SnoopyStyle Noah (Elias Koteas) is an insurance adjuster. He sleeps with ladies who suffered lost and Arianne (Jennifer Dale) is the latest one who lost her home to fire. His wife Hera (Arsinée Khanjian) watches movies for the Board of Censors and she secretly films the most brutal. They have a son with Hera's sister are the only ones living in one of the model homes in an undeveloped field. Tyler (Don McKellar) is a new reviewer for the Censors. Bubba (Maury Chaykin) is a pornographer who's interested in Noah's house. There is also a sex pervert stalker.I'm not sure what Atom Egoyan is trying to get at other than bring together a lot of the characters' dark side. The quest for a plot is left to the audience. It's a movie with a theme more than a story. One can really debate the point of each character and their significance. It's great to use modern sexual perversion as a launching off point but I like a story that moves more. It's a bit too slow and therefore feels repetitive with pregnant pauses. It's a movie that feels like it's saying something although I'll be damned if I know exactly what that is.

mike rice I've decided that Egoyan is a minimalist. Not only are great gaps created on purpose in the Egoyan film script, an enormous amount of dialogue is left unwritten as well. Including the Adjuster I have seen at least three of his films. Exotica is the one I remember the least, the Sweet Hereafter the one I recall best. Sweet Hereafter was closer to being a conventional film, its script an adaptation of a best-selling novel. But the Egoyan filmstyle was visible in Sweet Hereafter too. It took a couple of viewings before I realized the father of the young girl in Hereafter was having sex with his daughter before her involvement in the accident. It is an instance when leaving something not quite spoken or noted works out beautifully in the script. At least in the three films I have seen, unconventional sexual tastes are also a recurrent theme. Egoyan is obsessed with them. I think he believes everyone is obsessed with sex in their own way. I believe he is right, but this Director finds ways to make his characters borderline pervs while at the same time stressing their conventionality.An unanswered question in Adjuster is how the crazed ex-footballer and filmmaker cum fantasist managed to find the adjuster. Also, one of the fantasist's retinue of females managed to appear before the Adjuster's wife on the subway, midway through the film. This is the woman in red who sits next to the decrepit bum after he has revealed his state, and puts his hand in her crotch and smiles joyously at the rest of the subway passengers. Later the Adjuster's porn-censoring wife repeats the inverse of the same gesture on herself when the 28 year old rookie film censor arranges to view some porn alone with her. There is also the question of what this woman is actually doing with the outtakes she films with a video camera. Her story about the camera being a way to show her sister what she does is not convincing.Yes, do go back and see the film again. There's all kinds of stuff in it.

rmcubed First, the one bad thing about this film, its handling of sex. It's crass, and the fact that the lead character's wife works for the Board of Censors and watches a lot of pornography manages to be both pompously self-referential and irritatingly shallow at the same time, as well as leading to some completely unnecessary voyeurism.However, it is bang on in its handling of the lead character. Theoretically unpromising as an insurance adjuster (although Woody Allen makes it work too!), in fact the way in which he interacts with his "clients" exposes interestingly the relationship between people and the service industry (think just how bad or good your bank can actually make your life).Lots of great interior shots and visual invention, too. Even pretty funny in places.

scr1ve (I can't believe the negative comments I have read on this page. I mean, sure, peoples opinions are allowed to differ- thats what makes this world so great blah blah blah etc... but this film is incredible and it would be a shame that someone would disregard renting it out on video because someone had bad-mouthed it here.)This film is set firmly in Egoyan country. We have dysfunction, we have recorded media, we have beautiful shots, a wonderful score, great dialogue, fantastic use of silence (watch out for that one) and overall- you can feel an almost religious intensity beaming through the celluloid. My memory of this film consists of much more than just a plot- it is the warmth, the colours that stick with you too. One more thing... Tarkovsky said that films best asset was its ability to sculpt in time. Egoyans measured rhythm is hard to resist (obviously not for some people).It seems to me though, that the complaints here are not to do with the films form. Of course it is well made. They have problems with the script, or at least the order of things. Well, for me- the chaos and strange order of things in this film keeps it gripping- apart from the fact that you never know what is going to come next- isn't this half chaotic order a better rendition of reality than most? The content is also 'strange' and not really in keeping with 'popular taste'. So if you are easily offended, or more at home with Spielberg- then please feel free to stick to him. But this is brave, sumptious, disturbing, invigorating, and beautiful territory. I was pleased to visit it.P.S. Elias Koteas' performance is probably one of my top five favourite performances ever, up there with Takeshi Kitano in Bad Cop and Christopher Walken in King of New York. Stoic, tragic, he hardly puts a foot wrong.