Simpatico (1999) User Reviews

Underrated by far

[[e-mail] · 6/10 · 27 January 2012]

What is this 4.4 rating by 2348 users? Where did this come from? Not enough car chases?

This is a good movie, well written. One could criticize a bit a sort of awkwardness or heaviness in the technical aspect of movie making, due to a first film or an approach maybe too theatrical, but the directing is good. It plainly deserves a minimum of 6.5 for its artistic value. Maybe Matthew Warchus is more a stage director and too keen on good directing than finding a picturesque way with images to illustrate something he has already staged.

If films about horses are to be considered, "Simpatico" is much better than "Dead Heat" (rated 5.3), different from "Seabiscuit" (rated 7.3) because it does not carry hope against odds being more of a drama about betrayal, and better than the totally unrealistic "Hidalgo" (rated 6.6) who has never been in the Sahara, but it does show a chase.

Why consider it as a film about horses? Because it also is a film about a horse, magnificent as opposed to human behavior in this story, as far as the only pure character in this movie, named by its title, is the horse Simpatico, and maybe this is the side that should have been enhanced more in opposition with the corruption of all this human horse-racing scam, since human perversion finally kills him, and what's more, because he his becoming sterile.

Maybe the overall realism, that had to be detailed more in the movie than the play, brought too many necessary plot details that might have obscured the existence of the character Simpatico, although every time we see him, his beauty reminds us of his existence as metaphor, metaphor that might have been more powerful on the stage, just by being permanent but never visible.

I suggest a 6.5 as a minimum.

Technically decently made... but I found the events and actions illogical

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 5/10 · 16 October 2006]

Just from reading the main cast of this, one would expect a marvelous drama. Nolte, Stone, Bridges and Finney... such grand talent in the craft of acting. The fact that the writer/director had never worked in movies before or since didn't worry me too much... The Wachowski brothers handed in first-class work the first time they tried their hand at directing, and their first script... well, OK, but they've later redeemed themselves for that turkey. The cinematography is not unique, but it has moments. The editing is much the same... effective at times, but rarely breaks away from the norm. The plot is fair... it develops nicely throughout, providing the back-story and evolving throughout. The pacing is OK. The acting is pretty good, I didn't really find any performances to be lacking. I think my main issue was that I could simply not understand why the people acted like they did, for the majority of the film. I never anticipated their actions, I never followed their motivation and got to the conclusions that they did. Also, the themes and ideas seem to be nothing more than side-notes... none are explored with much effort. All in all, I found this to be a decent-looking film with sufficiently good acting that just didn't make an awful lot of sense and didn't spend enough energy on giving the viewer anything solid, be it an idealist message or simply food for thought. I recommend this to fans of horse-racing, as it features a few very nicely shot sequences of horses, and, to a lesser extent, fans of the actors and possibly those who know the play(as I don't know it myself, I wouldn't be able to tell you if this were a good translation or not). 5/10

Strictly Okay...

[namashi_1 · 5/10 · 25 March 2011]

Matthew Warchus directed 'Simpatico' has an interesting premise, but the advantage of it's promising concept, doesn't really reflect on celluloid. Reason? The Screenplay is stretched & slightly unspoken. It offers a few interesting moments in the first hour, but the second hour doesn't offer much.

'Simpatico' is a tale of betrayal, greed, vengeance & complications. Though adapted by a play, this drama begins well, but, as told before, drags itself too much towards the end, and thus, the impact goes amiss.

Matthew Warchus has directed this story fairly. Cinematography is perfect. Editing is passable. Acting Wise: Nick Nolte is just about okay. Jeff Bridges is decent, while Sharon Stone gets very limited scope. Albert Finney and Catherine Keener are noticeable.

On the whole, An Average Fare, At Best.

Great actors in a mediocre movie

[deltadave669 · 20 March 2001]

You'd think that a movie with the acting power of Nick Nolte, Jeff Bridges, and Sharon Stone would be one to watch. Well.......it is and it isn't.

First off, I'd never in my life thought I'd see Nolte and Bridges in the same movie. Talk about an odd pairing!

With that out of the way, they both put in good performances, as does Stone. The star of this movie though is Albert Finney. His performance is the best of all the parts in this movie.

Unfortunately the plot, involving a racing scam many years ago which resurfaces, is only mildly interesting at best. It seems almost a shame to have such good performances wasted on such a story. Still, it's worth a watch if nothing else is on.

Plot less in Seatlle?

[robo8 · 3/10 · 27 May 2007]

I really don't know where to start. The characters weren't that believable at all. The development they have gone through (as you see them in their youth as well) and the development they go through during the movie just doesn't make sense to me.

And the plot, you can smell something similar to a plot here and there, but that is as close as you get. The first 15-20 minutes it works, it feels like an ordinary movie. But then it just breaks down and you wonder what the message is, what the story is, what the heck this movie is supposed to convey.

In summary it's a pointless flick that doesn't strike any chords in me anyway.

Uninspired And Uninteresting From Start To Finish

[sddavis63 · 3/10 · 18 February 2001]

Confused and confusing story of two men (Jeff Bridges and Nick Nolte) bound together unhappily by their participation in a horse racing scandal many years before.

A completely uninteresting storyline was made even worse by uninspired performances by the three major stars: Bridges, Nolte and Sharon Stone. Bridges and Nolte at least have something to do; why Stone would have even bothered taking such a worthless role is beyond me. The best thing to be said for this movie is that it's less than two hours long (although it seems a lot longer.)

It's stretching a point to give this one even a 3/10. Let's just say that if this movie were a horse, it definitely finished out of the money.

Good idea marred by bad writing and lazy direction

[bellino-angelo2014 · 5/10 · 6 June 2022]

Vinnie Webb (Nick Nolte), Lyle (Jeff Bridges) and Rosie Carter (Sharon Stone) were very good friends many years back and used to scam at races. Fast forward to 20 years and they all took different roads; Vinnie looks like a hobo with drinking problems and can't even pay his rent, Lyle and Rosie are divorced but are about to sell their prize stallion Simpatico. After Vinnie manages to steal Lyle's wallet unknown to him, he goes to Kentucky for blackmail an official that uncovers their past scams.

In the first half SIMPATICO looked decent but as it progressed, it became confusing and dull. At times Vinnie's motives looked unclear while Lyle spent most of his time shouting, and the scene where Rosie rides Simpatico for the last time and then shoots him... why they had to put it? It was also badly edited and not likeable. Nolte, Bridges and Stone give their best with the material given, but they surely deserved better than this. And everything else about the film is just as forgettable.

Not a terrible movie but very bland instead, just like eating toast: not that bad but something nobody would ever look forward to.

Has a sleek poise and a nose for the finish line

[allyjack · 7/10 · 22 September 1999]

Tale of long-past racing scam resurfacing to change the diverse lives of its perpetrators and victims isn't particularly subtle, with transformations and transferences flying around like abandoned betting slips, but it's very well acted by a dream cast (no less engaging for the fact that they don't all seem to be in quite the same film) and never loses its basic finesse. In its early stretches, as the pieces of the plot fall into place, the film builds a highly effective sense of escalating jeopardy, and the initial gambits on the theme of identity and impermanence are effective, leveling out a bit as thematic considerations seem to overtake the characters. Still, it has a sleek poise, and debuting director Warchus shows a distinct nose for the finish line - the film's closing scenes seem about right on their own terms, even if you're not sure about all the stuff that led you there (the horse Simpatico for instance seems ultimately to be carrying more symbolic weight than the course of the film supports).

Unfortunately no recommendation

[vanToom · 3/10 · 21 February 2010]

Was it done with "silly money"? Or is the script one of these peaces of paper that goes round in Hollywood for 20 years until someone says "Ok, lets do it?" I really have no idea. But this movie is so uninspired, so long-winded, so much missing a plot thats worth its name, it is just impossible to find what this movie is about. There are two rare moments when characters dare to say the truth and put some fine acting to the story with doing the unexpected. But unfortunately this is not enough. And what is most, this is definitely no "Seabiscuit", a movie that is set in a similar way and subject and is sharing even one of the actors (Jeff Bridges). If you have the chance to see the latter, grab it. If you have to see Simpatico, leave it!

More European than Hollywood in style

[JuguAbraham · 7/10 · 21 December 2001]

This is not a great film but it deserves some attention.

I am an admirer of Sam Shepard the writer, not necessarily the actor. And even though his contribution to the film is not direct, his subjects make an impact on me. I am surprised the director did not involve him in the screenplay. Of course, Shepard is more a playwright than a screenplaywriter...

I loved all the main players, especially Sharon Stone. She had a small role that was impressive.

The camerawork of John Toll always impresses; this film was no exception.

One thing was clear; the direction lacked experience--but for a first film, the output is creditable.

Terrible!

[bluestoddler · 1/10 · 10 January 2013]

Terrible movie. I cannot understand why someone - anyone would make a movie that is so unfulfilling, and totally depressing with no moral or tangible benefit. One of those movies that you wish you hadn't watched, wasn't worth the time, money, effort to make, etc. Terrible writing, terrible storyline, terrible ending. A total waste of time and you feel terrible after you watch it. I'm sorry I watched it and wasted 2 hours of my life to ultimately feel bad. there are no redeeming qualities or enjoyable quotes, action, memories, or benefits. I kept watching it hoping it would get better, but was dismally disappointed.I'm a severe movie buff, and please take my advice and don't waste your time.

An affecting movie. . . .

[Goomba01 · 8/10 · 23 February 2009]

I'm surprised at the negative comments on a movie that I found, if not a favorite, somehow **important** to watch. Every character, save Catherine Keener's (Cecilia), is basically a person who is broken on some level. American audiences are so used to the Hollywood formula of clear cut good guys and bad guys and people who overcome, story lines that have clear cut endings where the good guys win and the bad guys pay, where everything makes sense in the end. This is not one of those movies and it's not the way real life is anyway. If the ending doesn't make sense in that way, it does give the impression that by the end of the movie, the characters are on the precipice of finally finding some peace in their lives even though the audience won't get to see it.

Viewers complain that the story meanders or makes no sense and that they don't understand the characters. I didn't find this to be true either. They were very easy to understand and the storyline ties together past events (shown in flashbacks to their youth) and the results of their actions--guilt, relationships torn apart, **everyone** paying (not just the bad guys) while trying desperately to reconcile with 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 very linear fashion and that exposition is given bit by bit until it ties together at the end.

One of the complaints that I found in reviews and on the message board is 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 is told in flashback, it made perfect sense to me that he wanted to walk away 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 to go back (perhaps to his youth) before all of the nightmare began and start over. Makes perfect sense. I think it's difficult for some people to comprehend that someone would choose meaning in their life over money or that there are perhaps rich people out there that may have fantasies of walking away from it all. I just don't find that hard to believe.

Nick Nolte's character, Vincent, is probably the most difficult one to comprehend because his is the most screwed-up and in the most pain. Because of his actions when young, his obtuse reaction at the time to his then girlfriend (and now Lyle's wife, Rosie, played by Sharon Stone) 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 at rectifying it with Rosie (and Simms), make his character the most uncomfortable to watch. It's not because the part is badly written or badly played (Nick Nolte plays the part to perfection). It's just because this guy is **supposed** to be uncomfortable to watch.

The worst things I can say about it is that there isn't enough Sharon Stone in it. I'm not a big fan of hers but she is a dynamic actress and her character deserved more presence while most of her story is shown in flashback with a younger actress. Catherine Keener isn't given enough 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 the purpose that that character serves--as a sort of reflection to it all. Albert Finney, as the crooked race commissioner who makes one mistake too 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 it intriguing.

Infertiile Neo-Noir?

[hitchcockthelegend · 6/10 · 6 July 2019]

Simpatico is directed by Matthew Warchus and Warchus co-adapts the screenplay with David Nicholls from the play written by Sam Shepard. It stars Nick Nolte, Jeff Bridges, Sharon Stone, Catharine Keener and Albert Finney. Music is by Stewart Copeland and cinematography is by John Toll.

Three young confidence tricksters have orchestrated a horse racing scam tat is making them big money. However, when the scam is unearthed by a top official they set him up for blackmail and make off into the sun. Twenty years later the three of them are brought together by circumstance and the time of emotional reckoning...

It was met with disdain by critics and film goers alike, and even now some 20 years after it was first released it holds below average ratings on the main internet film sites. Is this fair? Does it at the least deserve to be revisited and re-evaluated on its neo-noir character driven terms? Well sort of...

Off the bat it deserves better scores than those afforded it on line purely for the acting alone, this is a high grade group of actors breathing life into damaged characters. Very much a talky character driven piece (stage origins boom out from the off), the screenplay does have a deft potency about it, dealing as it does about shame and guilt and the foundation of success built out of financial gain, with the kicker being the long term repercussions of youthful criminality. Dialogue is often sparky (helps being delivered by those fine actors of course), Toll's cinematography around the Kentucky locales is beautiful, and come the final resolutions to the main characters journey we get a huge emotionally metaphorical whack.

However, there's an overuse of the flashback structure to show us the principals in their younger scamming - life altering - days (played by Kimberly Williams-Paisley, Shawn Hatosy and Liam Waite). Annoyingly there's also the puzzling question hanging over the play as to if this is a simple life story of errors never mended - of cheats prospering only to fall at the later in life hurdle? Or is this attempting to be a complex study of the human condition? Maybe even giving us a stark warning, a message piece if you will. Of course, maybe that's Shepard's thing? to not have definite answers? Either way it's a little frustrating to not have an absolute with such a strong character piece.

It's hardly a must see recommended picture, that's for sure, in fact Warchus' first time direction away from the actors is uncomfortably staid. Yet there's some nice craft here, and a tantalising "more than meets the eye" question mark that keeps you interested if you be so inclined to stick with it. Infertile or interesting? You decide. 6/10

A Stinker!

[tmsci · 1/10 · 8 February 2000]

A really poor script + really bad direction & editing = a stinker! What a waste of a great cast. Four great actors couldn't even breathe life into this. I felt sorry for them.

Most critics seemed to think this film was o.k. I know I'm not, but did some professional critics even watch this thing?

Glassy, enigmatic but occasionally puzzling drama.

[Silverzero · 27 June 2003]

When 5 past Oscar nominees headline a movie, naturally, one would have rather high expectations. Such is the case with `Simpatico' a high-profile drama which went by relatively un-noticed when it was released 3 or 4 years ago. But I am surprised that it only received a 4.4 rating on the IMDb. I'm not saying that the film was a classic or deserved enormous critical plaudits, but I definitely think that it deserved more than that. It is an adaptation of the stage play written by Sam Shepard. While it starts out promising, it is also surprisingly bland when it reaches the conclusion.

But the main problem is the lack of simple definition. It's hard to tell if this is a simple story, or a more complex one. It's unclear whether this is a film about friends reconciling or friends being torn apart by guilt. The film tries going both ways, but the result is a puzzling one to say the least. One thing that it avoids doing is falling into plot-holes, becoming predictable or using average movie clichés. This is done by creating thoroughly flawed but also very compelling characters that certainly aren't your average stereotypes. And they are lifted off paper by exceptional performances from the three Oscar nominated lead players.

Nick Nolte (Affliction, The Prince of Tides) gives yet another top-notch performance as the untrustworthy hobo. Jeff Bridges (The Last Picture Show, The Contender) is also very good as his polar opposite- the eccentric millionaire. About two-thirds the way through the movie, the two main character switch places for no apparent reason. It doesn't make logical sense why a millionaire would choose to live like a bum, just because someone stole his wallet. Both actors are better and more believable in their opening personas.

Sharon Stone (Casino) makes her first appearance in the movie at about the halfway mark. It's a shame she didn't appear earlier, because it's surprising how convincing she is as the rich and wrecked housewife. She's so far away from the icy sex-goddess of `Basic Instinct' it's hard to believe that this is the same actress. Albert Finney (Tom Jones, Erin Brockovich) makes great support, but Catherine Keener (Being John Malkovich) gives the blandest and most over-rated performance. Not only is her part boring and un-necessary, but she even over-acts in certain scenes.

Unfortunately, there are some evident flaws scattered around here and there. The `big twist' is uninteresting and it's ironic that Sharon Stone and Jeff Bridges are never on the screen at the same time- After all, their characters are supposed to be husband and wife! But the brilliant acting alone makes `Simpatico' qualify as a good if un-remarkable movie. The script is below average and sometimes the movie ventures into blandness, but most other aspects are good as expected. My IMDb rating: 6.1/10.

Remarkably Bad Film

[rsternesq · 1/10 · 29 March 2008]

Due to the manner in which premium cable works, I tried to watch this stinker over and over during the course of a weekend. It is without any doubt one of the worst films that I have ever subjected myself to watching. Calling it incoherent is a compliment. I like horses, I've ridden horses, this movie makes even the horse look bad. By the way, what are the odds of any modern woman going horseback riding in a slinky gown? What are the odds of staying awake while this stinker is on your bedroom TV? I'd say that both are one in whatever the current global population. I am in full agreement with the reviewer who compared it to a stick in the eye. I'd compare it to a stick in the eye and root canal without Novocaine.

This old nag should never race

[dfranzen70 · 3/10 · 3 September 2000]

This tale centers around a long-ago secret held by two friends and how it affects them here in the present. The title is the name of a thoroughbred racehorse about to be sold by Carter (Jeff Bridges) for millions of dollars. But wouldn't you know it, the well-to-do Carter gets a phone call from his longtime, ne'er-do-well pal Vinnie (Nick Nolte) with some malarkey about being in trouble and needing Carter to bail him out or else he'll go to the police with this long-ago secret.

So in a plot more tortuous than a mutant pretzel, Carter flies out to Vinnie from Kentucky to California, hoping to get his friend out of trouble so he can get back to the multimillion-dollar horse deal. Ah, but wouldn't you know it, life's just not that simple for Carter. Naturally, Vinnie swipes his car, drives back to the airport, and flies back east to see Carter's wife Rosie (Sharon Stone), hoping to give her some illicit pictures taken long ago (from the long-ago secret, of course). Why? I don't know. Does Vinnie think Rosie will be so grateful to get those pictures back (which involve her and a crooked race commissioner, played in the present by Albert Finney) that she'll leave her husband and hitch up with Vinnie? Picture Nick Nolte looked as disheveled as he did in Down and Out in Beverly Hills. That's kind of how attractive he was in Simpatico. Quite a visual, isn't it?

I think there was supposed to be a cat-and-mouse thriller, but there's no suspense, and therefore no thrills. You take seedy characters, add improbable circumstances and unbelieveable dialog, and you have yourself a recipe for ennui, a real nadir for all involved. Neither of the two males leads is particularly effective, but what was with billing Stone as highly as she was? She doesn't even make an appearance until the movie's about two-thirds over, and even then her performance isn't very good, either. But then again, no one had a decent script with which to work, leaving them to mouth badly written lines.

Unfocussed disappointment

[Erewhon · 4/10 · 16 July 2000]

The script, particularly Albert Finney, is better than this meandering script. The characters are unlikable, the situation uninvolving, and the point of the whole thing obscure. Eventually, people behave inexplicably, but by that time, there's very little reason to care about anything or anyone.

Games People Play

[sol1218 · 6/10 · 12 August 2006]

**SPOILERS** Hard to gage since it has what seems like so many unnecessary sub-plots in it. "Simpatico" is basically about guilt on the part of three persons Vince Webb, Nick Nolte/Shawn Hatsoy, and Lyle & Rosie Carter, Jeff Bridges/Liam Waite & Sharon Stone/Kimberly Williams,who were involved, some twenty years ago in betting on a string of "Ringers". A "Ringer" is a horse who's secretly entered in a race with a false and atrociously bad past performance record in order to fool the betting public. Thus winning races that he or she is not even supposed to be in by going off at astronomical odds.

Were shown in a number of ill-timed and confusing flash-backs that the three track cheats were discovered by local track official Simms, Albert Finney, who was about to turn them into the authorities. Simms was set up in a blackmail scheme by both Vince and his then girlfriend Rosie. With Simms banging her in a motel room as Vince was hiding outside with a camera taking photos of the incriminating tryst.

The movie starts with a drunk and homeless-looking Vince in Cucamunga Calif calling Lyle,now a major horse breeder, in Kentucky frantic that he's about to be arrested and he'll be forced to tell everything he knows to the cops. You get the impression that Vince had been blackmailing Lyle, as well as Simms, for years to keep up his lifestyle, paying for his rent and bottles of booze. As he masqueraded around town posing as a private detective an act that he uses to both impress and pick up girls. Before you can even catch you breath Lyle jets right down to Cucamunga and finds out from Vince that his girlfriend Cecilia,Catherine Keener,a local supermarket cashier is threatening to have him arrested for sexually abusing her. Which Vince says is all a pack of lies.

Going to see Cicilia Lyle tries to get her to change her mind in reporting Vince to the police only to find out that she has no idea what he, or Vince, is talking about and almost throws a confused and befuddled Lyle out of her apartment. Lyle later puts two and two together and realizes that Vince tricked him into coming to Cucamunga in order to implement some weird scheme he dreamed up. All this in order to steal his car and identity, or wallet loaded with dozens of his credit cards, and go back to Kentucky to resume his relationship with Lyle's wife Rosie. Whom he once proposed marriage to and that she accepted.

Lyle wakes up in Vince's cluttered pad,after drinking himself unconscious,and starts to have second thoughts about going back to his life as an ultra-rich Kentucky horse breeder and decides to live as an unemployed bum. Spending all his time sitting on the railroad tracks opening up a can of beans and watching the world go by. The movie never really gets any better after that but only more confusing with Lyle having Cicilia go, all expenses paid, to Kentucky to find Vince and get back the blackmail photos of his wife Rosie having sex with Simms. What all this has to do with Vince's bird-brain scheme doesn't make any sense at all since he has no plans to use the photos, that he seemed to have be using for twenty years, to blackmail anyone but destroy them in order to clear his guilty conscience. We also have Vince track down the disgraced Simms who now uses the name of Ryan Ames,a local blood-horse historian. Vince goes to Simms' office to, what seemed to me, make a mea culpa about what he did to destroy his career as a racing and track official. Simms almost thanks Vince for getting him out of business of policing race-track improprieties and going into a business that he felt that he was born to do researching the bloodlines of thoroughbred horses.

Rosie who seemed to have been smashed and out cold pops up with a hangover just when Vince shows up, unannounced, at her and Lyle's mansion. When Vince tearfully apologizes to Rosie about all the trouble he caused her and Lyle with the photos Rosie comes across as forgiving at first. But when Vince shows them to her she blows her stack and almost blows Vince's brains out for what she at first was totally uninterested in! Simms later meets Cecilia who was sent by Lyle to tell him, together with a load of cash, how sorry he was about what he did to destroy his career. Instead Simms get the hots for her making the confused young women feel that she's being exploited by the two,Simm & Lyle, weirdo's. Cecilia is then put at ease when Simms invites her, this in late October, to the upcoming Kentucky Derby that's to be run the next year on the first Saturday in May!

If all this wasn't enough to already drive you nuts there's the case of Lyle's triple crown winning stallion Simpatico who was syndicated for 30 million dollars and sold off to a group of billionaire Arabian businessmen. Simpatico to the shock of Lyle Rosie and those who bought him was discovered to be impotent and unable to successfully cover and put any mares into fold at the starting price of 75 thousand dollars a pop.

Rosie knowing that her beloved horse Simpatico not being able to replicate himself will end up as dog food takes him out for a last ride. It's then then that she puts the poor animal mercifully to sleep with a bullet in his brain. Vince now back with Lyle in Cucamunga takes the blackmail photos on a deserted hill, overlooking the main highway, burning them in a campfire. Thus erasing the whole sleazy episode out of their lives forever as the sun majestically sets on both them and the movie.

Messy, clumsy, convoluted, and weak.

[=G= · 4/10 · 23 August 2000]

The film "Simpatico" tells its marginally interesting story through a succession of annoying flashbacks and unlikely present-day events. Character development is sufficient to make us realize that we don't much care about what happens to the characters and the drama unfolds like so much chaff from the cutting room floor pieced together in a futile attempt to whet audience interest. "Simpatico" is a poor showcase for some fine actors.

The horse is the real star

[paul2001sw-1 · 6/10 · 23 January 2008]

In the aftermath of a horse-racing scam, a box of incriminating photographs appears to be the trump card. But to take possession of the photographs is also to take responsibility, to accept the burdens of the past; and no-one is exactly sure what it is they really want. One can see how 'Simpatico' might have made a good play, but it's an ordinary film. There's a stagey feel throughout, and the introduction of flashbacks into the basic structure is unilluminating. Of a starry cast, Nick Nolte has played ruined more interestingly elsewhere; Sharon Stone has little to do; while I always find Jeff Bridges annoying, and do so here as well. The real stars are Albert Finney, who sparkles in his role; and an exceptionally beautiful horse.

A shameful waste of talent

[FlickJunkie-2 · 3/10 · 6 September 2000]

This is one of those stories that prove that bankable stars can't save a bad script. The film was a box office disaster, yanked after two weeks in theaters and grossing less than one million dollars. The story, based on a Sam Shepard play, is a character study of characters so totally bereft that it is impossible to care. Vinnie (Nick Nolte), Carter (Jeff Bridges) and Rosie (Sharon Stone) ran a betting scam on horseracing about twenty years ago that included blackmail. Carter is now a successful horse breeder and Rosie is his wife. Vinnie is a broken down drunk who is threatening to expose the scheme for reasons clear only to him.

The story sputters along after that with all sorts of character development and flashbacks. The more we learn about these three, the more we want the movie to end. When it finally does end, the final resolution is so ridiculous and unsatisfying that we are left wondering what the point was.

The acting was up to the standard one might expect, with all three major stars delivering strong performances. However, the story was so irrational and 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 a 3/10. Unless you are a devotee of one of the three stars, you probably will want to spend your time and money on something more entertaining.

A touching, and heart warming tale.

[HauntedMansion666 · 10/10 · 13 March 2004]

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

Needed Alan Rudolph

[ferguson-6 · 6/10 · 19 March 2001]

Grretings again from the darkness. Missed this one at the theatre, so just caught it on cable. Original play written by the masterful Sam Shepard, this one could have been great if directed by Alan Rudolph. Instead we are treated to disjointed moviemaking and sloppy story telling, mixed with inconsistent performances from some wonderful actors. Nolte and Bridges are among the best even on their worst days, and Sharon Stone has a knack for worming sympathy from the audience even in the most unsympathetic roles. Catherine Keener (excellent in 2000's "Being John Malkovich") steals each of her scenes, even up against the powerful Albert Finney. My tidbit on this one is look for Shawn Hatosy as young Vinnie - he was in the extraordinary 1999 film, "Outside Providence", and Kimberly Williams from "Father of the Bride". The flashback scenes seem to be attempts at artful film making, but are fascinating as individual scenes.

Theatrical.

[the red duchess · 3/10 · 18 October 2000]

'Simpatico' is based on a prestigious play by a prestigious author (Sam Shepherd). Its values are theatrical - 'grand' (i.e. porcine) acting; a series of literary metaphors and structural connections; the group of long, 'key' scenes instead of a fluid cinematic narrative. The film basically reiterates the maxim of another prestigious play by a prestigious author - 'Hell is other people'; all the connections in the movie serve to imprison the three main characters in a vicious circle. Four great actors probably thought they were making another 'Paris, Texas'. There are similarities - Nick Nolte's time-blasted hobo raking up the past; the home movies. But I don't think so.