Alicia I love this movie so much

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

pierre.gautard@free.fr What is this 4.4 rating by 2348 users? Where did this come from? Not enough car chases? This is a good movie, well written. One could criticize a bit a sort of awkwardness or heaviness in the technical aspect of movie making, due to a first film or an approach maybe too theatrical, but the directing is good. It plainly deserves a minimum of 6.5 for its artistic value. Maybe Matthew Warchus is more a stage director and too keen on good directing than finding a picturesque way with images to illustrate something he has already staged.If films about horses are to be considered, "Simpatico" is much better than "Dead Heat" (rated 5.3), different from "Seabiscuit" (rated 7.3) because it does not carry hope against odds being more of a drama about betrayal, and better than the totally unrealistic "Hidalgo" (rated 6.6) who has never been in the Sahara, but it does show a chase.Why consider it as a film about horses? Because it also is a film about a horse, magnificent as opposed to human behavior in this story, as far as the only pure character in this movie, named by its title, is the horse Simpatico, and maybe this is the side that should have been enhanced more in opposition with the corruption of all this human horse-racing scam, since human perversion finally kills him, and what's more, because he his becoming sterile. Maybe the overall realism, that had to be detailed more in the movie than the play, brought too many necessary plot details that might have obscured the existence of the character Simpatico, although every time we see him, his beauty reminds us of his existence as metaphor, metaphor that might have been more powerful on the stage, just by being permanent but never visible.I suggest a 6.5 as a minimum.

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.

quicksandyears I felt like this movie was more than meets the eye. On the surface, it is indeed a somewhat illogical and tedious, but underneath it all, it is a deep and meaningful journey of catharsis and rebirth of the human psyche.For all intents and purposes, this was more of a play than a movie. There were only a few characters and a lot of dialog; therefore we cannot expect the big bangs and simplified plot lines of cinema. Instead we must search for the underlying meaning played out through the characters' experiences.I am not quite sure about the exact meaning of it all, and I was hoping for some insight relayed in user comments, but it looks quite solitary in here. The best I can come up with by myself is that this was a story about humanity's struggle to get to the top, and dealing with the consequences of cheating your way there. The characters cannot be content with their lives because they haven't come to terms with the sacrifices they made. The horse, Simpatico, is representative of the house built from their sins. That is why the horse had to die, to end the cycle of pain. Each character was affected in some way by the crime they committed, and no one can move on. They are all frozen, dead, in time and keep reliving that event over and over again in their minds (a true sign of madness). Stone is drugged up on Zanex to deal with her pain, Nolte is a drunk that cannot stop obsessing over his box of evidence, Bridges is a cold-hearted business man who chooses to switch roles and live in squalor, rather than return to his life of wealth, and Finney is the only one who attempted to move on, changing his name and life, not ever wanting to relive it--even to be redeemed.I think the lesson in it all is that people (and fictional characters) must eventually confront their obsessions, kill that part of themselves that causes suffering, and move on with their lives. Any comments?

mgulev Nolte and Bridges are great actors and prove it again - although they are not given a script with much gusto. The story left me waiting for more and not receiving it. The movie reminded me of "Affliction" (also with Nolte) in that it is a slow-moving story more concerned with character development than actual plot. All in all not really worth the time.