Description

What starts out as a weekly anonymous tryst between a divorced man and a married woman turns into a searing portrait of loneliness and emotional need. Directed by Patrice Chereau (Queen Margot), INTIMACY won the Golden Bear for Best Film at the 2001 Berlin Film Festival where lead actress Kerry Fox also won the Best Actress Award. Based on Hanif Kureishi’s controversial novel, INTIMACY was selected to play at the Sundance and New York Film Festivals. DVD extras include the original theatrical trailer and cast and filmmaker bios. ... Read more

Reviews (16)

When the center doesn't hold
This amazing movie is a look at the ways that a man, the protagonist Jay (Mark Rylance) once-married, and a once fairly conventional husband and dad, can utterly fall apart in divorce, the heartbreaking ways he might try to put a life back together, and the ache for connection and communion that can't necessarily be soothed - within or without "happy" marriages.

By now the plot and the fact of its depiction of acts of sexual intercourse are well-known. There is a woman, Claire. She shows up at Jay's door, Wednesdays at 2 PM. We don't know anything about her at first - just that once she's in his apartment, her clothes (and his) come off. The five to ten minutes of intense once-weekly sex on Jay's apartment floor is no less important for being quick and wordless; it is a sort of a pact between the couple, and their shared illness, really. But it can't, ultimately, do the trick, and the film succeeds - unmoralistically - in showing us how and why. The urge to find either oblivion or ecstasy - whether via alcohol or sex or other means - fuels the couple. There are amazing surprises along the way, via a script that is utterly believable and natural.

In fact, every aspect of the protagonist Jay's life is in fact shown harshly, "graphically," whether it is his hectic job tending bar, his messy, depressing apartment (further evidence that he has lost his moorings), his several friends, or his frantic travels through London. (The camera chases him, and he is chasing her). We're by turns frustrated, confused, and focused. One's attention never wanders during this story.

Children (Jay's and Claire's) are used well in this film. They can tell the truth, and they do. They use the word "love" - and the adults in this movie really can't. In several scenes Jay is at his ex-wife's apartment, bathing his beautiful little sons. He lies on what was the marriage bed and makes a sort of sad and frantic fetish of his ex-wife's underwear, and is interrupted by his son, who needs his help. We are never asked to be voyeurs, but witnesses to a lot of sadness, distress - and the difficulty, really, of the attainment of happiness.

This is an astonishing film about broken hearts - and what people might do to try to mend them.

A Limp Mess
Helmed by French auteur Patrice Chéreau, who directed the vastly superior "Queen Margot," the Birtish film "Intimacy" is a limp mess. A man and woman carry on an illicit affair - they meet at his house Wednesday afternoons for sex. They know nothing about each other, not even names. Eventually, the man (Jay, played by Mark Rylance) finds himself wanting to know more about the woman (Claire, played by Kerry Fox), and he begins following her after their trysts. What he finds out about her throws their relationship into question.

"Intimacy" gained attention and notoriety for its explicit sex scenes (the R-rated version is also available, and these scenes are edited a great deal). The sex scenes are among the most graphic ever seen in a mainstream movie, including a rather shocking scene where Fox fellates Rylance (everything is shown). Ultimately, however, the sex scenes are quite un-sexy as the characters are so distant from each other. A movie called "Intimacy" that lacks any intimacy whatsoever? Sounds like an elaborate joke to me.

Aside from the explicitness of the sex scenes, the movie offers nothing new. The characters are not well-delineated, and the conflicts are ill-defined. On the plus side, Mark Rylance ("Angels & Insects") and Kerry Fox ("Shallow Grave") give good performances; however, it's rather disconcerting seeing such talented actors engaging in graphic sex scenes in a tepid movie. Both actors have impressive backgrounds in the theater, and Rylance has acted extensively in Shakespearian productions at the Globe Theatre. Shaking his spear indeed!

Extras: The DVD includes minimal extras: a photo gallery, brief bios of the actors, and the trailer. A director commentary would be much appreciated, or even a commentary from the actors. I'd love to hear what filming the explicit sex scenes was like!

NOT VERY INTIMATE.....
Like other reviewers, I was disappointed in "Intimacy". I found that the film had very little to say in terms of why the two main characters (Mark Rylance and Kerry Fox) carried on such an unpleasant sexual relationship. Their weekly meetings in Rylance's grungy apartment for sex obviously indicated they each had deeper more emotional needs. But neither find what they are looking for. They are both frustrated, unhappy people with unfulfilling lives and blunt, crude sex grants them the temporary escape valve. However, it's obvious that the sex isn't really fulfilling either one of their needs. Rylance and Fox are good actors and Marianne Faithful is good as one of Fox's friends. But neither Fox nor Rylance is terribly attractive so their nude sex scenes aren't that interesting which makes the sadness and desperation of their acts even more downbeat. I agree the film is more explicit than most but without a good story and at least a positive note or two I can't really recommend it. If the film's intent is to show that an empty sexual relationship gets you nowhere, then it succeeds very well on that premise.

Mark Rylance in all his glory. James Bond for 2008?
Some films from England, France, Italy and Germany are allowed to have such freedom and liberties to filming nude scenes whether they are in the natural state or erotic. Very few American actors in American films will allow themselves to be seen in a natural state. Most American actors wear a willie stocking or a clamshell or prefer a body double. But those actors that agree in their contract to full frontal nudity know they will get more pay and a very handsome paycheck at that. Some have reached success very quickly. It could make a film successful too. (...). Mark Rylance is not afraid to show his erotic side in this very adult film. This unrated DVD version pushes the red line of sex and nudity on screen and yet it is still simulated sex. The nudity is more shocking as the actor allows his uncut member to be seen in various stages. I have also seen Mark Rylance in Angels & Insects were his performance is more tender and soft. (...`).

Sex and the City
For a while, this arty movie about sexual encounters between two strangers in London is actually quite intriging and unsettling. Unfortunately, after the first half hour the plot starts repeating its premise with little further development and moving at a slow, ungaging pace.

"Intimacy" tries to deliver some food for thought about loneliness and despair in the modern world, focusing the relationship (or lack of it?) between a divorced man and a married woman that get intimate before they even manage to know each other properly. It`s an interesting idea, even if not completely original, but it could work better here.

The movie has some good elements: the acting is consistent (Mark Rylance is excellent), the soundtrack captivating, the photography well-crafted and the direction is moody and atmospheric enough. However, the character development isn`t that great, and the story loses its point halfway through, turning this project into a curious yet semi-failed picture. The sex scenes, which generated some controversy, aren`t really that strong or offensive, and director Patrice Chéreau portrays those moments with a sense of style and cleverness (an harsher perspective was done in Catherine Breillat`s ridiculous "Romance").
"Intimacy" has some guts and ideas, still it soon loses its strenght, approaching a bland and tepid development on its second half that fails to seduce.
Another case of "and all it could have been". ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Both a classic documentary and a vital pop-cultural artifact, D.A. Pennebaker's portrait of Bob Dylan captures the seminal singer-songwriter on the cusp of his transformation from folk prophet to rock trendsetter.Shot during Dylan's 1965 British concert tour, Don't Look Back employs an edgy vérité style that was, and is, a snug fit with the artist's own consciously rough-hewn persona. Its handheld black-and-white images and often-gritty London backdrops suggest cinematic extensions of the archetypal monochrome portraits that graced Dylan's career-making early-'60s album jackets.

Pennebaker's access to the legendarily private troubadour enables us to witness Dylan's shifting moods as he performs, relaxes with his entourage (including then lover Joan Baez, road manager Bob Neuwirth, and poker-faced manager Albert Grossman), and jousts with other musicians (notably Animals alumnus Alan Price and Scottish folksinger Donovan), fans, and press. It's a measurement of the filmmaker's acuity that the conversations are often as gripping as Dylan's solo performances. Grossman's machinations with British promoters, Baez's hip serenity, a grizzled British journalist's surrender to the fact of Dylan's artistry, and the artist's own taunting dismissal of a clueless sycophant are all absorbing.

With the exception of the studio recording of "Subterranean Homesick Blues," the live performances (including five newly restored, complete audio tracks excised from the original film but included on the DVD version) are constrained by crude audio gear.Their urgency, however, is timeless, as is Pennebaker's film, a legitimate cornerstone for any serious rock video collection. --Sam Sutherland ... Read more

Reviews (59)

The Mystery Behind the Enigma
Don't Look Back is the best documentary about a musician on tour that I've ever seen. I can't say enough good things about it, and it is all I can do to imagine how D. A. Pennebaker simultaneously made himself so ubiquitous and so unnoticed as to capture the remarkable footage that he got on Dylan's British tour. From the incredible sequence of Joan Baez warbling the then-unreleased "Percy's Song" even as Dylan is pounding out the lyrics on his typewriter, to the revealing moments where Dylan manager Albert Grossman quite literally strong-arms the BBC into a high-paying deal for a tv appearance, to Dylan himself, at the most accessible he would ever be in his long career, alternately jousting and jesting with the British press, most of whom seem completely ignorant as to which is the jest and which is the joust. Dylan again, talking with a fan who doesn't like "Subterranean Homesick Blues" because "it just doesn't sound like you," (which was the whole point of the song), and Dylan's gritted-teeth reply: "Oh, I see what kind of person you are right away." Dylan yet again, in an astonishingly unguarded moment, bawling out everyone in his hotel room over a wineglass Alan Price dropped out of the window, acting like the only responsible adult in a kindergarten class...and when a drunken Price admits the deed, Dylan lets him have it with both barrels and finally kicks him out, despite Price having been Dylan's best friend in England throughout the entire film. In fact, a lot of this movie is about Dylan shedding elements of his persona, entourage, and his music. Bringing it All Back Home had just been released when Don't Look Back was being filmed, and the album served as a harbinger of the rock and roll shift Dylan's music was about to take. It's far more noticeable in hindsight, of course, but in this film you see Dylan breaking his ties with his folkie past. "Subterranean Homesick Blues" being shown right up front is a dead giveaway, but you may miss some of the more subtle signs: His growing disenchantment with being pegged as a folkie, evidenced by both the abovementioned reaction to his fans and his jests/jousts with the press, both harbingers of the surreal "anti-interviews" Dylan would give over the next few years. Then there is the slow disintegration of his relationship with Baez -- there is a moment about midway or 2/3 of the way through Don't Look Back where Joan walks out of Dylan's hotel room...and though she appears later in the film through the judicious use of editing, Baez has since admitted that that was the moment she walked out of Dylan's life. Another folk-music tie broken, as much by Dylan as by Baez (his near-indifference to her through much of the film is chilling...). There is also Dylan's discomfort with the "Donovan issue", both in being compared to Donovan and in meeting the guy. You can see the uncertainty all over Bob's face during this sequence, and the nicer he tries to be to Donovan -- who quite honestly sholdn't even be in the same room with Dylan -- the funnier the whole thing gets. Then there is Dylan's meeting with the President of Dylan's British fan club -- the bespectacled weedy fellow who looks like he just stepped whole and breathing out of the nightclub scene in A Hard Day's Night. Dylan's conversation with this guy is polite on the surface, but again, there are undertones of discomfort, even dislike, so palpable that they make you want to cringe. Dylan is so clearly disenchanted with some aspects of his career, even though he puts on a game face and acts satisfied with what he's doing, that it's a wonder he didn't completely telegraph his shift to electric music. (Actually, he did -- it's just that most people were too blind to see it coming at the time.)

As I said above, the footage in this film is incredibly revealing. Never again would Dylan be so accessible, so honest and forthright, as he was in Don't Look Back -- and even here, as I've said, you can sense his withdrawal from that accessibility begin. How Pennebaker managed to capture all this intense, remarkable, human footage of Dylan and co., without his subjects noticing or caring about how they came across, is beyond me. Few music documentaries, before or since, have had such verve, or such nerve, as to show their subjects in such a potentially-unflattering light (the only two I can think of that come anywhere close are Gimme Shelter, the Maysles Brothers' astonishing Stones/Altamont document, and Let It Be, the Beatles' on-film disintegration (and final live performance) which stupidly remains out of print). Don't Look Back does all that and more, never cheating, never prevaricating or retreating, always telling the truth. It was a rare achievement for its time, and a film that could never be made today.

(FINAL NOTE: All right, Messrs. Dylan and Pennebaker -- now that Don't Look Back has been remastered and rereleased, how about doing the same with the long-missing and much-missed 1966 followup, Eat the Document? It's no less raw, revealing, and astonishing than its predecessor, and is richly deserving of a rerelease. Here's hoping!)

Trying to be hip, and actually being hip in spite of it
There's no doubt this film was an influential piece of cinema verite for subsequent rockumentaries. With little ado, it follows Bob Dylan and his small entourage (including Joan Baez) around England on an acoustic concert tour in the spring of 1965, in delicious black-and-white (mostly with hand-held cameras.) Much of the time we are in cars and hotel rooms, with occasional footage of Bob onstage performing alone with his guitar and harmonica. On a certain level we get a gritty version of the carefree fun of the Beatles' "A Hard Day's Night" - Bob and friends mostly hang around, seemingly without a care in the world, not appreciating how fleeting is this era of anyone's youth. At the same time, Dylan spends much of his time in pointless debates with journalists and others who are hanging around, keeping up a self-centered patter that I trust would embarrass an older man looking back on his cocky youth. It's argument for the sake of argument. His insouciant bravado has always been maddening; Bob shows little of his true self to the public in interviews and encounters, but then...he goes onstage, and those songs speak directly to our hearts, now as then. It's a weird contrast between the backstage kiss-off artist and the onstage genius. However, snatches of the real Dylan do slip through in this footage too. He seems wary and insecure around peers such as Donovan. Before going onstage at the Royal Albert Hall, the man who has just spent a long time telling a reporter that Time magazine is meaningless stops to carefully check himself in the mirror before going on. After the same concert, he seems genuinely upbeat and glad about the performance. In these and a few other glimpses, we see chinks in the armor of the self-conscious rebel, and behold, there is a human being beneath. No wonder the songs are so good. (The sound quality of the live performances isn't great in this film, but then it probably wasn't in real life in those days either.)

Vintage Bob...a classic
It would be impossible for me to say all I wanted about Bob Dylan in a short review, so I will just say I'm a huge fan. Don't Look Back is a classic, a must-have for Dylan fans. This fly-on-the-wall film shows Bob at just 24, ready to turn the music world on its head by "going electric." Dylan is shown doing what he does best (besides writing songs): toying with reporters and would-be interviewers like a cat would toy with a mouse. There is the infamous run-in with the Science Student (my favorite part of the film). Dylan turns every question the poor kid asks around and fires them right back with honed precision, leaving the young Englishman confused and babbling. There is the hilarious part at the end of the film where Dylan insists "I am just as good a singer as Caruso. Have you ever heard me sing? You have to listen closely, but I hit all those notes. And I can hold my breath three times as long, if I wanted to." Dylan is poking fun at himself, but the befuddled reporter doesn't get it. And then there are the intimate, silent shots of Bob on a train, removing his trademark sunglasses and revealing visible exhaustion, reminding those watching of the enormous pressures being placed upon him. Add all this to the concert footage and the classic opening to the film, in which a deadpan-looking Bob is filmed holding cue cards with lyrics to "Subterranean Homesick Blues" printed on them, and you've got a wonderfully entertaining look at one of the world's greatest artists. Included are supporting players like Joan Baez (slightly obnoxious in this film), Donovan, and Bob's manager, Albert Grossman. All Dylan fans, and fans of rock-oriented films, should see Don't Look Back. You won't regret it.

So good it hurts
This film gives the viewer a candid view of an incredibly talented, precocious, irreverent, and actually quite beautiful young Dylan revealed in wonderful concert and behind-the-scenes footage. After seeing the film I felt that Dylan's legendary arrogance has been perhaps misunderstood -- actually he was pretty humble and engaging with school kids and fellow musicians -- more interested in learning from them than in showing off his own talents. What comes off as arrogance is his almost allergic aversion to simplistic, cliched, or hypocritical concepts imposed upon him by clueless, syncophantic journalists and fans. His trenchant verbal sparring with a reporter from Time magazine, in which he argues that the readers of Time are settling for secondhand drivel and that Time has too much to lose by telling the truth, is one of the most refreshing and amusing interviews I've ever seen. Likewise, one can appreciate his struggle to avoid being pigeonholed as either a political activist or a folk singer; certainly his political sensibilities are profound, but he understandably chaffed at the attempts to turn him into a mouthpiece for any single cause or established movement. His instinctive fight to keep the doors of perception ajar has proven well founded; it is precisely his protean shape-shifting and incessant search for new levels of meaning and musical expression that have made him such a timeless icon. The one sour note in the film was his obviously strained relationship with Joan Baez, not only a brilliant singer in her own right but also a witty mimic and comic, whom he relegates to groupie status and mostly ignores. Given the fact that she invited Dylan to share her stage when he was virtually unknown, one would have expected Dylan to have invited her to sing a song or two. What a waste of talent -- but then, apparently their romantic relationship was in its death throes, so it may be unfair to judge. Ultimately, this film made me sad simply because it shows the sheer brilliance of a person at a moment in time that is now forty years in the past. We can look back, but we do so at the risk of having our hearts broken.

Bob's an ass, but that's ok.
If that's who wrote the songs, then that's who's supposed to 'star' in the movie. {Roger Ebert had to check his archives to see if he orginally noticed what a jerk Dylan was,(he was happy to find that his current opinion hadn't been contradicted in his 60's review).} The funny thing is, the journalists who
Bob is so rude to were giving him good writeups.(ps,for whatever reason, Amazon 's been post-scripting this review as being for the vhs version, is it, in fact, for the dvd.) ... Read more

Amazon.com

The Wall (Live in Berlin) seemed uninspired and gimmicky in 1990 but looks and sounds terrifically compelling on DVD, thanks to its vivid image quality and greatly improved audio mixes. The freshly mineswept Potsdamer platz--a once-thriving plaza destroyed by Allied bombing in 1943--proved the perfect place to mark the opening of the Berlin Wall with an all-star production of Pink Floyd's magnum opus: a Wall for a wall. An unlikely assemblage of musicians augments Roger Waters's impressive house band (led by guitarist Rick DiFonzo and organ wizard Nick Glennie-Smith), with everyone from the Scorpions to Joni Mitchell to the Military Orchestra of the Soviet Army getting in on the rock-opera action. Cyndi Lauper, Bryan Adams, James Galway, Thomas Dolby, and Albert Finney all turn in tasty cameos, while Sinead O'Connor looks unaccountably aloof in "Mother." The documentary is thorough and juicy, and producer Tony Hollingsworth offers an above-par essay in the booklet. --Michael Mikesell ... Read more

Amazon.com

Unavailable at all for nearly three decades, then issued in a VHS edition in 1996, the Rolling Stones' legendary Rock and Roll Circus finally gets the full treatment with this DVD release documenting the 1968 event. The Stones were reportedly unhappy with their performance (hence the long delay), and it isn't their finest moment; performing "Jumping Jack Flash" and a variety of songs from their then-new Beggars Banquet album, Keith Richards is game, but Jagger's preening (especially on "Sympathy for the Devil") is over the top, and guitarist Brian Jones looks dissolute and well on his way to his death the following year. A certain weirdness permeates some of the other musical acts as well: Jethro Tull lip-syncs unconvincingly, Taj Mahal and band were obliged to perform before the circus set was completed and the audience had arrived, and John Lennon's outing with impromptu supergroup the Dirty Mac (with Richards, Eric Clapton, and drummer Mitch Mitchell) is hampered by Yoko Ono's caterwauling, although their version of the Beatles' "Yer Blues" is cool. Still, the Who are brilliant, Marianne Faithfull is beautiful, the various circus acts are fun, and the crowd clearly loves it.

The DVD comes with some fascinating bonus features, including three extra songs by Mahal, some lovely classical piano by Julius Katchen, and a "quad split-screen" version of "Yer Blues." Best of all are a new interview with the Who's Pete Townshend and the various commentary tracks added for the DVD--especially those by Tull's Ian Anderson, director Michael Lindsay-Hogg, and Stones Jagger, Richards, and Bill Wyman (who dryly attributes Jagger's reluctance to issue the show to his dissatisfaction with his own performance, not the band's). Flaws notwithstanding, this is a treat. --Sam Graham ... Read more

Reviews (23)

Worth seeing just for The Who
This tape is worth buying just for The Who's performance of "A Quick One While He's Away", which has got to be one of the greatest live performances of a single rock song ever. Unfortunately, it's followed by Yoko Ono's impersonation of a rusty fence as well as a poor performance by the Stones. "Jumpin' Jack Flash" sounds like it's being played in slow motion, and on "Sympathy for the Devil", an obviously full-of-himself Mick Jagger seems to be more interested in mugging for the cameras then he does in actually performing the song. I've always thought the Stones were one of the most overrated live acts in rock; and after watching them follow the Who here, it's easy to see why Jagger did not want to release the tapes.

Anyway, besides The Who, there also some good performances by Jethro Tull(although I've read that their performance of "A Song for Jeffrey" is not entirely live?) and The Dirty Mac(John Lennon, Eric Clapton, Keith Richards & Mitch Mitchell deliver a fine performance of "Yer Blues" before being joined by Yoko Ono and violin player Ivry Gitlis; it's amusing to watch Gitlis smirk as Yoko screeches over the top of their jamming). Marianne Faithful and Taj Mahal also perform, but frankly I found them both to be forgettable.

Aside from the performances, I think this tape is interesting as a snapshot of the time(December, 1968). You get to see a number of rock legends in their prime, and even though not all of them deliver great performances, it's still fascinating to watch.

Not Much Of A Circus For The Stones
What suprises the most is the lackluster performance of the Stones in "Rock and Roll Circus." Far more interesting is Jethro Tull's performance with Ian Anderson prefiguring the grunge look by 25 years in his long overcoat, wild hair and beard. Tull's unique jazz/blue/celtic/rock fusion has held up quite well over the years. Taj Mahal's earthy performance with his electric blues band is riveting, but future heroin causality Jesse "Ed" Davis looks pallid despite his sizzling slide and lead guitar. The Who rule the "Rock and Roll Circus" with an inspired rendition of "A Quick One" complete with a turbo charged performance by Keith Moon where he mugs it up and breaks (by my count) five or six sets of drumsticks. The Stones hit the stage to close the show and it's jarring to see a lackluster perfomance from the world's greatest rock and roll band. They all look fatigued and Brian Jones looks like he's just waiting for someone to write his obituary. This was a very bad time in Rolling Stones land. It turned out to be Brian's last performance in public with the Stones.

For over twenty years the Stones kept "Rock and Roll Circus" from being seen, apparently Mick Jagger was incensed that the Who's inspired anarchy eclipsed the Stones performance....the Who and nearly everyone else managed to outshine the phoned in performance by the Stones, except for Keith, who's rowdy guitar antics can't breathe life into the band. The following year I saw the revitalized Stones touring with Mick Taylor replacing the deceased Brian Jones on guitar. The Stones made it through the dark days of "Rock and Roll Circus" and managed to outlast the Who as the most enduring sixties band, but this performance was a pretty somber affair for the boys. My final reaction to the film was how many of the talented musicians in "Rock and Roll Circus" would be claimed tragically over the next few years. It is still hard for me to watch John Lennon's dazzling energy and often absurd brillance in the film and not shed a tear for his senseless death.

Rock and Roll Circus
As somone who wasn't born when this was filmed it was interesting seeing them and the other 60s artists as they were at that time.

Enjoyed Dirty Mac the most (would have preferred it if they left Yoko's wailing out of the second track). The Who were good. The Stones were ok.

One for the collector.

Good music, but you'll wear out the FF skipping the "circus"
Like so many legendary rock rumors, this show has a hard time living up to the expectations that have built up in its absence. You can now view it to see our Sixties heroes, young and smooth and clear-eyed, in this souvenir of Swinging London in 1968. For that alone this show is worth the purchase price.

The best bits of this are also the funniest. Tony Iommi, the future Black Sabbath guitar god, appears in the Jethro Tull lineup, in a floppy white hippie hat, miming on his Strat to Mick Abraham's dobro part in "Song for Jeffrey". He looks like he's gonna die of mortification. Ian Anderson looks spotty, woolly and ramshackle, and sings in a slurry delta blues accent. His vocal and flute are allegedly the only "live" part on this performance of that song.

The next best thing is The Who, powering through the long story-song A Quick One. I was disappointed that the video had no extra tracks from them, as I have seen photos of them in different costume from the Circus, playing what must have been a different song. Maybe for the DVD...

The Stones are okay, not thrilling, but not so poor that it warranted shelving the projected for nearly thirty years. Brian Jones looks dead on his feet, but everyone else seems fine. Keef, ironically enough, is the liveliest one of the lot, by the time the marathon show ended taping.

The circus bits are piffle, and the other performers are filler, though The Dirty Mac is worth watching at least once. Yoko Ono is...oh, I should just leave the fish in the barrel alone, I guess. Avant garde didn't get much more avant than it was in the Sixties. Short verdict: buy it, and enjoy the way they were, if not always they way they did it.

Truly amazing film for fans of Who, John Lennon, Jethro Tull
This film is more for fans of the Who, Lennon, Tull or for lovers of the swinging sixties than it is for the Stones. The Stones performance was somewhat lackluster, they seem tired and stoned!

BUT this film really caught me by surprise and is one of my favorite in my entire collection... I bought it to see the Stones only to find out that it contained a performance of "Yer Blues" by John Lennon, Eric Clapton, Keith Richards and Mitch Mitchell (Jimi Hendrix Experience)!!! The interview of John Lennon by Mick Jagger is very interesting -- John is sarcastic as ever.

Also, the song by the Who (A Quick One) is fantastic and captures the truly live feel and charisma of the Who complete with a typically clumsy and aggressive Townsend slamming his arm into a boom mike while doing a windmill on the guitar!!!

Jethro Tull hams it up as a psycho hillbilly freak... fans of his will love "Song for Jeffery".

Taj Mahal turns in a great, soulful performance of "Ain't That a lot of Love".

One thing that was kind of sad is that so many of the talented people on this film are now dead. Just about every band represented here had one or two members who died from heroin or some other drug. But that does make the tape that much more poignant.

The tape does have a few dull moments, the most painful being Yoko Onos "performance" with the supergroup I mentioned above in a separate jam called "Whole Lotta Yoko". You can't fast forward because the underlying jam is so compelling, so you just sit there and suffer.

If you like any of the bands mentioned herein, this film is a must see!!! ... Read more

Amazon.com

Pretty boy Billy (Jude Law) is an amoral rebel without a cause. Hisanarchic response to a bleak London existence is to steal cars and drive themthrough shop windows: "crash and carry," as one fellow "shopper" terms it. Buthe and his tough, video-game obsessed gal-pal Jo (Sadie Frost) are no Bonnie andClyde. Their shopping trips are merely a pretext for the adrenaline rush ofdestruction and the thrill of playing high-speed tag with the cops, a game thatstarts to wear thin on Jo. "Why don't you grow up, eh?" she finally asks. "Anddo what?" he helplessly replies.

The feature debut of Brit stylist Paul Anderson (Event Horizon) is asleek film of misty alleys, blue-lit underground garages, and slick citystreets. It's a dystopian London of the near future through the lens of BladeRunner driven almost single-handedly by Law's reckless charm and wildenergy. It's hard to tell if the film is about the nihilism of sensation-huntinglost youth or simply a sensational melodrama of aimless rebellion, but there'snonetheless something irresponsibly appealing in Billy's anti-establishmentrampage. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (13)

Tremendous example of low-budget film making
Riveting drama with first class direction by Anderson and excellent performances by leads Sadie Frost and Jude Law (who incidentally are now married in real life). Wonderful noir-ish photography in the industrial wastelands of London masks the fact that the car chases are not really as high octane as they seem (the Police drive Ford Sierras for goodness sake). Dated now, particularly by its thumping soundtrack but still a film which proves beyond doubt that high budgets are not necessary for good movies. Don't miss the opening sequence, Pertwee and Bean's sinister villains and the violent ending. A film that will have you thinking about right and wrong and offers some real insight into youths who sincerely believe that theft is property. Not for the squeamish.

*Yaaaaaaawn*
For a flick which is chock-full of car crashes, cop-fleeing, and massive explosions, damn, this is surprisingly boring. Jude Law is fine with what he's given to work with, but most of the other actors--Sean Pertwee, Sean Bean, and an achingly young, gangly Jason Isaacs--are completely wasted in this silly movie.

Feeding the rush to steal stuff.
Here's the plot- some cool criminals in a not too distant future industrial London steal cars, only to drive them into posh shopping malls to loot what they can before hearing police sirens, basically for the rush- wicked. This debut from PAUL ANDERSON (EVENT HORIZON) is a nifty little film that manages to exite in it's short running time. Gritty and well acted by some up and comming English talent (SEAN PERTWEE is excellent as usual as a tough scumbag), this flick has some slick production for an indie. A movie that looks good, moves with purpose, and draws the viewer into a world of grime and crime is always worth it.

Shopping '!996'
I liked watching this it is something that will make u cheer for the bad guys!Starring Jude Law and Sadie Frost.Its mainly about two Kids stealin cars and driving then thru car windows for no reason apart from addrenalin rush!its more of an action fans thing but fans of Jude,this is perfect for u! so add to your basket!

shopping
What can i say this movie is not for most people. It is in a class of its own. It takes guts to make a movie like this. Death,destruction, car chases, cheesey british rock. It almost reminds me of vanishing point meats darkcity its a classic in my book. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

FLASHBACK: London. 1967.
This film works wonderfully as a timepiece. What I like so much about Winner's films of the '60's is how much he wizzes around the city. We are treated to location after location...so we really get a look at time and place like very few films of the period. Lots of cars and mini-skirted dolly birds with exaggerated hairdo's and eye make-up.

The story is rather lame. '60's London is the star of this show. It's such a time tunnel that you'll feel quite dazed when it's over...but I think you'll be entertained.

Carol White was always nice eye candy. She plays Oliver Reed's girlfriend. She stumbles and staggers through her lines (in one scene she almost falls over, in another she 'reacts' to the people in the room before she even has entered it,) but you forgive her because she had a sort of innocent charm, like this film.

Reed is at his cool best. He was also at his handsomest in 1967. He handles his part with great ease.

Orson Wells camps it up, maybe a little too much. Marianne Faithfull says the 'f' word...but little else. She looks dreadful, her hair reminds me of those shaggy little rugs people used to put by their beds in those days, in fact maybe that's what it was.

If you like and/or are interested in '60's London...don't hesitate buying this. Otherwise I'd be reluctant to recommend it.

P.S. Almost forgot, the photography is excellent. So sharp and clear and so very London, 1967.

There's a sort of idiot-honesty about you I find refreshing
In "I'll Never Forget What's 'Isname," Oliver Reed plays Andrew Quint, an extremely successful 32-year-old advertising executive. While Quint's professional life is a success, his private life is a shambles. Quint goes through a moral crisis, and he leaves his wife, dumps his mistresses, and chops his desk to bits with an axe. Sickened by the corrupt world of advertising, Quint attempts to find meaning in his life by taking a low-paying job at a humble--but respectable--literary magazine run by old school chum, Leonard. Leonard is not a success by anyone's standards. In fact he secretly covets Quint's sports car and envies Quint's success with women. While Quint adjusts to his new poky little office, ex-boss, Jonathan Lute (played by Orson Welles) pursues Quint and pressures him to return to the world of corporate advertising. Jonathan is determined to get Quint back by hook or by crook. Quint deftly juggles his soon-to-be-ex-wife and two demanding mistresses while forming a relationship with Leonard's very available assistant, Georgina (Carol White). Quint's search for some meaning to life seems destined for disaster.

The character of Andrew Quint ironically mirrors many of the dilemmas Oliver Reed had in his own life. Oliver Reed was a rabble-rouser with a penchant for trouble, and "I'll Never Forget What's 'Isname" is a great film for any Oliver Reed fan. Although the film is relatively short, it is packed with action and drama. The story flows seamlessly, and no scenes are wasted. The film is very much a product of the 60s--complete with dolly birds running around in Mary Quant-style mini-dresses, and layers and layers of that 60s eye-make-up. The sexual freedom of the 60s peeks through--especially through Leonard's lascivious envy of Quint's social life. But in spite of the fact that the film is so obviously a product of 60s culture, it does not seem dated at all. Quint's rejection of professional success, and the moral quandaries created by the need to succeed are still relevant issues today. While the story deals with serious issues, everything is treated with a light ironic touch, and both Oliver Reed and Orson Welles fit neatly into the film as antagonists who both know the game all too well. Orson Welles is simply marvellous as the corrupt, wily, decadent Jonathan Lute--a man who will go as far as necessary to sell whatever product he represents. This is my favourite Orson Welles role next to Citizen Kane. The scenes with Welles are some of the best in the film, and the character Welles plays has a way of popping up in the most unexpected places. This disturbs Quint, but adds to the mood of the film. Oliver Reed and his co-star, Carol White had an off-screen romance as a result of this film, and Oliver Reed and Orson Welles maintained a close friendship for the rest of their lives. Watch for Marianne Faithfull in a small part as Josie--one of Quint's mistresses--displacedhuman

Still fresh...
Considering this movie was made over 30 years ago, it is surprising how fresh it still feels. Orson Welles' character, the diabolical ad agency owner, is compelling and witty. He brings amazing dimension to the story, with laceratingly sharp observations about Western social values.

Oliver Reed is captivating as Andrew Quint, the disenchanted ad agency executive. He exudes sexual and physical power in a way that is nearly unequalled in films on either side of the pond. I need to say something about a barely constrained raw power that Oliver Reed's Quint brings to screen -- it frequently erupts in surprisingly believable acts of violence and fistfights. I tend to think of fistfights and car chases as hokey Hollywood stuff (seriously, how many fist fights have you witnessed in real life?). But, it works, for the most part, in this movie.

Quint resigns from his high-powered position in a spectacular act of rebellion. He seeks to return to a truer calling in life - working as an editor for a declining literary magazine. After whole-heartedly chucking his job, he then goes half-heartedly through the motions of breaking off relations with his assorted blonds. But, not really. In fact, he acquires another blond or two along the way. The break-ups, both professional and personal, are all on the surface. It may be just a European thing or a sixties thing, but movie's characters are strangely bland and accepting about sexual infidelity.

The female characters, a wife and a bevy of girl friends, alas, are nearly interchangeable - stamped from a cookie cutter. Maybe that was intentional; because, it seems, Quint never comes to grips with his angst. He fails to recover that sense of integrity he sought in his attempts to shed the trappings of ad agency success. There is a faint question in the air at the end: does he to come to peace with himself, finally?

The movie provides a terrific glimpse into the social culture of the Sixties, when Britain was in its ascendancy as the celebrated crown jewel of pop culture. But, as I said, it doesn't seem that dated - even the clothes still look fairly okay (the hairstyles and makeup, though, NOT!). Ahead of its time in many ways, the movie has comments on the environment and society that are still valid and compelling today. Orson Welles' character delivers a very insightful speech on the extraordinary generation of waste - both literally in how landfills are swallowing up the country and in the quality of society's intellectual output. The movie is cagey in its revelation that even the hallowed halls of the academic elite harbor decay and moral corruption.

I enjoyed the commentary provided by Michael Winner on the DVD edition. It's chatty - gossipy, in fact, with rare details about the actors' personal lives. As for the title, I still don't get it; and Winner's comments about it are obtuse. Frankly, the title sounds like a slap-dash comedy, which this is not.

Capital portrayal of the "angry young man".
From the opening shot, you know this film is not just another movie from the 60's.

Many films from this era showcase the "angry young man" character rebelling against some unfocused facet of society that they feel oppresses them. "The Girl Getters", also starring Oliver Reed, and "Saturday Night and Sunday Morning" are two such samplings from Britain that are quite memorable (also of note is the even rarer portrayal of the "angry young woman" in "The Girl With Green Eyes").

Oliver Reed is marvelous as the angry young man in this slice of life film set in Swinging London. Reed's disillusioned character has reached a point where the swinging lifestyle has become empty and unsatisfying, and he wonders if there is something more to life than just having fun.

Of course, Welles is on hand, and although his part is relatively small, it it pivotal nonetheless. As Lute, the millionaire advertising executive, Welles exudes the frightening presence of a man who is not to be denied anything he wants. Lute is pragmatic, cynical, and amused at Reed's faniciful idea of working for a cause instead of working for cash.

Even though Reed owns the film, one standout in the cast to be mentioned is the milquetoast character who asks Reed to join his failing literary magazine. Burdened by a harping wife who is unhappy with the poor life of a scholar and wants "things" likes sportscars and washing mashines.

Of course, Carol White is the foxy and quintessential London swinger, and would easily give Felicity Shagwell a run for her money.

These type of films are all too rare. Although there are a few American films that touch on the same issues with the same styling ("The Sweet Smell of Success" and "Love With the Proper Stanger" both spring to mind), the British just had a knack for making solid "class struggle" films. They also had the actors that would make the films work and the characters believable. Reed and his fellow cast members excel in this one, and Welles is wonderful. Don't pass it up!

Oliver Reed as a disillusioned advertising executive
Oliver Reed stars as Andrew Quint, a successful advertising executive who has been balancing his family life with the demands of his mistress, Josie (Marianne Faithful), when he decides he is not really happy and decides to break free from his life. Andrew does this by showing up with an ax and demolishing his office. So, while his outraged boss, Jonathan Lute (Orson Welles) pursues him, Andrew goes on a bittersweet tour of Swinging London trying to get his head together. When this film came out in 1967 it was a controversial film because of its explicit language and sexuality. However, while the film is extremely tame by contemporary standards, "I'll Never Forget What's 'is Name" remains a potent testament of the disillusionment of the late Sixties. Harry Andrews, Michael Hordern, Wendy Craig and Frank Finlay are key members of the supporting cast in this film. The DVD edition contains audio commentary by director Michael Winner, who would later direct "Death Wish," which is just ironic on so many levels. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

For Real Motorcyclists
Forget the love story. If you're a real biker you'll love the flick for the asthetics of motorcycles and the feeling of riding in the wind. It features a very nice Norton and a Harley. This movie will be appreciated by those who lived in the 60's and rode bikes. I highly reccomend this video to all us older bikers!

The World's Greatest Psychedelic Driver's Ed Film
Rather than suffer her 19th Nervous Breakdown disgruntled housewife Marianne Faithfull (pre-Tom Waits soundalike period) hits the European road gleefully bouncing her robust Brit bottom on her motorbike soon to be coupled with intense Eurohunk Alain Delon.
Our leather-clad goddess wistfully reflects and reminisces about her last year on earth with eye-zapping psychedelic effects. This film would actually play very well in a double-feature with the simirlarly wild film "Performance".
Note to Marianne: while grinding down the Autobahn on a motorbike at 95 miles an hour it's okay to flap your thighs and bounce your butt but by all means KEEP YOUR EYES OPEN!

Rated X? You've got to be kidding...
This film has some good Harley riding by the girl in question, interesting scenery & cinematography and a nice, arty premise, but the psychedelics are annoying and by no means buy the DVD for the nudity. I can't believe this had to be "extensively cut" to get an R-rating. Seems to me that it would need a few seconds of trims at MOST and in fact there's nothing I saw here that I haven't seen in other R-rated movies. There isn't a lot of nudity in it and the vast majority is obscured by the psychedelic effects. The resulting footage is mostly no more explicit than a James Bond title sequence. The PG-rated Logan's Run shows off Jenny Agutter just about as much (without being so annoying). I can't help but wonder if this DVD doesn't really contain the cut version, although it doesn't look cut up... I've seen plenty of R-rated "exploitation flicks" that were way more revealing.

5 Stars????
A few interesting scenes, but the campy psychedelic effects overwhelm this movie.

Art, Classic,Super Sixties, Too Cutting Edge for Its' Time!
Beautiful Hot Babe+Story+ Love+ Emotion+ Action+ Great Cinematography Back in 1968. Oh Baby!Come on It has the Total Package.The First Run I Saw at a theater, X rated It was Great,English-Euro Version is the Bomb! But soon after That Censorship Got Its Maleavolent Head-Up cutting time off the USA Film. It Certainly should have been an award winner if censors hadn't butchered/Edited it mercilessly, crippling continuity. Fortunately I saw it in a first run unsensored un cut format-High Impact. Every bit Rebel Without A Cause/James Dean or Brando Era Stuff. Reviewers of the Day were to weak to buck mainstream uptight conservative Morays, and afraid of the Market/Studios Power on the whole. The movie was Very Reflective of the young people in the sixties and even those today, who are pushed like a peg in a hole in the main. Both influenced and expected to conform to majority ideals and opinions of their Elders as sheep. The Movie Well Exhibits Free Will, Free Expression and There Is Life being Lived. The Story, Portrayal, Acting and Filmwork were superb for a modest budgeted project. The action is good as any, and Ridership very good. Note the riding of onto the grass is far harder and more slippery as any rider can attest. As for wet roads that's a given. Not computer animation. Too Real; For Its Day I Found It Was Just Superb! ... Read more

Description

One of the most famous and infamous artists of our time, Marianne Faithfull is an icon of the Sixties. This videography takes us through Marianne's entire life, from her hit single at age 17, "As Tears Go By"--the first song ever written by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards--to her triumphant return to the music world with the powerful hit album "Broken English." In between is the swingin' '60s scene in London, life with the Stones, a drug habit she finally kicked and a successful return to her first love--music! A fascinating story of an expressive talent who truly is one-of-a-kind! Songs: Vagabond Ways, Broken English, Working Class Hero, Ballad of Lucy Jordan, As Tears Go By, Dreaming My Dreams. ... Read more

Reviews (85)

They really tried. They really tried their best. But...
This concert should have been one of the greatest concerts ever. Roger Waters' show about an isolated rock star slowly building a wall between himself and his audience is truly the most original idea and concept and of the best shows in history. However, this show had one major flaw. GUEST STARS. I hate it when someone takes something as great as the Wall and have an all star cast perform it. The only people who should perform the wall are Waters, Gilmour, Mason, and Wright. The music also seemed flawed at times, For example the accordian in Mother, it didn't seem to fit in quite right. But the worst part of all is OH MY GOD WHAT A FABULOUS ROOM. That actress really and I mean REALLY overdid it. . Another flaw was that they cut out Outside the Wall. Why? That would make the show complete, especially what happens after the Trial. Thats another thing, the Trial is way better with the animated prosecuter, wife, mother and most of all, Worm your Honor. The live action trial didn't have the effect that the animated one in the film did. Anyway that is enough of my complaints. Roger's performances in this were nothing short of amazing but Waters was the only good thing. They should of let him perform the songs instead of screw ones up, like when Cyndi Lauper does Another Brick in the Wall part II . Is there anybody out there? is way better. (Yes I know you don't have the visuals for that musically it is better) I'll stop complaining now so you can blast this review.

Better than I could imagine!
When this record was first released, I rejected it on the sole fact that it included Sinead Oconnor. I didn't care about her politics, but her vocals were more annoying than a teacher's new chalk on a squeaky clean board. As a huge Pink Floyd fan, I couldn't understand the watering down of such great music by Waters, and it obviously took me several years to overcome that.

When I saw this DVD on special, I bought it, stuck it into my surround sound system, and proceeded to fall into another day and time. The lyrics and music transcended everything that they had come to mean to me and became symbols for a movement. Regardless of what the others have said below, every song was performed with power and passion. I never would have dreamed that I would enjoy "Comfortably Numb" performed by the same man known for such club favs as "Brown Eyed Girl" and "Domino", but Morrison was superb. Even the dreaded Oconnor was convincing as a character in "The Wall".

No doubt that this performance was every bit as politically accurate then as it is now. Whether the wall was coming down in Germany or the Middle East looks for peace, these songs speak to us just as universally.

Great work, Mr. Waters. Now where is a DVD of "The Wall" to go with "Is There Anybody Out There?"?.

It's just not floyd...
As a die-hard Pink Floyd fan, I wasn't very stunned by this DVD.
It's a big spectacular show and it must have been fabulous to all of the people who were there, but I'm not really fond of all the 'stars' like Brian Adams or Cindy Lauper who just don't fit in.
The Wall is a very good but also a very dark album, and it's not the right album to be played by a bunch of famous rockartists.
Most of the time I skip to the parts that Waters sings, for me, these are the highlights.

I really hope someday the original Wall-show (of '81) will be released on DVD of VHS.

roger waters - The wall (live in berlin)
I was floored with this concert. I sat in awe as I watched and listened in surround sound. If you haven't seen it, you are missing one of the best concerts ever. It is an unbelieveably huge production. It was so good I bought the CD as well.

Roger Waters - The Wall (Live in Berlin)
Very well put together, Roger Water's inner child comes out again! Mind stimulating, With your'e eyes open or closed. Two thumbs-up ... Read more

Description

Celebrate the genius of Noel Coward with fresh performances of his classic songs. Elton John, Marianne Faithfull and Sting, some of the most distinctive British voices of the last forty years, interpret the songs of the man who defined Britishness for an entire era.Songs: Twentieth Century Blues (Elton John), Poor Little Rich Girl (Suede featuring Raissa), Mad About the Boy (Marianne Faithfull), Marvelous Party (The Divine Comedy), Someday I'll Find You (Shola Ama), Sail Away, If Love Were All (Pet Shop Boys), I'll Follow My Secret Heart (Sting), There are Bad Times Just Around the Corner (Robbie Williams). ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Only bought it for the Pet Shop Boys
This is a tribute DVD concert and I only bought it because of the Pet Shop Boys. That said, it's pretty good. The Divine Comedy are excellent, and there's plenty of famous artists there to keep most people amused for 5 minutes.

Noel Coward lives again.
This tribute concert video/dvd (and CD album version)were the brainchild of Neil Tennant. Tennant, the lead singer of the Pet Shop Boys, has always admired Coward. Tennant's songwriting reflects this fact.

This outstanding gala event celebrates the life of Britain's most talented songwriter & playwright. This video presentation merges modern covers of his most famous songs - made more potent with speeches and video montages.

The performances by The Divine Comedy and Suede outshine the headliners!

This DVD/Video is very entertaining and informative. It's perfect for Coward fans, Pet Shop Boys fans, and everyone else in between.

* note: there is a second Pet Shop Boys tune on the programme that is not listed on the tracklisting. I'd say what it is, but that would spoil the fun.

...not much love for Mr. Coward has been lavished on this..
....the attack is relentlessly contemporary and it seems to me sadly out of keeping with the spirit of what they seemed to be attempting. Elton John, Sting, and Marianne Faithful score the two stars--and the rest of the participants do not seem to have done any homework at all. They are clean and spotlessly dressed, and they perform in a space that has a delightful Deco demeanor...but they make no attempt to accomodate Mr Coward and bring us in anyway closer to him. Too bad! ... Read more

Description

What starts out as a weekly anonymous tryst between a divorced man and a married woman turns into a searing portrait of loneliness and emotional need. Directed by Patrice Chereau (Queen Margot), INTIMACY won the Golden Bear for Best Film at the 2001 Berlin Film Festival where lead actress Kerry Fox also won the Best Actress Award. Based on Hanif Kureishi’s controversial novel, INTIMACY was selected to play at the Sundance and New York Film Festivals. DVD extras include the original theatrical trailer and cast and filmmaker bios. ... Read more

Reviews (16)

When the center doesn't hold
This amazing movie is a look at the ways that a man, the protagonist Jay (Mark Rylance) once-married, and a once fairly conventional husband and dad, can utterly fall apart in divorce, the heartbreaking ways he might try to put a life back together, and the ache for connection and communion that can't necessarily be soothed - within or without "happy" marriages.

By now the plot and the fact of its depiction of acts of sexual intercourse are well-known. There is a woman, Claire. She shows up at Jay's door, Wednesdays at 2 PM. We don't know anything about her at first - just that once she's in his apartment, her clothes (and his) come off. The five to ten minutes of intense once-weekly sex on Jay's apartment floor is no less important for being quick and wordless; it is a sort of a pact between the couple, and their shared illness, really. But it can't, ultimately, do the trick, and the film succeeds - unmoralistically - in showing us how and why. The urge to find either oblivion or ecstasy - whether via alcohol or sex or other means - fuels the couple. There are amazing surprises along the way, via a script that is utterly believable and natural.

In fact, every aspect of the protagonist Jay's life is in fact shown harshly, "graphically," whether it is his hectic job tending bar, his messy, depressing apartment (further evidence that he has lost his moorings), his several friends, or his frantic travels through London. (The camera chases him, and he is chasing her). We're by turns frustrated, confused, and focused. One's attention never wanders during this story.

Children (Jay's and Claire's) are used well in this film. They can tell the truth, and they do. They use the word "love" - and the adults in this movie really can't. In several scenes Jay is at his ex-wife's apartment, bathing his beautiful little sons. He lies on what was the marriage bed and makes a sort of sad and frantic fetish of his ex-wife's underwear, and is interrupted by his son, who needs his help. We are never asked to be voyeurs, but witnesses to a lot of sadness, distress - and the difficulty, really, of the attainment of happiness.

This is an astonishing film about broken hearts - and what people might do to try to mend them.

A Limp Mess
Helmed by French auteur Patrice Chéreau, who directed the vastly superior "Queen Margot," the Birtish film "Intimacy" is a limp mess. A man and woman carry on an illicit affair - they meet at his house Wednesday afternoons for sex. They know nothing about each other, not even names. Eventually, the man (Jay, played by Mark Rylance) finds himself wanting to know more about the woman (Claire, played by Kerry Fox), and he begins following her after their trysts. What he finds out about her throws their relationship into question.

"Intimacy" gained attention and notoriety for its explicit sex scenes (the R-rated version is also available, and these scenes are edited a great deal). The sex scenes are among the most graphic ever seen in a mainstream movie, including a rather shocking scene where Fox fellates Rylance (everything is shown). Ultimately, however, the sex scenes are quite un-sexy as the characters are so distant from each other. A movie called "Intimacy" that lacks any intimacy whatsoever? Sounds like an elaborate joke to me.

Aside from the explicitness of the sex scenes, the movie offers nothing new. The characters are not well-delineated, and the conflicts are ill-defined. On the plus side, Mark Rylance ("Angels & Insects") and Kerry Fox ("Shallow Grave") give good performances; however, it's rather disconcerting seeing such talented actors engaging in graphic sex scenes in a tepid movie. Both actors have impressive backgrounds in the theater, and Rylance has acted extensively in Shakespearian productions at the Globe Theatre. Shaking his spear indeed!

Extras: The DVD includes minimal extras: a photo gallery, brief bios of the actors, and the trailer. A director commentary would be much appreciated, or even a commentary from the actors. I'd love to hear what filming the explicit sex scenes was like!

NOT VERY INTIMATE.....
Like other reviewers, I was disappointed in "Intimacy". I found that the film had very little to say in terms of why the two main characters (Mark Rylance and Kerry Fox) carried on such an unpleasant sexual relationship. Their weekly meetings in Rylance's grungy apartment for sex obviously indicated they each had deeper more emotional needs. But neither find what they are looking for. They are both frustrated, unhappy people with unfulfilling lives and blunt, crude sex grants them the temporary escape valve. However, it's obvious that the sex isn't really fulfilling either one of their needs. Rylance and Fox are good actors and Marianne Faithful is good as one of Fox's friends. But neither Fox nor Rylance is terribly attractive so their nude sex scenes aren't that interesting which makes the sadness and desperation of their acts even more downbeat. I agree the film is more explicit than most but without a good story and at least a positive note or two I can't really recommend it. If the film's intent is to show that an empty sexual relationship gets you nowhere, then it succeeds very well on that premise.

Mark Rylance in all his glory. James Bond for 2008?
Some films from England, France, Italy and Germany are allowed to have such freedom and liberties to filming nude scenes whether they are in the natural state or erotic. Very few American actors in American films will allow themselves to be seen in a natural state. Most American actors wear a willie stocking or a clamshell or prefer a body double. But those actors that agree in their contract to full frontal nudity know they will get more pay and a very handsome paycheck at that. Some have reached success very quickly. It could make a film successful too. (...). Mark Rylance is not afraid to show his erotic side in this very adult film. This unrated DVD version pushes the red line of sex and nudity on screen and yet it is still simulated sex. The nudity is more shocking as the actor allows his uncut member to be seen in various stages. I have also seen Mark Rylance in Angels & Insects were his performance is more tender and soft. (...`).

Sex and the City
For a while, this arty movie about sexual encounters between two strangers in London is actually quite intriging and unsettling. Unfortunately, after the first half hour the plot starts repeating its premise with little further development and moving at a slow, ungaging pace.

"Intimacy" tries to deliver some food for thought about loneliness and despair in the modern world, focusing the relationship (or lack of it?) between a divorced man and a married woman that get intimate before they even manage to know each other properly. It`s an interesting idea, even if not completely original, but it could work better here.

The movie has some good elements: the acting is consistent (Mark Rylance is excellent), the soundtrack captivating, the photography well-crafted and the direction is moody and atmospheric enough. However, the character development isn`t that great, and the story loses its point halfway through, turning this project into a curious yet semi-failed picture. The sex scenes, which generated some controversy, aren`t really that strong or offensive, and director Patrice Chéreau portrays those moments with a sense of style and cleverness (an harsher perspective was done in Catherine Breillat`s ridiculous "Romance").
"Intimacy" has some guts and ideas, still it soon loses its strenght, approaching a bland and tepid development on its second half that fails to seduce.
Another case of "and all it could have been". ... Read more

Reviews (16)

When the center doesn't hold
This amazing movie is a look at the ways that a man, the protagonist Jay (Mark Rylance) once-married, and a once fairly conventional husband and dad, can utterly fall apart in divorce, the heartbreaking ways he might try to put a life back together, and the ache for connection and communion that can't necessarily be soothed - within or without "happy" marriages.

By now the plot and the fact of its depiction of acts of sexual intercourse are well-known. There is a woman, Claire. She shows up at Jay's door, Wednesdays at 2 PM. We don't know anything about her at first - just that once she's in his apartment, her clothes (and his) come off. The five to ten minutes of intense once-weekly sex on Jay's apartment floor is no less important for being quick and wordless; it is a sort of a pact between the couple, and their shared illness, really. But it can't, ultimately, do the trick, and the film succeeds - unmoralistically - in showing us how and why. The urge to find either oblivion or ecstasy - whether via alcohol or sex or other means - fuels the couple. There are amazing surprises along the way, via a script that is utterly believable and natural.

In fact, every aspect of the protagonist Jay's life is in fact shown harshly, "graphically," whether it is his hectic job tending bar, his messy, depressing apartment (further evidence that he has lost his moorings), his several friends, or his frantic travels through London. (The camera chases him, and he is chasing her). We're by turns frustrated, confused, and focused. One's attention never wanders during this story.

Children (Jay's and Claire's) are used well in this film. They can tell the truth, and they do. They use the word "love" - and the adults in this movie really can't. In several scenes Jay is at his ex-wife's apartment, bathing his beautiful little sons. He lies on what was the marriage bed and makes a sort of sad and frantic fetish of his ex-wife's underwear, and is interrupted by his son, who needs his help. We are never asked to be voyeurs, but witnesses to a lot of sadness, distress - and the difficulty, really, of the attainment of happiness.

This is an astonishing film about broken hearts - and what people might do to try to mend them.

A Limp Mess
Helmed by French auteur Patrice Chéreau, who directed the vastly superior "Queen Margot," the Birtish film "Intimacy" is a limp mess. A man and woman carry on an illicit affair - they meet at his house Wednesday afternoons for sex. They know nothing about each other, not even names. Eventually, the man (Jay, played by Mark Rylance) finds himself wanting to know more about the woman (Claire, played by Kerry Fox), and he begins following her after their trysts. What he finds out about her throws their relationship into question.

"Intimacy" gained attention and notoriety for its explicit sex scenes (the R-rated version is also available, and these scenes are edited a great deal). The sex scenes are among the most graphic ever seen in a mainstream movie, including a rather shocking scene where Fox fellates Rylance (everything is shown). Ultimately, however, the sex scenes are quite un-sexy as the characters are so distant from each other. A movie called "Intimacy" that lacks any intimacy whatsoever? Sounds like an elaborate joke to me.

Aside from the explicitness of the sex scenes, the movie offers nothing new. The characters are not well-delineated, and the conflicts are ill-defined. On the plus side, Mark Rylance ("Angels & Insects") and Kerry Fox ("Shallow Grave") give good performances; however, it's rather disconcerting seeing such talented actors engaging in graphic sex scenes in a tepid movie. Both actors have impressive backgrounds in the theater, and Rylance has acted extensively in Shakespearian productions at the Globe Theatre. Shaking his spear indeed!

Extras: The DVD includes minimal extras: a photo gallery, brief bios of the actors, and the trailer. A director commentary would be much appreciated, or even a commentary from the actors. I'd love to hear what filming the explicit sex scenes was like!

NOT VERY INTIMATE.....
Like other reviewers, I was disappointed in "Intimacy". I found that the film had very little to say in terms of why the two main characters (Mark Rylance and Kerry Fox) carried on such an unpleasant sexual relationship. Their weekly meetings in Rylance's grungy apartment for sex obviously indicated they each had deeper more emotional needs. But neither find what they are looking for. They are both frustrated, unhappy people with unfulfilling lives and blunt, crude sex grants them the temporary escape valve. However, it's obvious that the sex isn't really fulfilling either one of their needs. Rylance and Fox are good actors and Marianne Faithful is good as one of Fox's friends. But neither Fox nor Rylance is terribly attractive so their nude sex scenes aren't that interesting which makes the sadness and desperation of their acts even more downbeat. I agree the film is more explicit than most but without a good story and at least a positive note or two I can't really recommend it. If the film's intent is to show that an empty sexual relationship gets you nowhere, then it succeeds very well on that premise.

Mark Rylance in all his glory. James Bond for 2008?
Some films from England, France, Italy and Germany are allowed to have such freedom and liberties to filming nude scenes whether they are in the natural state or erotic. Very few American actors in American films will allow themselves to be seen in a natural state. Most American actors wear a willie stocking or a clamshell or prefer a body double. But those actors that agree in their contract to full frontal nudity know they will get more pay and a very handsome paycheck at that. Some have reached success very quickly. It could make a film successful too. (...). Mark Rylance is not afraid to show his erotic side in this very adult film. This unrated DVD version pushes the red line of sex and nudity on screen and yet it is still simulated sex. The nudity is more shocking as the actor allows his uncut member to be seen in various stages. I have also seen Mark Rylance in Angels & Insects were his performance is more tender and soft. (...`).

Sex and the City
For a while, this arty movie about sexual encounters between two strangers in London is actually quite intriging and unsettling. Unfortunately, after the first half hour the plot starts repeating its premise with little further development and moving at a slow, ungaging pace.

"Intimacy" tries to deliver some food for thought about loneliness and despair in the modern world, focusing the relationship (or lack of it?) between a divorced man and a married woman that get intimate before they even manage to know each other properly. It`s an interesting idea, even if not completely original, but it could work better here.

The movie has some good elements: the acting is consistent (Mark Rylance is excellent), the soundtrack captivating, the photography well-crafted and the direction is moody and atmospheric enough. However, the character development isn`t that great, and the story loses its point halfway through, turning this project into a curious yet semi-failed picture. The sex scenes, which generated some controversy, aren`t really that strong or offensive, and director Patrice Chéreau portrays those moments with a sense of style and cleverness (an harsher perspective was done in Catherine Breillat`s ridiculous "Romance").
"Intimacy" has some guts and ideas, still it soon loses its strenght, approaching a bland and tepid development on its second half that fails to seduce.
Another case of "and all it could have been". ... Read more