Libramedi Intense, gripping, stylish and poignant

SpecialsTarget Disturbing yet enthralling

Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Mehdi Hoffman There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

Goomba01 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.

paul2001sw-1 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.

hermit58 Simpatico wasn't a bad film, but nowhere near what I would have expected from the strong cast, and a Sam Shepard penned work. I don't know a great deal about horseracing, the backdrop of the film, but I do know if you bet on the favorite, you win less than betting on a longshot. That seems to be what happened here, the deck is stacked with terrific actors, Jeff Bridges, Nick Nolte, Albert Finney, and Catherine Keener. The resulting film is a letdown however. Finney and Keener are wonderful in it, but I think Nolte and Bridges could have been given more to work with. I bet that this cast and a suspenseful thriller, would have me riveted, but, the payoff was meager at best. If you are going to build a tale around the storm clouds of the past gathering on the horizon, you better have more than a common rainstorm coming thereafter. Another blow to the hopes that film noir can be current and still as good as in the golden age of the 40's film classics. Two stars out of a possible four.Not Highly Recommended.**.

tedg Spoilers herein.This film has gotten beaten about by critics. IMDB voters rate it lower than `Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man!' Wow.It doesn't bother me that the older actors are on automatic pilot, because that's the point. No, nor does it annoy that the perspective is deliberately lacking energy, especially considering the life that Shepard spanked into theater in the 80s. Because that was deliberate. This hand shakes. Why shouldn't a play about decomposition show cracks?I don't believe Shepard can do no wrong. `Paris' was too artificial for me. `Renaldo and Clara' was a goof.But the writing here is so tight, so self-aware, so self-reflective that the force of it transports. Two elements are notable. A writer lives through his work, IS his work. As the work breaths so does he. As he ages and develops an awareness of the price of past excesses, of cheats and shortcuts, so should the work, if it is real. This does. Perhaps the audience for the living word is scanty. But this is real art, real control.The other element that impresses here is the art of slowly spinning the story. There is a tradition of withholding key threads when weaving a story. It is a game between writer and reader, each trying to outguess the other. The detective story is the simplest form, where you and the writer are engaged in a game of wits. Engagement.You become engaged not because of what you know, but what you do not know, and -- in this subgenre anyway -- a pact is established early that you will get all the pieces you need, but not without some work. This kind of storytelling, when it does not rely on convention, is very hard to manage. And the actors who do the real work must be obtuse, a particular challenge. I suppose that flies in the face of today's TeeVee watchers who want it all to make sense from the beginning, and who want to ‘understand' characters.(A plea: eschew your TeeVee. It numbs.)This is not of the caliber of `State and Main,' for instance because Mamet understands writing to the light which this adapter/director lacks. He does well enough with folding time neatly, but not with mastery as in "The Limey.' It does not have the integration of writer vision and actor expression of "The Pledge."But see it for the engagement.