Simpatico (1999) Reviews

• Great actors in a mediocre movie

  deltadave6692001-03-20

  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.

  More

• An affecting movie. . . .

  Goomba012009-02-23

  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.

  More

• Glassy, enigmatic but occasionally puzzling drama.

  Silverzero2003-06-27

  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.

  More

• very weak film noir with great secondary characters

  Buddy-512001-01-26

  Somewhere buried deep inside the mess that is `Simpatico' there lurk the makings of a pretty decent little love story. Unfortunately, one would have to eliminate pretty much the entire main storyline and all the major characters in order to find it. This tale of `three people caught in a web of their own making' is so thoroughly inept, overwrought and inconsequential that it seems more like a parody of film noir than a serious entry in the genre. The crime that these three people perpetrated in their youth – the one that keeps coming back to haunt them in their approaching middle-age - seems a piddling one at best for a film of this type. An even more serious problem is that the three lead performers seem stuck in roles that have come to define their métier as actors. Nick Nolte, for instance, plays his customary down-and-out, barely-teetering-on-the-edge-of-sanity middle aged loser whose capricious nature makes him forever a threat to the security of the group, while Jeff Bridges portrays the common sense, constantly put-upon ringleader who just wants to forget all about the past but who has a hard time keeping a leash on the unpredictable Nolte. Sharon Stone completes the trio as Bridges' now moody, alcoholic wife – a pale imitation of her much more meaty role in Martin Scorcease's `Casino.' Stone's over-the-top thespian simpering reduces the (fortunately) few scenes she is in to the level of unintentional high comedy. Moreover, in their attempt to provide a dual level structure to their tale – crosscutting scenes of the past with scenes of the present – the filmmakers have been forced to employ actors who look nothing like their contemporary counterparts. The result is, initially, confusing and, ultimately, quite ludicrous. What is most strange about `Simpatico' is that, while the story itself fizzles and the audience could care less what happens to these three whining, puling, muking central characters, writer/director Matthew Warchus and co-author David Nicholls somehow manage to create a back story and two minor characters who engage both our sympathy and our interest. These come in the form of the always splendid Albert Finney as the man our intrepid band of halfwit con men managed to entrap into an extortion scheme twenty years earlier, and the charming Catherine Keener as the highly principled grocery store cashier who finds herself unwittingly a pawn in Bridges' plot to rein Nolte in. Finney and Keener provide so much warmth and humanity in their few scenes together that we find ourselves regretting that the film does not revolve around them entirely. Wisely, after we wheeze our way through all the hullabaloo and nonsense necessary to bring the main plot to its ludicrous conclusion, Warchus closes the film with a coda focused on these two winning characters. The finale, in some inexplicable way, seems more like a beginning than an ending and we find ourselves wanting to see what happens to this offbeat, likeable couple. By wasting our time concentrating on the Nolte/Bridges/Stone triumvirate of insipidity, the filmmakers end up making us feel even more resentful in the long run. Like the victims of the trio's racetrack shenanigans, we feel robbed!

  More

• Plot less in Seatlle?

  robo82007-05-27

  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.

  More