Inclubabu Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

Ameriatch One of the best films i have seen

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

DipitySkillful an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

Chase_Witherspoon Talky fantasy-comedy with the sardonic Albert Brooks playing a struggling screen-writer who re-discovers his mojo after he's introduced by buddy Jeff Bridges to a mysterious muse (Stone) who holds the power to inspire creativity and success - at a price.The only trouble I had with this picture were some of the performances, Brooks & Stone in particular, which seemed self-indulgent and more than a little sarcastic in their delivery of the wry dialogue. Bridges seems fairly sincere in his role as a journalist whose career nose-dive has been recovered by Stone's influence, while Andie MacDowell plays the neurotic Brooks' savvy wife with assurance, the two coming off as the film's more likable characters.It's an interesting concept and the script is full of smart one-liners in a very hit and miss affair; low key, a sort of "inside" Hollywood story that's perhaps more for the actors and the audience.

Robert J. Maxwell Albert Brooks, who wrote this and acted in it, is a Hollywood screenwriter who's being rejected with every script he submits. He lives in a mansion with his wife, Andie MacDowell, and is going nuts because he won't be able to support his family. A successful writer friend, Jeff Bridges, puts him in touch with a muse, a Greek spirit known for inspiring artists. The muse is Sharon Stone. And she is some work of art. She not only impinges on the lives of Brooks and his family. She takes them over.She has demanding tastes, grows quickly bored with the suite at the Four Seasons that Brooks is paying for. She has a whim of iron, sending Brooks out for Waldorf salad from Spago in the middle of the night. She's friendly towards Brooks' wife and urges her to begin the commercial cookie-making career that she's discarded over the years. MacDowell follows Stone's advice and finds self-fulfillment before the oven.Meanwhile, Brooks is going nuts. He's spending money and time keeping Sharon Stone satisfied but he's getting very little inspiration out of her. An occasional, off-the-cuff suggestion -- that's all. Brooks develops a script based on her hints but reaches a block at the end of Act II, with his protagonist owning an aquarium and nowhere else to go. He presses her abjectly for an idea and she suggests that, since they must use drilling equipment to build the foundation for the aquarium, why not have them strike oil? Right out of "The Beverley Hillbillies."In the end, Stone turns out to be not a muse but a multiple personality who has escaped from a private psychiatric hospital in Ohio. Last time out, she was Picasso's daughter. Brooks of course is a neural shambles by now, but -- Lo -- Paramount buys his script and everything is fine -- except that the producer at Paramount turns out to be Sharon Stone in another disguise.There are a lot of cameos in the film, some easily recognizable, others not -- from Wolfgang Puck to Martin Scorsese who does a hilarious turn as himself, planning a remake of "Raging Bull," only this time the guy is really THIN. "You see it? Can you see it?" Scorsese speaks faster than a normal person can think.Overall, it's mildly amusing, and that's about it. Nothing wrong with the professional players. Brooks is the anxiety-ridden middle-class character that he's perfected by now. Sharon Stone is seasoned. Andy MacDowell is beguiling. But the script is full of logical holes. This is okay in a comic fantasy, in itself, but there are so many of them here that they become noticeable. We can contrast "The Muse" with a comedy like "Groundhog Day" to illustrate when I mean. In "Groundhog Day," with an equally preposterous premise, one thing follows inexorably from what has happened before, so the film DEVELOPS. That sense of inexorability is lacking here. If Stone is really not a muse at all, but just a psychiatric case with an occasional shopworn notion, then what are people like Scorsese and Ian Cameron and Rob Reiner courting her for? And, shortly after she escapes from the doctors who have come to fetch her back to the institution, how does she suddenly show up as a producer at Paramount? It's good for a laugh but nothing has set the situation up, so it's a shallow chuckle rather than the conclusion of any plot thread. It's like: A man walks along the street, slips on a banana peel, and falls on his bum. Ha ha, but so what? Another instance: When he brings that Waldorf salad back to Stone's suite at night, she's lost interest in it and turns him away. Still holding the big bowl of salad, he backs into another hotel guest and crashes out of sight to the floor. We see the guest's face looking down as he asks, "Are you alright?" Well, we already KNOW what the gag is going to be. But instead of keeping the camera on the guest's face and hearing only a moan from the floor -- or seeing Brooks' salad-covered head very slowly emerge from the bottom of the screen -- there's a cut to Brooks on his back, decorated with salad. Where was the muse when she was most needed? The best feature of the film is Albert Brooks' performance. He's done it before just about perfectly, and here he does it again. It may be that no one in the history of movies has better expressed astonishment mixed with self-righteous indignation. What a terrific whiner he is.

Marco Trevisiol I remember going to the cinema to see this film back in 2000, being mildly entertained but underwhelmed by the end result, especially coming from someone who made one of the best comedies of the 1980s in 'Lost in America'.I had the chance to watch it again on cable today, and if anything, I was even less impressed with it the second time around. This is an occasionally amusing but generally uninspired and sometimes even dreary film. Its main downfall is that Brooks (as both actor, writer and director), has nothing new to say, and is still relying on the same stale old persona and situations that he used much more effectively back in 1985.There are some saving graces in the film: Sharon Stone is excellent in a tricky role, she avoids the easy trap of playing her role for laughs and in light of the revelation about her character at the end, her performance rings true.And the ending - where we learn that Stone isn't a muse but actually a person with mental issues who has been based in a sanitoraium - is an apt comment on the gullibility of Hollywood types who are so distanced from reality that they would actually seriously believe she was a muse. Jeff Bridges is also fine in his small role.Having said that, up until that revelation this is a very toothless satire on Hollywood. Brooks' character is also hard to take. He's doing his usual whiny persona but there's nothing in this film to suggest he has anything to whine about.Also, Andie McDowell fails to make much of an impression with her character. She's not helped by the relationship between her and Brooks being weakly written and not adding up to much.Probably most disappointing is how weak it is as a comedy. As an earlier reviewer noted, the scene where Brooks (as a punchline) ends up with a Waldorf salad all over his face is a very lazy and sitcomish moment that one expected Brooks had the talent to avoid. Another sign that the passion and purpose is ebbing away in his work.Another weak comic moment is towards the end where the Doctor and Nurse visibly crack up when they learn Brooks/MacDowell seriously believed that Stone was a muse. It's another lazy, unrealistic 'sitcom' attempt at humour - it's just not believable that a doctor would behave in such a manner. Something more subtle was required to be effective.While an OK timepasser, in the context of Brooks career trajectory this was a dispiriting disappointment.

bzb2001 I often think of Albert Brooks as a genius of the "common movie." His films are comedies and they have the feel of your regular, standard comedy but they are so much more. 'The Muse,' a film of his several years ago, was not met with critical or commercial success. As a result, I avoided the film and did not watch until now. I am sad I waited so long.Brooks stars as an aging Hollywood screenwriter without an Oscar to his credit, just a nomination years ago. His current problem (because you have the feeling with any Brooks movie that his character ALWAYS has a problem) is that he cannot get his recent script made. The studio feels he has "lost his edge," a phrase that follows him from person to person as he attempts to make since of this tragedy.Brooks visits a friend played by Jeff Bridges who is far more successful than he. Bridges tells him about a woman he sees who inspires his greatest work. The muse, as she is called, is played with great vibrant energy by Sharon Stone. One problem with the muse: she has an expensive appetite - and not just for food. The phrase "high maintenance" brings on all new meaning and each scene is funnier than the next. She needs certain foods in her refrigerator, an expensive bedroom, different paint on the walls, then all new paint over that because it's too bright.Some of this may seem tired and overused. Albert Brooks, though, is a genius when it comes to movies like this. Take, for instance, a scene when Brooks is caught in a conversation with someone who does not speak the best English. This is a ploy we've seen so many times. In an Albert Brooks movie the timing is perfect and the dialog is pierced with humor. I believe it ends up being the single most funny scene in the film.Critics talk about the "payoff" to a film. The payoff to 'The Muse' is not entirely genuine and does not live up to the rest of the film. This brings it down a little but not near enough to make the film a retread of other films. It is never boring or overdone or even underdone. Ignore what you may have heard, give 'The Muse' a chance. It may re-enlighten your interest in the common film. ***1/2 out of ****