iamcostas i believe it was stupid story when the wife pretend she is the spirit of a dead gay man in a gay chat room. how did she got all the information from? this is not a fantasy movie , it supposed to be a drama. and how did she left all the stolen information on the top of the desk so everybody can see? At the end i didn't like the end. the writer try to kill himself and then changed his mind and poison the wife and accidentally her two kids by poison plant. in the beginning his character was a nice guy who turned to a vicious murderer. a psycho writer? generally it could be a good movie but i think the story is unrealistic.sorry for my English . i hope you understand what i am trying to say

marcslope Based on an off-Broadway play I saw and remember nothing about, this modern-day cyber-noir has a clever screenplay (Craig Lucas) undercut by inept direction (Craig Lucas). Its three protagonists -- a cheating bisexual film producer, his taken-for-granted wife, and a promising gay screenwriter -- are all upstaged by the spectacular Malibu-ish beach house where much of the action takes place. But the camera angles and cutting are stodgy, the staging awkward, the composition too artsy (no conference room was ever that color orange), the use of close-ups excessive, Steve Reich's score predictably repetitive and pseudo-chic, the mini-flashbacks confusing, and the long sequences of characters reading their cyber-chat to the camera distinctively uncinematic. Add to that certain plot details that just don't ring true: Would a neophyte gay screenwriter with an uncommercial script really land a million-dollar contract? How would the wife learn all the intimate details about his life that she later uses to destroy him? And would he really be so impressionable as to fall for her scheme? All three actors are excellent (Peter Sarsgaard does mince more than necessary), and Campbell Scott and Sarsgaard have a couple of scenes startling in their intimacy and honesty. But beyond the gaps of credibility in the plotting, these are three unpleasant, inconsistent people who use one another in annoying, unconvincing ways.

Merwyn Grote Vaguely at the center of THE DYING GAUL is a screenplay for a potential movie. The plot of the would-be movie, also called "The Dying Gaul," concerns a gay couple and what happens when one of them is faced with AIDS. It would make a perfect movie, so says the studio exec who wants to buy it and film it, except that the couple really doesn't have to be gay. And it doesn't really have to be called "The Dying Gaul." And I guess it doesn't really have to be about AIDS. And, when you get right down to it, the plot of this film itself doesn't really have to be about Hollywood, screen writing, homosexuality, AIDS, infidelity or betrayal. But it has to be about something for it to be worth our time. And it isn't.Strip away the pretentiousness of the supposed noble symbolism of "the Dying Gaul," brush aside the trendiness of it being set in Hollywood, and forget the faux importance of it exploiting AIDS; and THE DYING GAUL is nothing but a gimmicky soap opera with a contrived and not-particularly-honest twist. It's a love triangle wherein the anonymity of an internet chat room not only becomes a vehicle for deceit but the basis for a seemingly supernatural scam. Lovers and/or rivals building a wicked web of lies out of disguises is as old as drama, be the pretense coming in the form of masked balls, con games, mistaken identities, innocent pen pal letters or CB radios. Playing such duplicity for laughs, this sort of romantic misdirection can work nicely, but THE DYING GAUL has less in common with YOU'VE GOT MAIL than with the gloomy, pseudo-realism of overwrought junk like CLOSER.The neophyte screenwriter is Robert (Peter Sarsgaard), who wrote the script to honor his deceased partner, Malcolm. Jeffrey (Campbell Scott) is the producer who wants to make the movie, but insists that the sexuality of the protagonists is irrelevant; straight or gay, it is all the same, pain and loss is universal -- but straight pain and loss is more commercial. He should know, Jeff is bisexual and seems more interested in Robert's sword than his pen. But Jeff loves his wife, Elaine (Patricia Clarkson), who becomes fast friends with Robert, until she figures out that the two guys are collaborating in more ways than one. So far, so good. Then writer/director Craig Lucas derails his entire project by letting his entire film become hijacked by a lame and contrived gimmick. Elaine, using a fake identity, begins exchanging messages with Robert via the internet and convinces the already disturbed writer that he is actually communicating with the spirit of his dead lover. Apparently DSL reaches as far as Heaven's gate.Even as the film prattles on about mythic themes and makes references to famed art and literature, yet sells out to a lame technological gimmick, it still has potential. Elaine suddenly has the power to control Robert and, indirectly, her husband. But Elaine doesn't know what to do with her newfound power, and unfortunately neither does Lucas. The confused story takes a dark turn and it is obviously headed for tragedy, but Lucas balks at making the film either an outright thriller or even a psychologically twisted comedy. He has a cast of morally bankrupt characters (well acted by excellent actors), but he seems unwilling to let any of them be the villain. Each are painted as being capable of killing, but when death finally takes a role in the story it is left frustrating unclear whether a murder was even committed. The ambiguity is meant to be clever or disturbing or shocking, but it is really just a sign of incredibly bad writing.The film certainly doesn't play to our expectations. Lucas is an acclaimed gay playwright and is probably best known for his script for LONGTIME COMPANION, a landmark in gay cinema. So when the film at first appears to be about the integrity of gay fiction -- compromising orientation and honesty to pander to a straight public -- there is a promise of THE DYING GAUL being a story of substance. But that quickly evaporates when the ineffectual Robert far too easily sells out his values -- literary and sexual -- to the charming and pragmatic bisexual Jeffrey. Then there is the hope that the film will be about redemption, about Robert regaining his self-respect and ethics -- but that never materializes and if anything the characters grow increasingly amoral -- and increasingly less interesting.Ultimately, the story seems intent on proving Jeffrey right, that the sexuality of the protagonists is irrelevant; straight or gay, it is all the same, good and evil are hardly relevant. And, I suppose, there is some minor victory to be had by Lucas showing no need to be politically correct by making Robert neither a role model nor a tragic hero -- but just another unredeemable human wretch. But the victory is very small and no more meaningful or gratifying than Robert's ultimate reward.And for what is worth, Jeffrey is right; THE DYING GAUL is a lousy title.

guilfisher-1 This is a gem of a film. Directed by Craig Lucas (I loved his LONGTIME COMPANION, also starring this film's star, Campbell Scott) it is adapted from the play centering around a young screenwriter who sells his story for a cool million. There are conditions which I won't divulge. See the movie. This is a love triangle in a strange scenario. Lucas brings many moments in this film by a closeup. While going into the internet chat rooms, he pulls out deep and dark thoughts from his leading player.I thought Peter Sarsgaard, whom I recently admired in JARHEAD, did a remarkable job with a complex and difficult role. He brought a depth to his character. Patricia Clarkson, too, was outstanding. Campbell Scott brought a fine performance to the screen. These three players worked well together. Bouncing off each other like a pin ball machine. Scott redeemed himself with this as producer and actor from that bad movie he made LUSH. I'm not too familiar with Clarkson's work but will certainly look forward to other films after viewing this. Sarsgaard was remarkable in JARHEAD and doesn't disappoint me in this one. Hats off to the three stars and Lucas for a fine job.