Such a shame that this cast is brought together and then they make this boring, pretentious movie. Peter Sarsgaard is the only reason I could get all the way through it. Patricia Clarkson is annoying as usual. Hollywood needs a reality check.

Writer-director Craig Lucas's first directorial debut does indeed look like a film directed by someone who doesn't know the craft. "Amateurish" is the first word that comes to mind from watching "The Dying Gaul" as the visual storytelling looks unhoned and clumsily composed. It still doesn't mean that the film wouldn't be good. Direction aside, the script and the acting is so superb that the obvious problems in cinematic execution are merely a distraction. The movie feels almost like a piece of filmed theatre. The story is about Elaine and Jeffrey Tishop, a married couple in a contended but slightly stagnated relationship, played by Patricia Clarckson and Cambell Scott. Into their lives enters Robert (Peter Sarsgaard) a scriptwriter whose project Jeffrey is producing. Robert has recently lost a lover to AIDS and is distraught at the movie studio's plea to change his brilliant script inspired by the tragedy from being about gay lovers into being a heterosexual love tragedy. Robert gets more and more tangled with the Tishops, forming a deep friendship with Elaine, a friendship that has echoes of romance in it. Then he enters into a secret sexual affair with Jeffrey. The tragedies of the three characters form into a complicated tangle of conflicting emotions, self-delusions and secrets within secrets. "The Dying Gaul" is a splendidly nuanced and perfectly mature exploration of the incongruences in human behavior. The characters act in ways they can't control or find justification for, and the overall point of view avoids cheap moralism at all costs. There are no clichéd outbursts usually associated with relationship dramas of this sort, the focus is on the characters' inner actions more than their outward expressions. I may not be convinced about Craig Lucas's talents as a director, but he sure proves himself a unique writer. And with such a stellar trio starring, his story is guaranteed to move you however severely the cinematic presentation struggles with its form.

Tries to be relevant but ends up being dull. The Dying Gaul should have had some passion burning in it soull but even great actors sometimes cannot rise above a script or poor direction.

I... kind of don't have much to say about this movie. It's strange yet fascinating, with no clear good guys or bad guys to necessarily root for. All of the characters are morally ambiguous, dark and flawed, although only one really takes these aspects to their fatal extreme. Also, I take it this movie is set back in the 90s because nobody uses floppy disks anymore. The actors all did a fantastic job with the material and I also thought the cinematography was really well-done too. Very beautiful and haunting, especially with some of the scene cut choices. However, I could see the ending coming after the characters' fall-out.

I wish I had'nt wasted my time. Life is too short for pointless junk like this.

Awesome film. The obsession and flawed characters are frightening!

I suppose that what is says about the hypocritical way the film industry addresses homosexuality is truthful, but the pretentious, oblique way Lucas goes about presenting that truth makes "The Dying Gaul" a difficult film to endure. Outside of the film's narrative problems, I will say that Sarsgaard is pretty fantastic in this.

Three good performers try hard to make sense of a screenplay that doesn't really go anywhere.

A little twisted in it's own little way. Hard to explain but it was decent enough to watch.

The first twenty minutes seems to me, who can't really know, to be very knowing about how the Hollywood closet operates, and why it must be enormously difficult to get a good gay movie made. And then there's Patricia Clarkson, Campbell Soctt, and Peter Sarsgaard, who are in good form and pleasure to watch, even as the story goes completely off the rails. I mean, maybe folks sharper than me can parse what happens in this movie, but it all seemed bizarre and highly unlikely.

I watched this film about five years ago and I found myself thinking about it recently. It is, overall, a solid film - buoyed by the performances by the three main actors involved. It also has some inconsistencies - namely certain plot points but these are not enough to spoil the entertainment value of the overall film.

Dense, intriguing film but with solid acting from the small cast and strong ideas make it worth watching.

Interesting movie, good cast just wasn't thrilled with the story/plot.

I missed this when it was released, glad I saw it tonight.

This is an intelligent and well written script with amazing character development and insight. The three actors give some outstanding performances particularly Patricia Clarkson. The chat room scenes were effectively used and executed very well it could have been difficult to pull of convincingly but Craig Lucas manages to sell's it. The interaction and relationships between all three characters is enthralling it's as if watching a train-wreck in slow motion we know its inevitable that something will give and when it does it's done so masterfully and with tragic consequences.

well acted and interesting drama!!

This well-written, well-produced film showed how betrayal makes otherwise nice people behave badly. Strong performances from 3 central characters. Scenic locations, even the chat room. First movie I've been inclined to write about in a good while. I highly recommend it if you like movies about relationships and ensuing complications.

Craig Lucas writes and directs his own adaptation of his own play. Peter Sarasgaard turns in a nice performance as a writer tangled up with a lover with AIDS, a producer interested in making his movie and other shady characters. Sarsagaar is great, as is Campbell Scott, totally heartbreaking. Seek this one out it doesn't disappoint.

So good. So, so good. God, I love a hauntingly good play!

WHO'S THE HERO AND WHO'S THE VILLAIN... is the question that made the movie interesting for me. A gay man, sweet and albeit played a bit on the dumb side. A movie mogul, who has time to spend with his family, although maybe not nearly as much as he should. The movie mogul's wife, who appears to have given up her career as a script writer for marriage. Ultimate, for me, the movie came to revenge, and it's a matter of opinion whose is worse. Worth watching