Ottawa

49 user reviews

4.0

/10
Average votes grouped by age and by sex:
Age: 1-12 13-17 18-25 26-35 36-49 50+ Total
Men:
Votes:
-
0
1
1
3.3
6
7.2
4
4.4
8
4.7
4
4.4
24
Women:
Votes:
-
0
-
0
3.7
8
3.1
7
4.2
5
4
2
3.7
22
Total:
Votes:
-
0
1
1
3.6
14
4.3
12
4.1
14
4.5
6
4
49
Total includes those who didn't specify sex.

Write your comment and vote!

All 49 reviews...


Filter reviews

Honestly there were no need for all those sex scenes... really. The movie was okay without it trust me.

7/10
shazjoao@ - 1435 reviews
18.4.2012


Loved the movie. Loved the move!!! If you enjoyed the other directors movie 'The Piano" you will love this one... I will I saw it earlier.

9/10
quest4x@ - first review
15.12.2008 - age: 36-49


No point in the movie, cheap looking sex, total waste of time.

2/10
yudhvir.goyal@ - 2 reviews
15.4.2007 - age: 36-49


I liked this movie but the only scenes I did not like was the sex scenes.

8/10
liz@ - first review
1.5.2006 - age: 18-25


I am uninpressed by some of the negative comments about this movie. I for one admire Meg Ryan's acting in this role. Not typical of her usual roles however she has grown up now and is moving on to grittier parts. I look forward to seeing her in more serious roles. She has screen presence. She can act well, she just needs the good scripts.

6/10
tirantula2000@ - first review
10.5.2005 - age: 26-35


LAME!! Flat characters in a predictable plot done with zero suspense. Director had no idea what she was doing.

2/10
emanmark666@ - 91 reviews
18.9.2004 - age: 36-49


If your looking for a polished, formulaic actioneer/sexy movie -do not go. If, on the other hand, your looking for something more true to life in our society today, definitely do go -you'll get a thought provoking, tension-filled, and sometimes disturbing experience. You will find that Meg Ryan can give an intense and sensitive depth to an acting role, and that Kevin Bacon can do "eerie" with the best of them. If you are capable of thinking below the surface, your in for a real treat. One of the better movies in an otherwise pretty dull repertoire offered to us these days. Lionels.

8/10
andreaandlionel@ - first review
22.4.2004 - age: 50+


Hated it. Kept waiting for the point of this movie. If you like seeing nudity, and have no interest in plot, this one's for you.

2/10
mdzwicker@ - first review
9.4.2004 - age: 26-35


I used to enjoy Meg Ryan. She was so refreshing. Now, she does need a "facelift" to get back into our favor and her attempt into real dramatization was obviously a poor way to renew herself which she did'nt have to.

2/10
padesco@ - first review
7.3.2004 - age: 50+


I agree with the 1 out of 10 rating. This was the worst movie. It was sex for the sake of it... no plot, no chemistry and DULL DULL DULL.

1/10
jennybuk2001@ - first review
25.2.2004 - age: 26-35


This movie, is the Worst movie I've ever seen in my life. I was pretty well Decieved by the Previews. I actually thought it was going to be a pretty good decent film then it turns out to be the crappiest movie ever created. Meg Ryan does soome pretty horrible Acting in this film. I'd be ashamed of myself showing myself nude in movies in my 40's having sexual scenes with a jerk off cop. The movie never held my interest and but my boyfriend to sleep during the movie. I'd advise anyone to not go see this movie. It's a waste of time, and a waste of money. Believe me. I dont know why some ppl believe this movie is so great! It SUCKS!!! You ppl are crazy. I mean there is no Plot, no action, dry as hell and a low budget porno film basically. I mean Meg Ryan shot this film in the ass. She could of picked a better character in another film to act as. I read the reviews on Yahoo, and people were giving this film a B. I'm like what the heck is wrong with you people. But you give excellent movies like Gothika bad grades. I never understand Critics. Please do not go see this film!

1/10
allie_84_us@ - first review
20.1.2004 - age: 18-25


This movie was brutal! The only reason my boyfriend & I didn't walk out 15 minutes into the show was because a friend came with us, and we felt bad that he paid. So we stayed... and as it went on we were more confused & unimpressed. I make the suggestion that Meg Ryan should stick to movies where her clothes stay on! I think it was the worst movie I saw all year & if I could've got a refund... I would. Don't waste you time or money on the rental... you aren't missing anything & would do your viewing friends a favour by passing this movie up.

1/10
ternura_soul@ - first review
27.12.2003 - age: 26-35


The low ratings, bad reviews are due to the expectations of Meg Ryan's audience and the fact that this is not a typical film for her. It is good though and is quite unusual as well.

8/10
brendan88@ - first review
26.11.2003 - age: 26-35


Although Meg Ryan who I think is usually a superb actress plays in this movie, even that doesn't help, not even the slightest to make this movie somehow quite enjoyable. I thought the story was too long, made no sense, too much nudity... VERY BORING! I was VERY disappointed and do not recommend the movie to anyone!

2/10
chocco_vm@ - 6 reviews
21.11.2003 - age: 26-35


Please save your money! This movie had amazing acting but even that couldn't make up for the boredom I felt and the sense of relief when the credits finally rolled. Sorry Meg, bad move on this one!

4/10
jenniferskerry@ - 14 reviews
16.11.2003 - age: 18-25


This movie was just plain UNCOMFORTABLE. The sex scenes were WAY too explicit. Half of the audience was laughing during such scenes because they were too uncomfortable. We walked out half way through.

2/10
monic_1@ - first review
14.11.2003 - age: 18-25


[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
Another horrible movie ending - she escapes from the person she believes is the killer, then we find her sleeping in the cop's car on route to some remote location. What a waste of time.

3/10
whiskibc@ - first review
12.11.2003 - age: 36-49


I guess I'm not your usual "customer" but I find myself in total disagreement with most of the ratings. If you want to be told a neat little story packaged in glossy Hollywood veneer and squeaky-clean, perfectly siliconed sex scenes, that is definitely not the movie for you. On the other hand, if you can appreciate an atmosphere piece and perfect specimen of film noir, you might actually find yourself quite taken by this movie rough sensuousness and bleak portrayal of Lower Manhattan. The amateurish illusion created by the hand-held camera only emphasizes the illusion of intimacy as do the expressionistic lighting and intrusive close-ups. You are so intensely sucked into the movie that none of what has been denounced as lack of character development or plot intricacies end up mattering all that much. Don't bother too much with reviews and just give that movie a chance!

7/10
erato47609@ - 2 reviews
10.11.2003 - age: 50+


This movie was well writing but didn't make sence, I didn't enjoy it cause of all the sex part that makes you unconfortable.

3/10
zabeczka2002@ - 2 reviews
7.11.2003 - age: 18-25


I'm glad to see so many conflicting opinions about this one. That sums up my reaction as I watched. I see many films at the "art house" and few at the "Megaplexs". Its my guess that this is an art film with the big studio budget. Its definitely worth seeing but be prepared for something different.

7/10
mlutzmann@ - first review
7.11.2003 - age: 36-49


I will not stoop to pretention and say that I liked this film. It was one of the worst films I have ever seen. Arsty camera work and directing? - NOT. Horrible, long, boring movie. Aside from the waste of my money, I resented that I wasted two hours of my day on this awful film.

1/10
lyndajeffknoll@ - first review
6.11.2003 - age: 36-49


Rather than consider it as a normal thriller film, the movie is very good to tell you the true that the dream/feeling of a mid-age female who has unsuccessful marriage. However, if you get used to the smiling face of Meg too much, don't go to see it.

9/10
zhcoll@ - first review
6.11.2003 - age: 26-35


Hello, This movie was excellent, not a traditional Meg Ryan movie but she was a great actress in it. Good plot, good substance, the filming is different and I liked it. The people sait it was bad is because they do not have an open mind. Good casting. You must see it.

9/10
france.beaulieu@ - first review
6.11.2003 - age: 36-49


Like the love scene in The Piano -- only sustained for the whole film. Wonderful, heady, luscious, passionate, beautiful, intoxicating, sensuous, lusty, comfortable, gritty, erotic, turned me on!, great performances, great womens' directing -- love the focus pulls and the close ups. Two great songs with strategic symbolism in the film: The Look of Love Just My Imagination Go see it if you know you're going to like it. Please don't see it if you are going to laugh at examples of sexual difference and disturb educated others in the theatre.

9/10
liberkaos@ - 3 reviews
5.11.2003 - age: 26-35


I thought that the movie was horrible. Very slow moving & boring & not sexy enough to qualify as a porn flick. Disappointing to see Meg Ryan in this type of role. Thought of leaving 1/2 way through, but kept expecting that something exciting was going to happen... NOT!! Save your money.

1/10
joelwknoll@ - first review
4.11.2003 - age: 50+


For all of you who are confused over the widely mixed reviews on "In the Cut" here's an honest opinion that is not going to praise this film's greatness or put it down to nothing. For the people who hated this film and rated it very low I can only conclude that they are spoiled by the Hollywood glitter and sheen that most films today ooze of. They are also angry that they spent money on a film that they did not enjoy or understand. In retaliation they give it 'one out of ten'. If you are not a fan of experimental film, or something with an artistic flair then "In the Cut" is not for you. Go see "Scary Movie" and have a good laugh for your seven dollars. If you want a two hour indulgence into one person's world amidst the gloom of a NYC serial killer investigation, then this is for you. Director Jane Campion (The Piano) has broadened her style greatly with this film by exploring the gore associated with homocide, more akin to Tarintino or Hitchcock's style. Watching this I was reminded of "Angel Heart" (directed by Alan Parker)for it's contrast of soft light and focus against the blood and death. Visually it is both creative and ground breaking. Many reviewers were puzzled and not impressed by the camera work. To the average movie-goer it might have seemed unsteady, out of focus or even amateurish. I thought it was effective. Campion uses very intimate close-ups on faces and objects. She choses to portray the elements of a room, rather than the room as whole (which most mainstream filmmakers would chose to do) Her selective focus forces your eye to look where she wants you to look. The plot is not as empty as some reviewers concluded. Quite the opposite. Here is a school teacher (Meg Ryan) who, while sexually conflicted and frustrated, finds herself caught in the middle of a homocide investigation. Ryan's character, Fran, is fully portrayed (unlike the flat and uni-dimensional characters in most of today's movies) Kevin Bacon's very small role was both humorous and disturbingly creepy. Again, you won't see the glitter and glam that most people expect in the theatre, but a captivating story that leaves you guessing to the end. I'd give it an eight-and-a-half, (Mr. Felini)

8/10
jepower@ - 25 reviews
4.11.2003 - age: 36-49


Very interesting role for Meg.

8/10
wstevens32@ - first review
4.11.2003 - age: 50+


Definitely not a typical Meg Ryan movie... it was very sexy. Meg Ryan and Mark Ruffalo were very intense and almost shocking. Shocking sex scenes in movies have made people very desensitized, but in this movie, even I found myself holding my breath...

9/10
amanda_foo06@ - 53 reviews
3.11.2003 - age: 18-25


A very disturbing and schocking film, the entire movie you are in a strange, compressed, sexually charge, dark, suffocating tension. For sure not a feel great movie but I really enjoyed these none Hollywood films, not politically correct and barrier brakers that bring you on a emotional ride. And by the time the film finishes you just sit there in shock of what you felt all through it. Sadly, not enough of these innovative movies. The actors, the directing, the photography are just perfect. We loved it.

10/10
brigittemichel@ - first review
3.11.2003 - age: 26-35


The movie is simply awful: the story, the lines and the actors. The movie goes in all kinds of useless directions: boring and long.

2/10
christina.maynard-keeler@ - first review
3.11.2003 - age: 18-25


STINK, STANK, STUNK! Second worst movie I have ever seen!!! Terrible camera work, out of focus & jumpy. Only reason I stayed was I kept thinking it had to get better... DIDN'T A waste of time & money!

1/10
bngdear@ - first review
3.11.2003


This movie was the worst movie I have seen in my whole life... Very slow, bad acting, directing sucked and so did the filming. It was just soo weird, didn't make much sense at all, and also very predictable. And what is up with the scene where the cop farts really scary stuff I tell you... I wouldn't waste my money on this movie, be smart before you decide to go see this movie and read these comments..

1/10
nleger25@ - 2 reviews
2.11.2003 - age: 26-35


WHAT A WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY... No plot what so ever, even the title has no meaning to the movie... Such a predictable ending but at the point I really didnt care... I almost walked but I fell asleep before I could Dont bother watching it, believe me staring at any wall in your apartement is better then even going to see it for free.

1/10
dolphindreamerx@ - 4 reviews
2.11.2003 - age: 18-25


Just awful... slow moving, boring, predictable story. Terrible camera work. Only redeeming quality is Meg Ryan in the buff.

2/10
luvgolfing@ - first review
2.11.2003 - age: 36-49


It was a dark, depressing movie. Very disappointed in Meg Ryan playing this part. There was too much pornography in it. Discusting and boring all together.

1/10
balserdg@ - 2 reviews
2.11.2003 - age: 36-49


[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
Meg Ryan nude? Stay home and don't rent the video she isnt even worth $2.18 if it gets there.

1/10
maze1602@ - 5 reviews
2.11.2003 - age: 18-25


The rating meens everythings, nothing else to say, except one thing, dont see this movie.

1/10
beb_records@ - first review
1.11.2003 - age: 18-25


This is like a french or quebec art film, it moves pretty slowly and gets strongly dull at about every 10 minutes but the film does have Meg Ryan nude(no frontal shots though and nothing as interesting as nicole kidman's scenes in EYES WIDE SHUT)for about 2 minutes and that's the main reason why this film is getting alot of attention that it wouldn't otherwise receive. It's obviously too long and lacks caracter developpement and the film is out of focus, storywise and sometimes even camerawise. On the upside, apart from the nudity, it has a few moments of suspense and tension but I have the feeling that most people will decide to wait for the video release since the result is far from being totally satisfying.

6/10
wildpeace10@ - 9 reviews
1.11.2003 - age: 36-49


Terrible awful stinky Also if dirty words rule this movie would win. Where did Meg get those pouty lips colligen I wonder. Meg should go back to curly hairy and sweet girly thing. Direction was very hard to watch LARGE AND FUZZY. FORGET IT, I WALKED OUT.

1/10
orville55ca@ - 2 reviews
31.10.2003 - age: 50+


A movie that is'nt Cliche. So of course it's gonna be hated.

8/10
milk@ - first review
31.10.2003 - age: 18-25


[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
This movie really SUCKED!! No plot... horible camera work... and pretty unimpressive acting. [...] The movie doesn't explain how we get to the end and is simply a waste of time.

2/10
lynchmob450@ - 7 reviews
26.10.2003 - age: 26-35


Horrible from start to end. I tried to figure out this flick, but even the title doesn't fit in. I don't know why Nicole Kidman bought the rights to this piece of crap. SUCKS... SUCKS... AND SUCKS!

1/10
amytrooper@ - first review
25.10.2003 - age: 36-49


This movie is really something different. It's a trhiller that doesn't take youon a suspense ride but is filled with horrific imagery. It's a portrayal of a woman with fears and insecurities that overcomes them without you ever really getting to know her. It's an intimate movie that just drags on it's intimacy without any true sense of direction. It's just a lot of things that together bring a slow paced movie that gives you some horrific scenes and a surprise ending... but then again to most, even the ending wasn't surprising. Based on their words I'd say 5: so so, worth if you don't pay.

5/10
sacoca@ - 2 reviews
25.10.2003 - age: 18-25


Note: The user reviews posted on this page are personal opinions of our visitors. We are not responsible for their content.

Did you see ''In the Cut''?

Write a movie review and you could WIN free tickets!!! (details about the promotion)

How do you rate this movie?


Please explain. Write your comment here:


Your age:     Male:   Female: (optional)

Your e-mail:

You will receive a confirmation of your comment by e-mail.
We reserve the right to reject your comment at our discretion.

Mobile · Home · Top 10 · Trailers · Playing · Upcoming · Theatres · Movies · DVD · Promotions · Change City · USA · Contact Us · Français
Terms and Privacy Policy under which this service is provided to you.
© 1996-2012 CinemaClock Canada Inc.