Wkp- The Shape of Things is a play by American author and film director Neil LaBute and a 2003 American movie. It premièred at the Almeida Theatre, London in 2001 with Rachel Weisz as Evelyn. The play was directed by LaBute himself. According to the author's instructions, it is to be performed without an interval or a curtain call.
[In the film] Neil LaBute used his entire original cast from the original play. huh. cool.

Metacritic - Shape of Things, The (2003) - Reviews:
BostonGlobe: The cast helps enliven what could otherwise come off as a treatise. All four actors played these roles during the play's off-Broadway run.
USAtoday: Though the writing is often sharp, one is reminded repeatedly by the actors' theatrical delivery of some lines and by the confined settings that the movie's origins were on stage. yes.
LAtimes:Unfortunately, this film is not as convincing as LaBute's first feature ("In the Company of Men"), for it betrays its origins in the theatricality of its dialogue, resulting in an aura of artificiality. yes.
Empire: Ultimately make no more than a cosmetic effort to disguise its stage origins.
VillageVoice-JHoberman: In its costumes, line readings, and structure, the movie faithfully preserves the stage production -- a provocative, if meretricious, evening of theater that ends in a paroxysm of LaButality with a bear swipe to the spectator's head. It is, however, more difficult to rattle a movie audience -- at least with words -- and, despite its streamlined presentation, The Shape of Things is not nearly as effective on-screen.

Slate:In LaBute's movies, people are either clueless dupes or psychotic manipulators, while art is meant to rub your face in unpleasant "truths."

AVclub: Carries a potent statement about the superficialities of appearance, and how they're more meaningful to people than anyone likes to acknowledge. But when the players themselves are conceived this superficially, LaBute winds up invalidating his own point. well said.
NYmagz: LaBute is attacking our society’s obsession with the surface of things, whether it be a painter’s canvas or a human one, but his drama is, in itself, relentlessly superficial.

TheNewRepublic-StanleyKauffman: His (LaBute's) work needs attention even at its nadir, which I hope this new film is.
Salon: This might be the edgiest film of the year -- if the year were 1982.
NYdailynews: Besides repeating his premise that only fools fall in love and deserve whatever circle of hell they enter for it, he seems to really believe that morality has no place in art. Certainly, he's keeping it out of his. heh.