User Reviews

The film begins with two men in an airport lounge, both discussing how they recently broke-up with their girlfriends. The first man is named Chad (played by Aaron Eckhart). He is seemingly cordial to talk to but behind the smiling facade lies a loathsome, callous, spiteful fellow - one who is ruthless without showing any sign of remorse - in fact, he seems to derive great pleasure and pride from inflicting anguish on others, especially women. The other man is Howard (Mike Mallory), Chad's colleague at work and also a former member of the same college as Chad. Howard is a quieter chap, and seems to just go along with Chad's comments.

The two men have just arrived in a new town on a six week stay regarding their office work. Chad suggests that they date the same woman for the duration of the six week stay then dump her. Howard eventually agrees. The woman they pick is Christine (Stacy Edwards), a deaf woman who works in their office block. Chad thinks Christine is the perfect victim, with her being deaf, and mocks her distorted speech to Howard, and refers to her as a 'freak'. The two men start to date Christine, but problems start to arise when Howard bumps into them both in a restaurant. The film displays the start of each of the six weeks with a title and a burst of chaotic music. There are a few memorable scenes towards the conclusion of the film. The film focuses on the dog-eat-dog materialistic corporate world, and some of the envious and vindictive people that exist within it. I don't want to reveal any more, but I recommend you see this troubling film.

Two middle management on a business trip talk about their relationships. Howard (Matt Malloy) is a meek sweet guy but Chad (Aaron Eckhart) is a bitter mean-spirited misogynist. Chad convinces Howard to get back at womenkind by finding a vulnerable woman to romance and dump. Christine (Stacy Edwards) is a new temp that fits the plan perfectly and she's deaf.

This is a disturbing movie. Chad is a psychopath and it's wonderful. It is original and compelling. Aaron Eckhart puts in a great performance as the douche. It's a shocking debut for Neil LaBute. He has written one of the most cynical disturbed ugliest human being on film that doesn't do anything that's actually illegal. Stacy Edwards is amazingly endearing and the reason why this works so well. But it's Eckhart's heartless performance that puts it over the top.

When I rented this film I had heard a lot of good things about it. I also heard that it was a comedy. It was in the comedy section. It was promoted as a comedy. IT WAS NOT A COMEDY! This is a very serious film that is sometimes very difficult to watch. Moreover, the ending is very depressing. Eckhart plays the biggest jerk in the history of film. A good movie that you will probably not enjoy watching.

Neil Lebute's "In the Company of Men" is a film depicting emotional terror inflicted by two guys onto an innocent, deaf woman. One is sleazy, self-absorbed and mean-spirited, but charismatic and socially powerful and popular. The other is less than popular and tags along for his "therapeudic" plan to put a woman through romance-related stress to relieve them of their woman troubles. The result is a haunting, realistic wake-up call. From it's disorienting opener to a truly disturbing closing shot, "In the Company of Men" is a truly important motion picture.

"In The Company Of Men" is a simple story that is told in a simple way. A lot of shots are still frames that last for about 10 minutes, which centers the dialog and gives the movie a realistic feeling. And as scary as it may seem, "In The Company Of Men" is very realistic.

There are people like Chad and Howard out there. Even though few are really quite as devilish as Chad is, many who have a certain amount of power and income behave that way. That's why this movie isn't easy to watch.

Aaron Eckhart, Stacy Edwards and Matt Malloy do a great job. The direction is appropriate in its simplicity and the topic is an important one. Whoever has worked for a company like the one in the movie one time, will recognize the precipices of the human mind. Everybody should see this and learn.

Neil Labute's In the Company of Men is an amazing motion picture, one of the best films of 1997 and a shocking indictment of the ego-driven corporate world in which we live. On the surface, the film, expertly written by Neil Labute in his first feature effort, seems to be a cruel tale of misogyny. Lurking beneath the surface, however, is the film's true message, one which depicts the business world as a battle of survival of the fittest, a harsh world where men sacrifice their integrity and compassion in favor of oneupsmanship and greed.

Fed up with their failures with members of the opposite sex, two co-workers, Chad (Aaron Eckhart) and Howard (Matt Malloy) decide to play a cruel prank on an unsuspecting female victim. They will both date her, and then after a six-week period, they will dump her, a plan they've devised after years of being tormented and unlucky with women. They eventually choose their prey, a deaf typist named Christine (Stacy Edwards) and begin their quest, asking her for dates, sending her flowers, and sharing intimate moments. All this seems like a pleasant surprise to Christine after years of no dating--but, of course, she doesn't know the plan the men have hatched.

I don't want to reveal too much more about the plot than this. I will say that the film has two climactic scenes, one expected and the other inevitable in retrospect. The first climax makes the movie a success, the second makes the film great--only then do we see Labute's true intent.

Labute's cast of no-names is uniformly excellent. Eckhart, who has since become a Labute staple, delivers a fascinating performance as a truly despicable character, the smooth and fast-talking Chad. Matt Malloy is excellent as Howard, the "weaker" of the two men, and Edwards is great as the hapless deaf typist, presenting her character as likable, intelligent, and sensitive, not just a stereotypical handicapped woman. But the real star of the film is Labute's script. Judging by this, and his three more recent films (Your Friends and Neighbors, Nurse Betty, and Possession--all quality films), Labute is a writer-director to monitor for years to come.

A noteworthy comment about In the Company of Men is that it has been marketed as a comedy. Those of you expecting slapstick humor and romantic charms might be better served seeing another movie. In the Company of Men is NOT comedy. There are elements of black humor, especially one particularly depraved scene involving one of the men and an office intern. However, In the Company of Men is more tragic than comic, a look into the tarnished male psyche brought on by years of corporate stress and paranoia. I couldn't help but think of David Mamet's Glengarry Glen Ross, another film about corporate greed in today's world when I was watching this one. However, while Glengarry plays as more of a character-driven mystery and morality play, In the Company of Men is much more insidious, and it offers no solutions in the end. In fact, the final shot of the film is, in my mind, one of the most memorable in modern cinema. Just who exactly has the upper hand?....

9/10

Neil LaBute's 'In the Company of Men' runs very much like a stage production. In fact I was utterly shocked when I heard it wasn't based on one. It should have been, and I would go so far as to say it should be adapted into a stage production. The reason I say this is because the film relies on the dialogue, acting and character's emotions to move the storyline, and not action or explosions or nudity. Nope, 'In the Company of Men' is like a 90-minute play following three key characters. The first is Chad (Aaron Eckhart - in his feature film debut performance), a young, good-looking cocky businessman who's a crude and cruel misogynist. His partner/boss is also his best friend, Howard (Matt Maloy) a semi-geeky quiet guy who's very shy, especially around women. Distraught about their incredibly back luck with the ladies, the two decide to go through with a plan (initiated by the devilish Chad of course) to find a woman, both target her and trick her into loving both of them, then just leave her with nothing. Howard goes along with the plan with doubts, while Chad warm-fully embraces the idea. During a six-week business trip, Chad meets a beautiful, kind, understanding and affectionate office worker who happens to be deaf (Stacy Edwards) -- Chad's perfect mark for this plan. The rest of the film is pretty much Chad and Howard trying to score this chick and zeroing in on their torturous plan. It doesn't sound very interesting and entertaining, does it? A lot of the film drags, but I really liked it for three reasons -- the three main characters.

The characters in Neil LaBute's 'In the Company of Men' are miraculous -- the three are very detailed and the actors who play them are phenomenal. Malloy is great as the nervous sap that is Howard and Edwards is always a pleasure to watch, but Eckhart steals the show by a mile. Astounding doesn't even begin to describe young Aaron Eckhart's performance in this as the sadistic and menacing power-hungry creep, Chad, who makes Stalin look like 'Mickey Mouse'. Chad could be described as a socio-path in that he doesn't give two sh*ts about anyone except himself and sneers at the thought of helping anyone out. For me, Eckhart was 100% believable during the entire runtime of the feature and he does such a fantastic job of reeling you into his mindset -- in other words Eckhart should have received an Oscar nomination for his work in this. Like I mentioned prior, Neil LaBute's writing has it's ups and downs and some pacing problems, and his directing is nothing impressive in the slightest. I'd say after viewing 'In the Company of Men' I was more interested in the greatly talented actor Aaron Eckhart then I was the filmmaker, Neil LaBute.

In conclusion, I recommend this if you could enjoy and appreciate a film based solely on superb acting. If not, don't waste your time with 'In the Company of Men'. If you can fully appreciate acting at it's best, be sure to check it out. Grade: B

I have to give this movie a lot of credit. The director accomplished what I think he set out to accomplish, or at least he did with me. I felt as though I had been exposed to one of the darkest corners of the human psyche, and I didn't like what I saw there. The movie was very unsettling, and I was grateful that we had rented another to watch after it that night, one to take my mind off of this one. There are plenty of very disturbing movies out there with unhappy endings that I can watch over and over again, like "Seven," for example, but I hope I never see this one again. At least I can partly identify with John Doe's outrage at the moral decay of the society around him (although his reaction was less than admirable), but Chad... he simply delights in the misery of others. He's an SS guard in a concentration camp using children for target practice. No reason for it. It's just fun for him. What's disturbing about the movie is that it reminds me that there really are people like him walking around out there, maybe even in my own company, one of my own co-workers or my own friends. I didn't like watching the movie, but I think the director got just the reaction out of me that he wanted, so I gave it 7/10.

When I first heard about this movie my main motivation for seeing it was related to the controversy that surrounded it. I had heard all sorts of things said about what a misogynistic piece of garbage this was, but not afraid of a few negative reviews I went and saw it.

It's hard to say what impressed me most about this movie. I thought the performances were excellent, the dialogue was sharp and inciteful and the story intense. Aaron Eckhart's narcissistic, callous performance was amazing.

I cannot understand how this movie is misogynistic in any way whatsoever, as the characters are so hideous there is no way known you could empathise with them or consider their behaviour as anything other than abhorrent. I thought that the snapshot of the corporate male dominated workplace was fantastic and the picture it painted of testosterone charged males excellent.

The ending was amazing and I recall leaving the cinema and not being able to speak for a full 10 minutes.

See this movie.

9/10.

In an attempt to strike a blow for every man that has been wronged by a woman, Chad and Howard plan to seduce the same woman and then simultaneously break her heart........

Bleak in its satirical portrayals, In The Company Of Men has proved to be a highly debatable and controversial movie. Splitting critics right down the middle, it's been called everything from a misogynistic rant to an astute modern day masterpiece, the truth is that it's neither of those things. Tho the crux of the story suggests misogyny is its central axis, both men here are painted in less than favourable light, and in fact the central female of the piece {wonderfully played by Stacy Edwards} is far stronger than most female characters in modern day cinema. Cheaply made and set in some nameless corporate company, director Neil LaBute crafts what is in essence a black comedy about corporate suits who backbite with carefree abandon, the men versus women arc is merely a strand in LaBute's intriguing picture.

It's a film that most definitely is memorable, if not just for Aaron Eckhart's portrayal of Chad, one of the 90s most despicable characters, but also for its cheeky and unexpected finale. The performances are strong and those who enjoy a dialogue driven pictures will revel in what is on offer here. It also serves as an interesting reference point to LaBute as a director, this being his debut feature, it showed a great deal of promise, but has that promise been realised? Nurse Betty, Possession and the ill advised remake of The Wicker Man suggest LaBute may need to stick to the basics of his talent, I shall be an interesting observer of Lakeview Terrace & the upcoming Death At A Funeral. 7/10

This is a riveting movie, but also an unexpected one. I didn't see this until it came out on video, and I had heard a lot about it of course, but luckily I was in the dark on the twist LaBute throws in at the end. Most people got that this was a study of male-female relationships from a wildly off-kilter view, and that was powerfully done. But I think most people missed this is also about the workplace, specifically the Alpha Male in the workplace, and how he got that way. Is it any wonder that Chad and Howard decide to make a game of their seduction of Katherine when it's clear they've had to plan their whole careers as if they were competing in a game of some kind?

I think I agree with an interview I saw with LaBute where he said he thought Howard was actually the more despicable character, because Chad is only in it for the game, where Howard starts to take those feelings seriously. Nevertheless, Eckhart's performance makes Chad one of the most chilling characters I've ever seen in movies. Where a lot of movie villains "indicate" to let you know they're just acting (which does work when it's done right), Eckhart gives away nothing, so you never know what he's thinking, even if he tells you what he's thinking. I hope he goes on to bigger things.

I thought the movie was OK but not very plausible. Aaron Eckert was not very convincing at times and I can't believe Howard (Matt Malloy)or anyone with a high school maturity level would be seduced by the anti-everything Chad into doing something that was completely out of character. Howard was a successful business man who had risen above the BS to get where he was. He may have been inexperienced with women but Chad's peer pressure tactics wouldn't have taken 6 weeks to be resisted.

The best part of the movie was Stacy Edwards portrayal of Christine. She was near pitch-perfect in every scene as the deaf object of Chad and Howard's disingenuous affections.

I really don't see what the appeal of this movie is for most people...I watched it, and i must say that i was honestly bored throughout most of the movie. I thought the acting was poor, the characters not believable, and the surprise ending wasn't really all that riveting. After the ending, i just sat there saying "that's all? that's the ending?" It just didn't seem to end right. It's not like i was put off by the subject matter, it's just that the plot seemed aimless and I couldn't get into the movie.

Overall, 2 out of 10 stars.

Chad (Aaron Eckhart) and Howard (Matt Malloy) are in a new town for 6 weeks on business. Frustrated by the women in their lives they decide to use the time to seduce an insecure woman and make her feel loved - only to destroy her before they leave. They pick Christine (Stacy Edwards), a deaf girl from their office and set the plan in motion.

This is a fascinating black comedy looking at the macho world of American businessmen - although it is a look at the shallowness and competitiveness of men generally. The plot may sound simple but it is very powerful and insightful - although the men are exaggerated versions of reality in order to make clear points. The film doesn't totally satisfy but it is a great character piece.

Almost to a man the leads are all excellent, Eckhart is almost pure evil as the man who we all recognise or know, while Malloy is great as the man who wants to be in the game but is getting to the point where he longs for simpler values. Edwards is beautiful as the vulnerable Christine who gradually opens up with confidence as she is made to feel more and more special.

Labate's direction is spot on for this - most of the action is dialogue based and the sets are made like theatre sets. As such the direction is quite static but the camera is often set in very interesting shots. Labate's writing is the real strength with the whole dialogue strong, perhaps exaggerated and yet totally believable.

A wonderfully harsh drama that will make you aware that will carry you along effortlessly.

Two business executives -- one an avowed misogynist, the other recently emotionally wounded by his love interest -- set out to exact revenge on the female gender by seeking out the most innocent, uncorrupted girl they can find and ruining her life.

This was the debut film for Neil LaBute, with a focus on hurting others, and the density of dialogue... my first experience with LaBute was actually reading "The Shape of Things", and some similar themes are addressed there -- so we have at least two occasions where he has a story about singling a person out to ruin their lives.

We can see this as sort of a parallel to "Cruel Intentions" or the older version of the story (I forget the name, "Dangerous Liaisons"?). Except here, rather than bored aristocrats a wealthy kids, we have people whose lives are so mundane that the only joy they can find is attacking those below them... there may be satire here, but it seems all too real.

The executives Chad (Aaron Eckhart) and Howard (Matt Malloy) have just been rejected by their mates. While traveling for a six weeks temporary assignment in another office, they plot an evil game to get even with women. They plan to seduce a vulnerable woman and dump her with her feelings and self-esteem completely destroyed. When they meet the deaf secretary Cristina (Stacy Edwards), they find their perfect victim. However, things get complicated when Howard falls in love for Cristina.

The first time I saw "In the Company of Men" on 08 April 2000, I was really disturbed with this movie, which has been recently elected the number 28 in the ranking of the best fifty independent movies promoted by a cinema magazine. I decided to reevaluate my first view, and I did not change my original opinion that it is a gem of cruelty. The character Chad is actually the personification of evil, not those caricatures that we usually see in other movies, but a very real one that we face in our jobs, clubs or social lives. Chad is charming, handsome and charismatic on his outside, but rotten, ambitious, cold and malevolent inside, manipulating and destroying other people for his self-satisfaction and promotion. Howard is also a very real character, that type of stupid guy with lack of personality and self-esteem that is easily used by others, becoming a loser in the end. And the poor Cristina is the innocent victim of this nasty game with her initial pure and later broken heart. The game is actually against Howard and she is the tool. The performances of Stacy Edwards, convincing that she is actually deaf, and Aaron Eckhart, with his cynical character, deserved a nomination to the Oscar. The debut of Neil LaBute could not be better. For those who liked this film, I recommend "The Shape of Things" (2003), from the same director. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Na Companhia de Homens" ("In the Company of Men")

Note: On 15 February 2015, I saw this movie again.

This is a startling, disturbing and generally unpleasant tale of the darker side of the psyche. The cruelty and manipulation exhibited degraded both the giver and the receivers. Nevertheless, it was thoroughly convincing as a depiction of the few central characters and absorbing in its unremitting sadism. Although previous movies have begun with a similar premise, they have always ended with some form of justice or redemption. Not this movie, which somehow manages to become even more loathsome. The story is intriguing, the acting is convincing, the dialogue is intelligent, and the direction basic but apt. In all, although this was a thoroughly nasty movie, it was still quality. My vote 7/10

Since I can't foresee the typical audience at the Sundance Film Festival being overly attached to anything resembling blue-collar reality, it isn't much of surprise that "In the Company of Men" earned such glowing accolades in '97 and sparked a minor controversy for its subject matter. Perhaps it's just my familiarity with films that take misogyny to a more disturbing plateau ("I Spit on Your Grave" is a standout example) that "Men" comes across as neither revelatory nor a masterpiece. That's not to say it isn't a good film. The plot centers around Chad (Aaron Eckhart) and Howard (Matt Malloy), two handsome white-collar office guys who have been consistently spurned by women; Chad hatches a sinister plan that will take place over the course of a six-week company trip wherein the two men will seduce one woman for the sole purpose of crushing her at the end. Their prey is deaf secretary Christine (Stacy Edwards). Writer-director Neil LaBute's film is filled with incisive observations on the male manipulation of power and the shifting dynamics of relationships in the name of business and pleasure--Chad, Howard, and Christine become three-dimensional participants in a 'game' where the cruelty incurred is hardly one-sided. While "In the Company of Men" is impressive in that regard, one almost wishes LaBute would have pushed things to an even lower level of emotional devastation and degradation...I didn't feel as hurt as the characters, and I felt that I should have.

Corporate America can be a very cruel place. The constant attention towards competition, survival of the fittest, and determination towards top performance can easily drive the sanest employee into an early stage of insanity. Thus, due to these pressures, employees are constantly found in a heated battle for the top spot or the illusive management position. Many will step directly onto your abdomen to ensure a promotion or pay increase. This form of random competition in Corporate America is very rare to capture, much less on film, but famed director Neil LaBute did a bit of the impossible. LaBute took the pressures of competition in Corporate America and camouflaged them using some stereotypes linked to "men" in the workplace. While some will argue that LaBute is doing nothing but exploiting male sexism/egoism and only built a stronger "glass ceiling" for women, I saw this completely different. Much like others, In the Company of Men initially enraged me due to the harsh treatment and depiction of women in the workplace, but then it occurred to me, that isn't what LaBute wants to show. As I watched this film a second time, I saw the real reason that LaBute created this picture. He wanted, and successfully accomplished, to show that you have to be smart both in your personal and business life if you want to succeed in this demolishing corporate world.

LaBute's approach to this ingenious subject reminded me of how Soderbergh used "sex" to debunk his story in sex, lies, and videotape. From the opening scene, we think we know what this movie is going to be about. We think we understand that this is just going to be another "dark" comedy about how cruel the corporate world can be to women, but wildly LaBute (like Soderbergh) will pull the hypothetical wool over your eyes if you are not careful. This is not a movie about sexism (while it is used quite often to hide the real truth), but instead the power of manipulation, the power of emotion, and the ability to use your friends to reach the top. This is the ultimate betrayal film. After watching this film, I read some reviews that discussed how viewers hated LaBute for doing what he did to Christine, and that made me a bit angry. I too was disturbed by Eckhart's performance, but by being upset about what happened to Christine, you miss the truth behind this film. When I finished watching this movie, I was more upset with LaBute for what he did to Howard (Matt Malloy) than with Christine.

How did this dramatic change occur? How could a viewer feel more sympathy for Howard than with the weeping Christine? LaBute has this amazing ability to cast believable actors that mold themselves well within their roles. Matt Malloy plays the perfect ying to Aaron Eckhart's yang. The two could not be closer to polar opposites, but the chemistry between them keeps us connected and glued to the screen. Their relationship reminded me of every Hollywood movie where the popular jock is great friends with the insecure geek. Malloy and Eckhart's relationship reminded me of the frat boy who happens to be a friend with the computer nerd. There is no initial understanding of why these two are friends or why they have anything in common. Sure, they went to the same college, but does that constitute life-long friendship? I believe from the beginning of this film, and possibly further into the pre-text, Eckhart has Malloy on a plan. We don't see the plan initially, but when it comes into light at the end, it hits us deep within our gut, giving us more pain than the Christine incident. How did LaBute set this up so well? Again, I state, Malloy and Eckhart. These two were methodical, malicious, and very close to perfection with their characters. We believed them. They sold us on themselves, which needed to happen for LaBute to make his point. Stacy Edwards is decent, but honestly LaBute could have had anyone in that role and we would have bought it. Why? Again, Malloy and Eckhart.

LaBute did not just give us impassioned characters with devoted actors, but he also gave us an amazing story. He used the power of language to give us our opening, plot, downfall, climax, and twisty ending. It is not often in Hollywood that you see this technique used. It takes a combination of both a great (and engrossing) story with sublime characters. We already know that we had the characters, but what about the story made it worth watching over and over and over again. Having seen American Psycho several times, I felt like LaBute had read Bret Easton Ellis' novel over and over. He embodied the spirit and insanity of corporate America nearly as well as American Psycho director Mary Harron did. The pacing was tight, the six weeks seemed to fly by because we were glued to the results. LaBute kept us glued to the screen by shocking us with sexist remarks, macho thinking, and corporate taboos. Then, when he thought that we were not paying attention, he gave us the ending of a lifetime. The writing for this film was quick, powerful, and thought provoking, which nearly symbolizes this film. LaBute should have won an Oscar for this powerful and intelligent piece of cinema.

Overall, I thought this film was vile, belittling, and grotesquely unsettling … which is why I cannot wait to add it to my collection. LaBute proves to us once again why he is a master behind the camera as well as a commander with his pen. I read a comment that stated that Eckhart's Chad is the epitome of a villain, and I could not agree more. Neil LaBute has given us his first in a very long line of challenging, yet beautiful, cinema.

Grade: ***** out of *****

In the Company of Men is a dark and disturbing story focusing on two corporate work colleagues who take advantage of a deaf typist while on a six week work related trip.

Chad is confident, good looking, calculated and cold. Howard is unconfident,disorganized, short and overweight but intelligent and successful at the same time. Christine, the deaf typist, is vulnerable as her disability makes her self conscious of the way she speaks. The two men, both bitter about recent break ups with their girlfriends, decide to date Christine so as to build up her confidence (which due to her self consciousness about the way she speaks is understandably fragile in social situations) and then dump her in an attempt to break her belief once again. Therefore they will be striking back against the female community which they feel has wronged them. The results are fascinating and somewhat upsetting.

As for my one line summary above.This is the moral of the story. It would seem on the surface that the conclusion is that Christine is the victim. But this is wrong. Howard is the true victim here. Chad not only gets promoted while Howard is demoted but illustrates his superiority over Howard in terms of sex appeal and in his ability to constantly gain control over situations in the work place. Chad can sit back in a boardroom and call everybody a "c**ks**ker" or "f**ker" behind their backs to everybody else's amusement and get away with it.Howard meanwhile struggles to even introduce himself to co-workers.I think it should be noted that as the relationship between the men and Christine develops, Howard begins to make mistakes and slip ups which lead to his eventual demotion. Chad though is able to maintain his cool exterior and continues to treat the relationship as a game.In the end Howard is a broken and lonely man with nothing. Chad meanwhile has become stronger and more powerful yet his attitude remains the same.

Eckhart is awesome as Chad. Anyone who knows anything of acting will tell you that such characters are a joy for an actor to play but the role is executed wonderfully. Its no surprise that it is on such a performance that Eckhart has built a pretty stellar career. There are also some shades here of his excellent recent portrayal as a tobacco industry spin doctor in the wonderful 'Thank You For Smoking' but the difference is that this one is in no way played for laughs.Matt Malloy portrays a much more difficult role very well and the portrayal of Christine is also very impressive.

The people who criticised the acting in the recommendation section must be watching the wrong movie. I found myself enjoying the performances as much as the material which was very basic and offered characters which we have seen before in other films with a 'big business' backdrop ie.-Wall street.

Overall its a somewhat bluntly executed but engrossing portrayal of relationships in the workplace and how as much as we may despair some people are just plain no good. The ending is also worthy in that it contains a twist that you really won't see coming.

You will ponder it after viewing and if you like Eckhart it is somewhat essential viewing.

That's a big statement, but I stand behind it without reservation. This is my favorite movie of the past decade and it easily makes my top five films of all time. First off, don't come in expecting a stylish, extravagant film with excellent cinematography. Neil Labute's direction is the epitome of minimalism, with virtually no camera movement and entire scenes played out in one shot. I'm not totally sure, but I'd say there are maybe two or three medium close-ups in the entire film, and that's it. The characters are always viewed from a distance, reflecting Labute's background in theater (if you like this, by the way, read Bash, it will blow your mind) and allowing his actors to be as realistic and naturalistic as possible. Contrary to popular belief, stage acting is more natural than film acting; Labute's distance and long takes create a realism that is rarely seen on celluloid.

This film is pretty much all dialogue, but this is some of the best-written dialogue I have ever heard. I don't think any man can watch this movie without recognizing some of the conversations that take place in this film. Aaron Eckhart and Matt Molloy are pitch perfect as the chauvinist, attractive, and ultimately evil Chad and the nerdy, pathetic, and ultimately emotionally doomed Howard. Stacy Edwards as the deaf Christine is also very strong; in fact, when I saw her in another movie speaking normally I almost fell out of my chair. I won't say much about the plot, for this is one of those movies that's really better to go in knowing nothing and watch the sickening events unfold. Let me just say that this film has a twist ending that marks one of the few moments in film that truly shocked me. In fact, I challenge anyone to sit still through this scene; I've seen the movie five times and it still makes me squirm in my seat. If you're looking for a big shock, look no further than this masterpiece, but don't expect a cheap thrill. Next to Vertigo, I don't think any film has hit me with a greater psychological impact. Oh, and if you're a female, and you don't want to become a lesbian, don't see this movie. Period. 10/10

This brutalizing 1997 character study of the misogyny among competitive males still stings with its spot-on accuracy of the corporate male psyche. With an obviously limited budget, this first-time feature from writer/director Neil LaBute really turns its characters inside out with a visceral potency that could not have been attempted by the major studios. The plot focuses on two middle management types, Chad and Howard, who are on a six-week project in the company's Midwest branch office. On the surface, Chad is a smooth-talking braggadocio who after breaking up with his girlfriend, claims to be fed up with the neediness of women. But underneath is a dark sociopath who is unfathomably cruel to anyone in his path. Watch the scene where he makes a black co-worker pull down his pants to prove he has the "balls" for a higher profile assignment.

Having just been dumped by his fiancée, Howard seems like the more benign of the two and looks toward the cynical Chad for guidance at the office and with women. However, his insecurities reveal an innately pathetic figure who wants to be able to exert power over someone defenseless. Realizing their mutual bitterness toward women, the two decide to make a disreputable pact to romance the same woman during their business trip only to dump her at the end. Enter Christine, a pretty office secretary who happens to be deaf. You can figure out the rest, but the way LaBute relentlessly reveals the characters' weaknesses, including Christine's, is piercingly honest to the point of painful. Even the twist at the end is well-justified, as LaBute's perceptive script makes the situation hauntingly cathartic.

In his first important role, Aaron Eckhardt, with his square jaw and cocksure manner, is superb as Chad, and it took him several years (probably until his heart-of-gold Hell's Angel in "Erin Brockovich") to recover from this impermeable persona. In fact, he tweaks it as the unapologetic tobacco lobbyist in this year's "Thank You for Smoking". As Howard, Matt Malloy certainly makes a most convincing dweeb, while Stacy Edwards (who is not deaf) elicits the right emotions with Christine, obviously the only sympathetic role in the movie. The DVD has two commentary tracks - the first with LaBute, Eckhardt and the crew, and the second with the three principals and again with Eckhardt. Both are quite insightful with the latter particularly entertaining for the contrast between the actors and the characters they play. Be forewarned that this is in no way a feel-good film, but it does make for seductive viewing.

Sometimes movies exist solely to push the emotional buttons of its audience. Even if that is what this film is doing, it still fails for several reasons. First, it asks its audience to root for a sociopathic protagonist. Second, there isn't a single surprise that takes place in the movie -- had there been a twist of some kind, it would have made the otherwise interminable first 90 minutes somewhat bearable. Third, there wasn't a character in the film that I liked. And finally it has a most unsatisfying ending.

Now none of these things in and of themselves would doom a movie for me -- heck, I enjoy film noir -- but the real test for me here is that at ANY moment during this movie, if my friends had stopped the tape, I would not have cared at all to find out what happened.

Enough space wasted on this vile movie. It was actually unpleasant to sit there and endure it.