioner who makes one mistaketoo many and loses the things that matter, is also a prize to watch.But then he always is.While this movie isn't a "pick-me-up" kind of thing, I found itintriguing.

Dennis Harvey 2012-04-26 14:49:17

Warchus' accomplished handling and the stars' flavorful performances lend Simpatico a bittersweet grace.

2012-04-24 06:30:34

Terrible Movie!

What a terrible, ponderous, senseless movie. With Sharon Stone touted in the cast, one would at least hope for some attractiveness in the film, but she was painted with some kind of lip wound, and make-up did their best to hide her beauty. Nick Nolte was the typical anti-social drunk/druggie that he often plays, and Bridges was as hapless as he usually is. There was no identification with anyone in this movie, neither sympathy or pity, except, perhaps, for the horse. Skip this one; there is nothing positive or redemptive about it!

Greg Dean Schmitz 2012-04-23 16:49:07

Debut director Matthew Warchus didn't trim where needed, with some extraneous quiet moments that test the patience.

FlickJunkie-2 2012-04-18 03:51:16

A shameful waste of talent

This is one of those stories that prove that bankable stars can't save a badscript. The film was a box office disaster, yanked after two weeks intheaters and grossing less than one million dollars. The story, based on aSam Shepard play, is a character study of characters so totally bereft thatit is impossible to care. Vinnie (Nick Nolte), Carter (Jeff Bridges) andRosie (Sharon Stone) ran a betting scam on horseracing about twenty yearsago that included blackmail. Carter is now a successful horse breeder andRosie is his wife. Vinnie is a broken down drunk who is threatening toexpose the scheme for reasons clear only to him.The story sputters along after that with all sorts of character developmentand flashbacks. The more we learn about these three, the more we want themovie to end. When it finally does end, the final resolution is soridiculous and unsatisfying that we are left wondering what the pointwas.The acting was up to the standard one might expect, with all three majorstars delivering strong performances. However, the story was so irrationaland boring that it didn't make a bit of difference.There is not a lot about the film that is worth recommending. I rated it a3/10. Unless you are a devotee of one of the three stars, you probably willwant to spend your time and money on something more entertaining.

Bob Stern 2012-04-17 18:16:05

A Disappointment

I like Jeff Bridges tremendously, so I'll watch anything with himin.But this film has so many loose ends, you could make aragrug.Good acting by all, but a good dollop of suspension of disbelief isnecessarywith so many unlikely events or inconclusive nuances of the plot. Vinnieandhisgirlfriend checking into the same hotel and not knowing it. What was thatallabout? And what was Carter arranging with Simms anyway even before Vinnieturns up from the past?The central premise seemed to be Simms's reconciliation with the past -forgiveand forget. Very good, but this wasn't developed enough.Okay Carter throws it all away through guilt and wants the simple lifeagain. Butit's not believable. They can't be nineteen again.It should have been filmed in the European style - slow and ponderous wouldhave been so much better. But this version is too clipped and compromisedwithmodern moviegoers tastes.Stone is very very good. Nice to see Nolte in rags again, it's his forte.Jeff issleepwalking though. New girl terrific. Does she go back to Vinnie in theend orgo with Simms?I think it's back to Vinnie.It almost works - I like movies that exercise the mind and leave loose endstospeculate on. But without the basic substance, loose ends is all Simpaticohas.

Stephen Whitty 2012-04-16 12:36:19

Is it that the director hates these women, or that Shepard simply can't write a good one?

Jean Oppenheimer 2012-04-16 00:44:30

It proves only intermittently engaging as its twisted plot loses energy and becomes confusing in the latter half.

David Ferguson 2012-04-15 19:50:36

Needed Alan Rudolph

Grretings again from the darkness. Missed this one at the theatre, so justcaught it on cable. Original play written by the masterful Sam Shepard,this one could have been great if directed by Alan Rudolph. Instead we aretreated to disjointed moviemaking and sloppy story telling, mixed withinconsistent performances from some wonderful actors. Nolte and Bridges areamong the best even on their worst days, and Sharon Stone has a knack forworming sympathy from the audience even in the most unsympathetic roles. Catherine Keener (excellent in 2000's "Being John Malkovich") steals each ofher scenes, even up against the powerful Albert Finney. My tidbit on thisone is look for Shawn Hatosy as young Vinnie - he was in the extraordinary1999 film, "Outside Providence", and Kimberly Williams from "Father of theBride". The flashback scenes seem to be attempts at artful film making, butare fascinating as individual scenes.

2012-04-15 05:13:01

Waste of time

Although both Bridges and Nolte do great with their roles the story itself is confusing because they are constantly flashing back to the past without much detail. My advice don't waste your time or money on this film.

Peter Henne 2012-04-07 19:53:33

Shepard's material has worked its way into categorically better films, and the talents of the creative, ex-Police musician Stewart Copeland go largely untapped.

Stephen Holden 2012-04-07 08:37:04

The movie is so careless about its horse-selling subplot that its melodramatic payoff feels cheap and abrupt.