Reviews & Ratings for
The Dying Gaul More at IMDbPro »

Page 1 of 6:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

43 out of 48 people found the following review useful:

Darkest Dark Or Maybe Darker

Author: wlawson60 from United States
10 July 2006

Hollywood is always a sinister setting, even for a comedy and "The Dying Gaul" is no exception. I don't intend to divulge the ins and outs of the story because that should be your job, but I feel compelled to talk about it because it kind of stacked all over me like some kind of alien jelly. I always loved Campbell Scott and I suspect I always will. He plays the devil - The "I'll give you a million bucks if you abandon completely yourself, your principles, your loyalties" - kind of devil - He is married to the splendid Patricia Clarkson ( part Meryl Streep part Wayland Flower's Madame) and the object of his temptation is Peter Sarsgaard, one of the best creepiest actors ever to appear on film. It may be a personal thing but he gives me the willies. The film is an uncomfortable journey through a strangely familiar landscape that becomes darker and darker. I will take my chances and recommend it.

38 out of 57 people found the following review useful:

Well Acted Triangle Undercut By Artsy Direction

Author: noralee from Queens, NY
11 November 2005

"The Dying Gaul" feels like an updated "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" set in Hollywood instead of academia. But it gradually veers towards "Fatal Attraction" as the opening jabs at commercial film-making, with lots of name and title dropping that seem to be writer Craig Lucas's revenge on compromises he made for his successful "Prelude to a Kiss," give way to catastrophic psychological manipulation.

The initial Hollywood commentary is emphasized through the settings, as the movie producer, Campbell Scott, and his ex-writer/liberal activist/household and children manager wife, Patricia Clarkson, live in an extraordinary house with a rippling pool and ocean view. Their financial success is wielded like a weapon as the camera restlessly swoops around all their possessions, household help and scenic property. The emotional price he's paid for this is clear as Scott's "Jeffrey" could be in "Glengarry Glen Ross" (to drop film titles like he does) as he'll clearly do anything to seal a deal.

Peter Sarsgaard drives on to the studio lot and into their lives with a completely different character from his four other released films this year, with inflections and body language that only occasionally get a bit too flamboyant as affectations of an out gay writer discussing issues of sexuality in the movies and his late lover. His grief and need for human warmth is so palpable that it is even believable that after failing with psychological counseling and Buddhism to deal with it, he clutches at what used to be called spiritualism, here delivered through the internet, shown visually both in the written word and the actors talking to the camera like reading aloud from their computer screens, edited effectively in the best key scenes with real life.

Clarkson is wonderful as she morphs from busy housewife lounging in a fetching bikini, to curious dabbler in the dark side, to woman scorned and revengeful manipulator. She may be the Ultimate Scary Mother, sexy, maternal and controlling, who while distraught over violent video games goes after the psyche. Unusually for how such a triangle has been portrayed in films (and the film is specifically set in 1995 as perhaps a more innocent time), we also get brief, sympathetic insight on another woman similarly affected by the writer's selfish actions that puts Clarkson's "Elaine" in perspective as she could have been portrayed as more of a brittle harpy. But each character alternately attracts and repels us.

In his directing debut Lucas does not well serve his own script, adapted from his play, as it could have been a lot tauter in exploring the slippery slope of ethics in human relationships, that all it takes is that one small step to deceive or keep secrets before one falls into the well. There could have been a lot fewer arty scenes in silhouette, at sunset, across water.

The Steve Reich music throughout becomes more irritating than tension-inducing.

While the title has something to do with the writer's long monologue about the significance of the Roman sculpture as an artist's way to make victims sympathetic, one is left here more with the feeling that these three folks deserve each other, though the collateral damage left in their wake is a tragedy.

20 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

Say It Isn't So

Author: felixoscar from New York, USA
4 December 2005

I would be hard pressed to name a trio of actors that I could be more excited to see than the stars of his film. Been rooting for Clarkson for years; we all know Sarsgaard is Oscar material in the years to come; Scott is (to me) even better than his dad. So I was waiting for this, via Craig Lucas, for a long time.

My cousin had warned me (we are both gay) that the play delivered a memorable first half (in a positive way) and just as memorable second half (in how bad it was). Clearly the screenplay did nothing to change this, alas.

The three leads were, no surprise, just excellent, and seeing them was well worth the time and cost. Oh PeterS, get back to work we need more of you! But dear Mr Lucas, when characters behave in ways that show no logic, it feels like a cheat.

Fascinating idea, beautiful setting, some splendid dialogue and then disaster sets. I say "6" and wish everyone involved great success in the years to come.

33 out of 52 people found the following review useful:

Devious

Author: awjonesjr from Dallas, Texas
20 November 2005

First off, the less you know about this movie before seeing it, the better. Go in clean. And just let it such you in. Here are a few things you CAN know. (a) The screenwriter/director, Craig Lucas, is gay but wrote his best known play, PRELUDE TO A KISS, about a straight relationship that has overtones of homosexuality. (b) Patricia Clarkson may be the finest actress of her age. She flits around the first 20 minutes of this movie in a bra and panties, toyingly svelt but with a panther-like quality you only realize later. (c) This is a movie without a protagonist or an antagonist -- or more accurate, a movie in which each of the main characters take turns at being the antagonist and protagonist. (d) Despite the gay aspects, this is really a movie about betrayal, and it is fiendishly mean (but in a good way). (e) Peter Sarsgaard has never looked handsomer. (f) That's all you need to know. See it.

14 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

Accountability and the Need for Passion in an Alienating World

Author: gradyharp from United States
23 March 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

THE DYING GAUL, written and directed by Craig Lucas (writing credits include 'Longtime Companion', 'Prelude to a Kiss', 'Reckless') is a brilliant little film that stirred comment and appreciation during its unfortunately very brief run in the theaters (as one of the film's characters comments "Most Americans hate gay people. If they hear it's about gay people, they won't go.") And this in a year when films such as 'Brokeback Mountain', 'Transamerica', and 'Capote' drew focus. As the oft-used phrase states, 'Go figure'.

The story is a bizarre triangle of interaction among three very bright, enlightened, yet passionately isolated people whose coming together is the stuff of tragedy on the grand scale. Robert Sandrich (Peter Sarsgaard) is a grieving screenwriter (his lover recently died from complications of AIDS in a manner secretly gnawing at Robert). His most recent screenplay 'The Dying Gaul' about a gay couple - one with AIDS - is a tribute to his lover, and while it is a brilliant script and is taken on by a top film producer Jeffrey Tishop (Campbell Scott), Jeffrey offers to buy the script for a million dollars IF Robert re-writes the script to make the couple a heterosexual one (see above for his reason). Robert at first refuses to 'sell out' but eventually gives in and does the re-write. Jeffrey is married to a very bright ex-screenwriter Elaine (Patricia Clarkson) who reads Robert's script, loves the original and becomes so obsessed with the script and with Robert that she plunges into an investigation of Robert's life. Compounding the intrigue is the fact that Jeffrey begins to fall in love with Robert and Robert is so needy emotionally that he responds: the two become lovers. Elaine enters Robert's private life via chat room discussion where she poses as the voice of Robert's dead lover and inadvertently discovers secrets that eventually bring the trio to a devastating climax: secrets are revealed that demand accountability and each character is permanently altered.

Craig Lucas, in this his first directorial outing, proves to be an artist with style, with vision, and with guts to put tough material into visual form. The pacing is tense, the ideas are well developed from the meaning of the title to the cruelty of the machine mode means of conversation via email chat rooms. He handles sexuality variations as well as any director today. He of course is blessed with a trio of superlative actors: Sarsgaard, Clarkson and Campbell give extraordinary performances. The cinematography by Bobby Bukowski revels in the brilliance of the California sun at poolside as well as the eerie light from the computer screen in darkened rooms - further underlining the alienation that medium demands. And the crowning addition is a musical score by gifted composer Steve Reich (one of the finest of today's classical composers). THE DYING GAUL is a tough film but one that is so refreshingly dedicated to its vision that it scores as a major work. Highly Recommended. Grady Harp

11 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

There's poison in the garden

Author: iago-6 ([email protected]) from NYC
17 March 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

From Craig Lucas, who brought us Longtime Companion and Prelude to a Kiss, comes this movie, which is much darker in tone and much more challenging as a film than either of those. Peter Sargaard stars as a gay screenwriter who has just sold his script, called The Dying Gaul. It tells the story of his lover's death from AIDS, and is based around a metaphor related to the famous Roman sculpture of the title. The thing about the sculpture is that it sensitively depicts a dying soldier of the enemy's army, and so is normally taken to represent the ability to have empathy for one's enemy. Keep this in mind kids, it wasn't chosen by accident.

So Jeffery, the producer who buys the script, played by Campbell Scott, makes a condition of the sale that Robert change the dying character to a woman, as "everyone hates gays," and "people don't come to movies to feel bad or to learn, you have to lure them in and then deliver a lesson." These, also, are notes to keep in mind. At first Robert refuses, but he is offered a million dollars, and he needs that money. He intends to use part of it for the education of his son, who he had when married to a woman. We later find out that his lover who died was the brother of his former wife, which carefully hints at Robert's shifty morals. And, like many people with malleable morals, Robert professes to be a Buddhist.

Soon we are introduced to Jeffery's wife Elaine, played by Patricia Clarkson. She is shown, several times, in a white bikini (who knew she had such a slender, lithe body?). You will note that she is the only one who's body is exposed and sexually available, yet it soon becomes clear that no one, least of all her husband, is interested. This leads to the kind of sad isolation and bitter resentment you might expect.

Soon Robert is introduced to Elaine, when they go a screening of one of Jeffery's movies. Elaine positions herself as a confidant to Robert, one who understands how he feels and stands for his principles (she was formerly a screenwriter herself). She elicits from him that one of the ways he dulls the pain of being bereft by his lover's death is by perusing chatrooms, and she gets the name of his favorite one.

...Spoilers from here on out! Meanwhile, Jeffery is coming on hard to Robert, and we find out later that Robert has given in. Later the night of the screening, Elaine invents a name and finds Robert in the chatroom. She asks if he's seeing anyone, and it's revealed to her that he is--her husband! Clarkson's performance in this scene, and really all throughout the movie, is superb.

Driven by a complex web of emotions that are at once well-drawn and yet never spelled out, Elaine invents a new screen name, "ArckAngel," and writes Robert, claiming to be his dead lover. This sends Robert into an emotional spin of renewed grief and guilt, both at changing his screenplay and having the affair with Jeffery. Elaine continues as Robert's friend and confidant, and the whole mess starts getting more taut, more sordid, and more ugly. The ending came as a surprise to me, but one that will leave you with a lot to think about and piece back together.

So let's get back to the theme of empathy for one's enemy. Elaine definitely gets to understand Robert's pain, though she is resistant to feeling it because of her own situation. Robert comes to gain a clear understanding of Elaine's heartache, though again he has his own reasons for not letting himself be moved by it. At the end I believe we are supposed to gain an understanding of Jeffery's situation, but I'm not quite sure it works. The final image of the movie is Jeffery mimicking the posture of The Dying Gaul. It's good and it works in a structural way, but I'm still unsure whether it works emotionally. My friend and I had a long discussion over dinner about whether it was an accomplishment or a failure of the film that neither of us were moved by the character's predicaments. I felt for each of the character's, yet they are all so morally flawed that it is difficult to truly feel empathy for them, which keeps the movie on an emotionally distant, cerebral level. Again, is this purposeful? Neither me nor my friend could tell for sure.

The structure and metaphorical significance of the story will give you a lot to think about after the film is over. It's unusual for a film to be so well-thought out and interesting on so many levels these days, and it seems to be one of the best entries in the field of gay films, which finally seems to be heading away from coming-out stories and tales of pretty twits into more serious fare. I'm not sure it all works in the end, but the depth of the characters, the interesting and well-thought-out writing and structure, and the excellent performances all make this definitely one worth watching.

--- Check out other reviews on my website of bad and cheesy movies, Cinema de Merde, cinemademerde.com

25 out of 41 people found the following review useful:

intriguing and beautifully done

Author: btyson-1 from United States
29 October 2005

How do we honor those we love? What kind of therapy can words provide?

I didn't understand the title of this movie but was eager to see it at the Austin Film Festival because it features such an exceptional cast. Campbell Scott, Peter Sarsgaard, and Patricia Clarkson consistently do interesting work and are appearing together for the first time. "The Dying Gaul" is one of the best movies I've seen in awhile.

In one of the first scenes Robert (Peter Sarsgaard) elaborates on the title of his screenplay, "The Dying Gaul," with studio executive Jeffrey (Campbell Scott.) The screenplay and its meaning to the writer becomes a catalyst for the story that unfolds.

This story of lust, manipulation, betrayal, and revenge is - not surprisingly - set in the Hollywood of 1995. But it's a story that could take place elsewhere, it just wouldn't be as captivating or beautifully photographed - and there are some lovely and interesting scenes and unusual close-ups.

Robert has turned the loss of his partner to AIDS into a screenplay that studio executive Jeffrey will pay top dollar for, with one significant change. Jeffrey's wife Elaine (Patricia Clarkson), also a screenwriter, adores the original script. She is drawn to Robert and wants to know more about the forces that influenced his talent. Her shocking discovery propels the story in unexpected ways.

Don't leave until the credits roll or you won't know who screenwriter and director Craig Lucas dedicates his story to. You may think about it in a different light. Lucas also wrote the screenplays of two other movies I liked very much: "The Secret Lives of Dentists" and "Longtime Companion." He is quite good at exploring the mysteries of the heart and dynamics of relationships. Don't miss this movie. I intend to see it again.

13 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

High Praise For Dark, Brooding Story

Author: Gregg Klein from United States
21 November 2005

I thoroughly enjoyed this film. Mr. Lucas directed a very cinematic version of his stage play, and assembled an outstanding cast. Peter Sarsgaard, Campbell Scott and particularly Patricia Clarkson, give layered, complex, award-worthy performances.

This film reminds me of another along the same genre, American Beauty, which also examined difficult and complex relationships, and attempted to do so with both humor and pathos.

Because this film is part thriller, part black comedy, part searing emotional drama, it had me going on many levels.

Again, Patricia Clarkson should be praised highly for her ability to make the reactions of her character so real! I have not always been a Craig Lucas fan, as I sometimes find his work to be a bit preachy (Prelude to a Kiss), but with this film, and his obvious director's eye, I look forward to his next effort.

6 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Boring and Unrealistic

Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
18 May 2014

The gay screenwriter Robert (Peter Sarsgaard), who is grieving the recent loss of his lover, writes a screenplay based on his biography and tries to sell it to the Hollywood producer Jeffrey (Campbell Scott). He offers one million dollars for his work, provided changes in the story replacing the dying man per a woman to make a commercial film. Jeffrey shows the screenplay to his wife Elaine (Patricia Clarkson), who loves to write and to plant flowers, and she is also delighted with the story.

Robert works introducing the required modifications and Jeffrey, who is bisexual, has an affair with him. Meanwhile Elaine finds the gay website where Robert writes and she creates a fake profile to have conversation with him pretending that she is his deceased lover. Soon she learns the affair of her husband and she decides to leave him. But when the gay Robert discovers the truth, he has a breakdown and takes vengeance for Elaine with tragic consequences.

"The Dying Gaul" is a boring movie with an unrealistic story. The idea of Elaine pretending to be the spirit of the dead gay and luring Robert in a gay chat room is ridiculous. The use of the deadly flower to poison Elaine would be easily found by the autopsy despite his explanation about the impossibility of finding the traceability of the poison. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Triângulo Obsceno" ("Obscene Triangle")

14 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

Interesting, watchable, and maddening

Author: Juliette2005 from United States
2 November 2005

I enjoyed this film, up to a point- and that point was almost exactly the half way mark, where the writer director chose to go the maudlin implausible route instead of sticking with what he had, which was wonderful.

To have three characters in conflict and resolve it without any fancy plot device would have been truly courageous, but sadly what started out so lovely descended into melodrama and tedium.

That being said, Craig Lucas is clearly a talent to watch, he did a marvelous job with the actors- particularly Peter Skaarsgard, who does wonderful work, and the script is smart and even touching in places.

Campbell Scott seemed miscast to me, wooden and distant at places but oddly brazen in others. I can't imagine a married studio executive actually touching and almost kissing a writer ON THE LOT. I found myself imagining what other actors would have done with the role, never a good sign. But then again, he was one of the producers, so Mr. Lucas had his hands tied.

All in all, the first act was so promising that I was angered by the way Lucas decided to end it.

Page 1 of 6:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Add another review

Related Links