Intimacy (2001)

As i said one hat size doesn't fit all. I don't want to be judgmental about the characters or the way the story proceeds. i don't know which era was this film made in. just a note to the story writer do you know there is also something called counseling and therapy. They don't have any understanding of what marriage is. Another name for marriage is surrender and acceptance and patience. The three corner stones of relationship. okay the protagonist the lady goes around satisfying her physical sexual urge with this unknown guy to which a lot of feminist will say sexual freedom and what not. They will also blame the husband that he did not pay any attention to her needs both emotional and biological. I ask you is it entirely his fault. He is an ordinary bloke. what is the director trying to convey through this story. You can have all the good things in life and if your are smart enough you can have them all. any ways there was no chemistry between the actors. very bad acting over all. the sexual scenes are quiet believable. first time was a blow job being conducted in a main stream drama i guess. I say watch this movie only for the sex scenes they are very believable. thats it. nothing interesting here.

A film more famous for the unsimulated sex on show than for any inherent artistic value. Naturally, the performances are very concentrated - the matter of the film (trying to have and eat the cake of a vast, exciting but impersonal London) and the sexual acts mean that everyone is very focused. I guess it also comes from working with an iconic director too.This is not to say that the performances are good. I like Rylance but I think he overplays his hand here. Conversely I don't think that Marianne Faithful brings anything to the film. Spall's cab driver is ill-served with the script leftovers. This leaves Kerry Fox to prop the film up and she creates quite a remarkable character actually, a temporal bohemian spirit in an article, middle-class body.What Chereau's film does achieve is, amazingly, a sense of urban romance, even in the bleak existential wastes of these people's lives. You have to wait for the very final shot, over which run the credits, to get the full measure of this. 3/10

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I mean real drama. I mean the kind that is designed to turn you inside out rather than merely distract you from anything real. I think this is real. Its clearly meant to matter and designed so. Everyone involved is committed. The actors slightly cross that line about showing sex and therefore let us know that we are meant to take this as real, as intended. And we do.I'm sure it works for some viewers. It didn't for me, and I think the reason is simple. I'm not British. There are three main characters here, involved in a triangle, the tentativeness and purpose of which forms the spine of the story. But they are surrounded by others. Men with men and women with women. These characters I think are meant to define a sort of broken world, a sort of disordering set of forces in which our three are situated. So they are quirky, exaggerated, and because I'm seeing traits that I only see in other British films, they seem to be templates and therefore unreal. They seem to be from a store, that same store where you get eccentric secondary characters for romantic comedies, or that Bristish twist, the self- absorbed "Trainspotting" genre.This ruins the whole effect for me, because they may be real people, but they live in an unreal world, so the story doesn't matter.But there is one thing about this that is remarkable. Its the construction of the narrative.Remember that the whole thing depends on us getting the message that these actors are committed to being real? Our focus character is a woman who is an actress, trying to be real. More, as she in the movie is intent on showing us how to be real, she plays a character who is not only an actress with similar aspirations. But she has a job showing other less "talented" actors how to do the same. Its a really cool narrative fold. The problem with folds is that they are usually outside the narrative, a sort of metanarrative that declares the movie is fake. But you cannot really get much away without folding these days. So this writer has folded directly and openly within the story in a way devised to move the metanarrative away from outside the film to coming from within. Its a character folding, not an actor.Even though this did not work for me, it might for you. And this very clever engineering of narrative makes it worth watching.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

I thought that this movie was interesting because one does not see 'Real Sex' in regular Hollywood movies, real sex is only seen in X rated movies. Its nice to see a different 'Real' take on what is illuded to in most films with sex scenes in them. I would have given this good movie a higher rating but I had not much if anything to compare it to other than any NC-17 movies I have seen in the past. NC-17 movies I thought contained the most nudity next to adult rated X movies. Even though mostly teenage boys will like this film for its inherent sexual content, I watched this film with my girlfriend and she said that it was a very enjoyable and very different movie in the way sex is used to explain the story.