I would like to start by saying that I found Mark Ruffalo's blatant sexual language and personality oddly sexy in this movie. Something about his quick banter accented by that New York voice really resonated with me. The facial hair and trim body definitely worked in his favor. Meg Ryan? Great body... but from a woman's perspective, I thought her hair did nothing for her face, her character, or for the audience. I just wish she could have been a little more vixen to go along with her sexual advances. But that's enough about the physical aspects of the lead roles! I liked this movie. I finished it about thirty minutes ago and have been thinking of it ever since. Sadly, I saw Ruffalo in "Now You See Me" prior to watching "In the Cut", so the little plot twists and turns didn't surprise me. I knew who the criminal was going to be within the first few scenes, but it seems a lot of other reviewers did as well. Even if the standard (sad that it has to be) thriller has a worn plot like this one, I was captivated. One reviewer said Frannie was paranoid the entire time, but I didn't feel that. She started off being quirky and book-smart, cracking sly jokes with Ruffalo and his partner. She was saying some things about the crime that I thought were bold and disengaging (as in, she seemed unaffected by the crimes). Halfway through the movie, when she began to suspect a certain someone of murder, she didn't react in a hugely paranoid manner. I actually wanted her to. For a girl thinking someone was a killer, she sure didn't stay away for long. The couple things that I did not care for were her relationship with her student and how little was known about Malloy's partner. Half the time I didn't understand if her student was writing a book, helping her with her case, infatuated with her, or some artsy weird kid rebelling against school. It read weird to me. The scene where he is in Frannie's room with her when they are about to get a little heavy... I didn't feel their attraction or understand his reactions. After reading a forum response, someone put him in a group with the violent men of this movie and said he was trying to figure out what Frannie wanted from him. That made more sense to me. As for the charm bracelet: a lot of people seem confused as to why Frannie freaked out the way she did. I think, because she knew that Malloy took her sister's key, she obviously would assume that he took her charm. What are the chances of him finding it in a dirty alleyway? There is one quick scene, which I have not gone back to find the timing for, where she is again looking at that photo of her sister and something is hanging down off of it. A chain of some sort. I thought in hindsight that it was her charm. This was not long before she found it in Malloy's pocket.. so my take on it was that he had placed it there after acquiring it, gone back in the room before or after the last female murder (trying real hard to avoid obvious spoilers), and re-pocketed it to later be found by Frannie. The only other qualm I had was that no back story or character development was given for Malloy's partner. He was a scumbag who goofed off a lot. Maybe this was intentional- to hide possible suspicion- but I felt it worked against the film. I wanted to know his early and family life. Other than that, the only characters I really liked were Malloy and the black guy who sat outside Pauline's place. Malloy was just brutally himself and I believed he could be a cop walking down my street. I appreciated the rawness, no apologies. Frannie's ex creeped me out and I want him to go get help. Or sleep. The stripper girls were no big deal. Frannie was great sometimes but I didn't always believe her sexual prowess... maybe it was just the hair. Though I DID love her fascination with words. I'm biased because I write down things that catch my attention as well. When Frannie reads that first train poem about the kiss, I thought, "Ooh, I like that, I should write it down." Safe to say... She beat me to it. Oh, did anyone else keep expecting her to have this psychic photographic memory that was going to help her solve crimes? It helped with the blow job princess and her little clues, but otherwise, it didn't play a huge role. I thought "Meow" and her other phrases were going to spell out some mysteries. I thought the running girls and her mysterious stare-offs at random objects would present themselves later. Guess not.

The acting is fine. So are the directing and cinematography. But who cares? The story is so full of holes that it's hard to believe Campion wasted her time on such junk. A creepy ex-boyfriend and a student who happens to be fixated on serial murders? Nah, they're just filler, a couple of obvious suspects, though Meg Ryan's character isn't even bright enough to suspect them as she sleepwalks through her life. No, the killer is there in the background, waiting for the big reveal in the last five minutes. The plot stinks to high heaven.Roger Ebert's review sums it up nicely: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/in-the-cut-2003

Jane Campion clearly can't make it. The film doesn't work at all. At first, we have the framing, witch is very tiring, with the continuous close - ups and the hand held camera only makes things worse. Blurring things or dimming the lights does not, I repeat does not creates atmosphere, it only shows luck of creativeness together with a very old fashion approach in film making. Showing us again and again every detail of the faces of the actors does not engage us more, it only makes us want to zoom out ourselves to see wtf is going on. The music is so academic that it doesn't exist. Worst of all: The dialogs. The film crawls all the way from the beginning to the bitter end and the dialogs are drugging it the other way. What can I say? Together with Holy Smoke, a film that ruined the talented Harvey Keitel and Kate Winslet, (a tragedy really), In The Cut is so pointless that makes you wonder, was she really thinking making them? I wouldn't consider watching anything else from her. I gave her a four, for it's obvious that she tried, but she clearly failed. She doesn't have it. Sorry Jane.

It's different and if you are a Meg Ryan fan then you should check it out.However only if you are willing to watch her go completely out will the boundaries of anything you have come to know and love her in. I hate when i'm watching a film and an actress i love ends up naked without any reason. So yes I see why folk slam this, there is a lot of nudity, most of It Ryan's however it is integral to the story. Admittedly there could have been a lot less of it.I wasn't expecting much given that i though i was sitting down to watch "against the ropes" on the TV. The sexual nature almost made me turn the TV off but the performances from both Ryan and Ruffalo are so engaging. Given a chance the story is also something you can easily get into. By the end of it I loved it.Actors are constantly slammed for not going out there comfort zone, yet here is someone so far out of her "cumfy" zone its like an alternate universe. Handeling it so well, she deserves so much more praise than she ever got.I've never seen another Campion movie but this was handled well and i may look into some more of her work but only if its story out weighs the explicit content.Watch it, only if you are willing to see Ryan do something against type. It's more powerful than any Julia Roberts performance.