My wife and I fully agree with the pans and would like to add a pot(shot) of our own.
This is not the worst film we have seen recently (Intolerable Cruelty has that distinction), but it is still a very bad and boring film.
In our opinion, the fact that a film is directed by a woman (or a book has a feminine author, or a political party is led by a woman) does not at all mean that the feminine perpective is present. You can still be served the male/macho approach to life. Margaret Thatcher comes to mind. Ditto for the producer/director of this film.
"In the cut" (what a silly, meaningless title!) is pure sexual exploitation. It is hard not to believe that the purpose of that film was to make money showing a celebrity in the nude. A ghastly murder is committed in close proximity and what is this university professor most interested in ? The detective's sexual organ!
(spoiler) And the exploitation borders on irresponsibility. The detective describes in detail the technique and tools used by the murderer to sever the head of the principal character's sister. Come on!! Apart from having no sense of reality, doesn't this director have any feeling of responsibility towards the possible consequences of her actions like most of us have?
The camera work is hugely distracting. It is as if the director of photography decided that every trick and effect that the
equipment allows would be included in the film. The impression is that he or she kept trying to remind viewers, that, hey, he or she is there working very hard.
After two hours of this slow and boring stuff, a black screen appeared. I'm sure everyone in the cinema (about 10 people) prayed that our suffering was finally over. And lo and behold, it was over. Everyone immediately shot up and headed for the aisles some giggling others shaking their heads....
This is not the worst film we have seen recently (Intolerable Cruelty has that distinction), but it is still a very bad and boring film.
In our opinion, the fact that a film is directed by a woman (or a book has a feminine author, or a political party is led by a woman) does not at all mean that the feminine perpective is present. You can still be served the male/macho approach to life. Margaret Thatcher comes to mind. Ditto for the producer/director of this film.
"In the cut" (what a silly, meaningless title!) is pure sexual exploitation. It is hard not to believe that the purpose of that film was to make money showing a celebrity in the nude. A ghastly murder is committed in close proximity and what is this university professor most interested in ? The detective's sexual organ!
(spoiler) And the exploitation borders on irresponsibility. The detective describes in detail the technique and tools used by the murderer to sever the head of the principal character's sister. Come on!! Apart from having no sense of reality, doesn't this director have any feeling of responsibility towards the possible consequences of her actions like most of us have?
The camera work is hugely distracting. It is as if the director of photography decided that every trick and effect that the
equipment allows would be included in the film. The impression is that he or she kept trying to remind viewers, that, hey, he or she is there working very hard.
After two hours of this slow and boring stuff, a black screen appeared. I'm sure everyone in the cinema (about 10 people) prayed that our suffering was finally over. And lo and behold, it was over. Everyone immediately shot up and headed for the aisles some giggling others shaking their heads....