Neil LaBute’s “The Shape of Things” (2003) was seen by some as a return to type for the playwright-turned filmmaker.

Following his controversial breakout, “In the Company of Men” (1997), the confrontational LaBute made the even pricklier (and far tougher to like) “Your Friends and Neighbors” (1998), an out-of-character and great “Nurse Betty” (2000) and the forgettable “Possession” (2002).

Whereas LaBute was constructing his identify as a playwright of caustic character dramas with misanthropic protagonists, his films have been caught within the artwork home. “The Shape of Things” was supposed as a giant swing that mimicked the forcefulness of “In the Company of Men” and provided a movie-star solid (although most have been originally of their careers).

Paul Rudd stars as Adam, a painfully awkward school pupil who falls arduous for Evelyn, an intense and engaging grad pupil performed by Rachel Weisz. Whereas Adam can’t imagine his luck with winding up with somebody he finds so interesting, his greatest mates (Gretchen Mol and Frederick Weller) are uneasy together with his new relationship.

Perversely fascinating, typically humorous and surprisingly frank at instances, LaBute’s solid is taken from his authentic stage manufacturing, making a cinematic facsimile of the play.

Weisz’ efficiency is one thing particular, significantly within the outstanding closing scenes, which is the portion of LaBute’s movie is unforgettable. Even audiences who can accurately guess the place the movie goes are prone to squirm through the dread-inducing finale.

Public humiliation is never depicted in such a merciless, direct method.

Typically the actors are going massive, as if nonetheless accustomed to acting on stage and haven’t fully toned it down for a digicam crew. Most of the time, the movie gives an encapsulation of a riveting stage drama and opens the work up sufficient that we’re not all the time conscious that this talky work originated as a theater piece.

Examine this to the two-person rom-com “Destination Wedding” and notice how, even with a megawatt film star two-person solid, the fabric and the performances need to be robust sufficient to hold a dialogue/character-driven work made up of two-hander scenes.

LaBute’s works genuinely anger audiences and, most vitally get them speaking. Not like unbearable trying-too-hard movies like “Closer” or “August: Osage Country,” LaBute’s scripts lean into discomfort, don’t enable ethical certainty and even sympathetic characters to throw us a line.

There aren’t any relatable characters right here, solely concepts we will all relate to, albeit queasily.

The extra pretentious points of “The Shape of Things” (and sure, if LaBute is responsible of any of the issues he’s so typically accused of, it’s pretension) are the overall questions of what qualifies as artwork and is creating an authentic, very important set up value creating if it means leaving emotional destroy?

The extra all the way down to the bottom questions are, how a lot will we compromise ourselves in a relationship and the place ought to we draw the road? Is there some extent the place, whether or not we understand it or not, that we’re now not ourselves due to how arduous we’re making an attempt to please the opposite individual?

For that matter, are we responsible of being manipulative if the individual we’re deceiving is blissfully unaware? These are all questions LaBute brings up and accurately assumes there aren’t any straightforward solutions.

Until LaBute makes a comeback, (and I sincerely hope he does and with one thing this potent), his time as a revered filmmaker might have ended. It’s arduous to bounce again from a mega bomb (simply ask “Gigli” director Martin Brest) and LaBute’s “The Wicker Man” (2006) has acquired an unearned infamy.

Honestly, whereas that Nicolas Cage-led misstep has its moments of unintended camp, your complete film and never simply the juicy YouTube clips, are value seeing. As soon as may do so much worse than an formidable and usually provocative retelling of a people horror story by which Cage’s cop struggles to resolve a thriller on an island with a matriarchal neighborhood.

I’m not defending it as an incredible or misunderstood movie, however “The Wicker Man” is attention-grabbing for its quirky decisions, at the same time as its third act is fatally unsteady.

Whereas LaBute’s “The Wicker Man” wraps up in a way of cinematic infamy, the conclusion of “The Shape of Things” positions the author/director at his most provocative and hurtful. It’s a bruising and unforgettable conclusion, with worthwhile debate and dialogue to observe if seen with others.