IMDb user comments for
Romance (1999) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 12:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

114 comments in total

---

58 out of 64 people found the following comment useful :-
Not a Harlequin style romance., 23 August 2004

Author: L. Denis Brown (ldbrown1@shaw.ca) from Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada

Before I comment on this film two introductory remarks are necessary. (1) I recommend anyone who is aware of the way in which it was panned by the critics ("puerile self conscious euro-trash", etc) to forget these reviews. I believe it is an unusually rewarding work to see. (2) The title is very misleading, just reading it one cannot be aware of the irony with which it must have been chosen, and anyone expecting to see the film equivalent of a Harlequin novel needs to be warned in advance.

The story is of a young women who loves her very unresponsive husband, but finds the dissatisfaction she feels from her rare and unfulfilling copulation with him drives her into a series of increasingly destructive extra-marital relationships. These are very graphically portrayed, although she struggles to keep her marriage intact. To me this is perhaps the most unsatisfying aspect of the film - today I would have expected that such a marriage would have broken up very quickly and the woman involved would have felt free to look for a more fulfilling relationship. However many films and novels are based on the theme of women who accept either indifference or a great deal of both physical and mental abuse from partners that they love, and I must accept that this is an important theme for a film.

Although the story is far from new, it is handled here with unusual sensitivity and understanding. Some of the sex scenes would normally only be seen in a hardcore porn film and this appears to be what has upset most of the critics, but I cannot go along with this as a valid criticism. Why should films exploiting torture, death and destruction be accepted as mainstream, whilst those dealing with the personal relationships so vital to living a fulfilling life become subject to censorship? However it is important to warn anyone considering viewing this film that although it contains a great deal of graphic sexual activity it is never erotic.These scenes (even those between the young woman and her husband with whom she is certainly in love) uniformly show cold mechanical and meaningless relationships which are ultimately self destructive. They concentrate on the emotions of the woman concerned and, since she is largely passive in most of them, and can often only convey the story through her facial expressions, such scenes require both a very fine actress and a very sensitive director in order to succeed. In my opinion this film provides both. It could probably only have been directed by a woman, and one can sense the determination of both the director and the lead actress to draw viewers of both sex into the story so that they are not merely voyeurs, but are forced to consider its relevance both to their own lives and to those of their friends.

Ultimately the ending of a film of this type can make or mar it. Both a happy and a totally tragic ending for what is intended to be a look at the lives of quiet desperation lived by many women would be inappropriate. Instead the director has taken our understanding of her main character further forward by showing us that for many such women their ultimate satisfaction comes from their children rather than from their life partner.

It is a mark of a successful film when graphic images from it keep coming back to mind long afterwards, particularly when these images force one to consider whether there are lessons in it applicable to ones own life. I believe this would be the experience of most of those who see this film Although I would NOT recommended it as either a skin flick or an erotic film for a couple to watch together in the bedroom, I have no hesitation in recommending it strongly to all those who adequately appreciate what they can expect from it.

---

25 out of 31 people found the following comment useful :-
A movie about realising identity - not about gender, 23 August 1999

Author: Chris Docker (eyeforfilm) from Scotland, United Kingdom

I was very confused at the end of 'Romance' as to whether I liked it or not, and whether I thought it was a good film or not. The best bit for me was probably the Q&A with director Catherine Breillat at the end. She was (especially with the help of a translator) very interesting and articulate - whether one agreed with her or not - and I found the film a valuable commentary on her thoughts rather than the other way round.

The film is confusing; as we are aware, this is not pornography - but what *is* it about? Gender issues? Masochism? The female central character goes through a number of extreme sexual encounters and eventually finds some sense of identity unrelated to her sense of being part of a sexual partnership - although the struggle to find that identity has necessitated exploring her sexual desire. The other issue is censorship, as Breillat has something of a mission to push back censorship; this is related to her philosophical take on sexuality however rather than abolishing censorship for the sake of doing so alone. That which (sexually) disgusts us is twinned to that which (sexually) uplifts - the difference is not in the type of act but in the context - all of which is an extended metaphor on censorship itself. Breillat claims that the acts we find offensive in real life are also the acts we find offensive in images, an idea which in itself can lead to some self-awareness. But to Breillat, sexuality has become stereotyped in films. Show she wants to explore the boundaries and show that those boundaries, in themselves, are not good or bad, just as many acts, stereotyped as disgusting or wonderful, are not so in themselves but only in how we make them.

The degree to which she achieves this in 'Romance' may be the subject of debate for a long time to come. I hope I get the chance to see and study some of her other films. I hope the film is not cut by the censors. As to whether it is a great movie, I am less sure (after a lot of discussion and thought I'm slightly more inclined to say it is than it isn't though!) As I am gradually convinced of the director's unshaking artistic integrity I am more willing to put in the effort to understand her rather complex thought. As her film is her principle expression of this thought I have ranked it quite highly - largely for what she attempts, with whatever success, than what she achieves. As Sartre pointed out, success is more in the journey than the achievement.

---

26 out of 36 people found the following comment useful :-
Sistas are doing it for themselves., 24 October 2004
Author: Kate from Wagga, Australia

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

It isn't surprising that male reviewers haven't understood this movie. It's erotica for girls, folks! Far more sexy than boring old in-out, roundabout porn. The plot, the subtext, the talking, is all a substrate to set up the fantasies - necessary, but secondary to the sex.

In fact, it is almost a Nancy Friday-esque catalogue of fantasies - sex with a stranger, being a prostitute, being raped, being tied up and um, pleasured, by someone tender and caring (for a porn star). And when Maria actively sets up the sexual situations while being entirely passive within them, it is the ultimate female fantasy. We never see penetrative sex between her and the headmaster-she just lies there and enjoys it, while he does all the work. There's nothing reciprocal about it - it's all for her.

The giveaway is the illustrated fantasy with Maria and Paul on one side of a wall, dressed in white and chaste, while on the other side, her lower half, dressed in naughty French maid suspenders and can-can style dress, is ready to be had by one of many anonymous, naked studs. It's almost a straight take from one of the more elaborate fantasies illustrated in NAncy Friday's "My Secret Garden" - the only difference being that in the fantasy on the "chaste" side the women were having their hair and nails done.

Seen in this context, the strange, irritating and self indulgent rants of our heroine make far more sense. Why does she stay with her boyfriend? Because he is a plot device, around which the whole fantasy is woven. Why does she have a baby? Because this is one of the strongest female sexual experiences. Why is Paul killed off at the end? Well, they had to find some way of ending the movie, didn't they?

---

17 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
Romancing Marie, 2 May 2006

Author: jotix100 from New York

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Marie and Paul, who are lovers, are a mismatched pair. The fact that Marie's sexual expectations are not fulfilled by the elusive Paul, can be traced to the fact that he is a model, who might be bisexual and who might care for Marie, or just be repulsed by her directness. The sad fact is that Marie feels abandoned by the same man she loves.

The first clue of the way Marie and Paul are incompatible can be observed at the photographic shoot sequence at the beginning of the film. Paul is being made up in front of our eyes. He seems to be a narcissistic man in love with his looks. The way he poses for the camera gives us an indication where his mind is and when Marie tries to get his attention in bed, his attitude shows us a man who is not interested in having sex.

Marie goes into a life of adventure finding sexual relief in the furtive meetings she is seen engaging in with men that only want to satisfy themselves. It's only Robert who captures what Marie is all about. As they begin a series of kinky encounters, Paul appears not to even suspect what Marie is doing. His proposal of marriage comes quite unexpectedly even though they have been living together for a while.

Marriage brings a change in the way Marie looks at sex, but finds ways to make her visits to the doctor play tricks in her imagination as she is examined by a group of assistants. When labor begins, it's Robert who she contacts because Marie realizes he is in the same wave length and Paul, who never wakes up from his drunken stupor, never knows what hits him.

Catherine Breillat shows she has no fear in the way she presents her films. She is frank about the way she perceives Marie's situation. Ms. Breillat film, like with "A Real Young Girl", bears it all for her viewers. There is nothing left to the imagination, yet, her feminist sensibility is not to be discarded as it makes one thinks about this young woman and all what's going on in her mind.

Caroline Duceny plays Marie with conviction. Sagamore Stevisin is seen as Paul and Francois Berland plays Robert. They all respond well to Ms. Breillat's commands.

Obviously, this is not a film for everyone that doesn't want to see it with an open mind. Most of the subtle comments will be lost by the viewer that approaches this film as an erotic, even a pornographic attempt to mix sex for shock value.

---

19 out of 27 people found the following comment useful :-
Skip the R-rated version and go for the NC-17 version., 28 May 2001
Author: SanDiego from The Beach

Though I have a comprehensive review below I wanted to add that some comments here are from people who saw a severely edited version of the film (the sex scenes removed or cropped off). This would be similar to removing the battle scenes from Star Wars.

---

18 out of 26 people found the following comment useful :-
Not as dreadful as you've read, but too much TALK., 3 November 1999

Author: Darragh O' Donoghue (hitch1899_@hotmail.com) from Dublin, Ireland

Men hate it. Probably because it's not quite the pornography its detractors accuse it of. Women love it. Because it restores a woman's voice to the erotic? It also offers insultingly implausible solutions to genuine traumas; lacks the empathetic courage to embrace the dreamlike possibilities of its heroine's quest; and suggests motherhood as a woman's most fulfilling role. The film only becomes dull in the second half, and is more amusing than you might think, but the dreary visuals, trite metaphors, unimaginative use of voiceover and dialogue, and self-pitying acting soon become enervating.

---

6 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Reversal of the Hollywood scheme, 10 March 2003
Author: zio ugo

(this is a repost... the other review I posted was somehow missing a part)

In a perfect world, my opinion of ?Romance? would sound more or less like this. This is a fairly interesting film about the crisis in a couple relation that, in some sense, manages to come up with some interesting and quite universal statements about the couple relation qua relation and qua adaptation to a life of routine after the initial sparks. The desire of the woman to test her sexual boundaries should be seen, I believe, in this context, together with the final realization that, after all, even a bondage experience can be as banal and squalid as everyday life. The film is quite typically French: more spoken than physical, with the kind of conversation that French films seem to favor: too intellectual to be spoken by real people in real life, but grounded enough to make you wish that you and your friends could speak like that. It is probably not as good as ?la pianiste? but, then again, not many films are as good as ?la pianiste.? It is, however, an interesting analysis of a situation common to many couples.

This, as I said, in a perfect world. Alas, this is not a perfect world and, somehow, the question of the sexual content of the film managed to dominate the question about its contents. Most of this, I must say, comes from the barbaric and puritan America, my country of adoption. To the more relaxed Europeans, I must point out that this is a country in which, on television, it is normal to see ?reality shows? with murder scenes, car crashes during high speed pursuits, and violent arrests; it is normal to see in prime time films with violent content that glorify the army and the ethos of war. Yet, it is illegal to show a woman?s breast, and curse words that in more liberal countries are considered quite normal are invariably, and audibly, beeped. The sense and the moral choice behind all this escape me, but this is the background that one should have in mind to understand the outrage of some Americans in front of this film.

Outrage which, I must say, is quite misplaced. With the exception of one or two scenes, the sex in the film is not very explicit and, even including the more ?racy? fellatio scenes, it is no more explicit that in Bellocchio?s ?Il Diavolo in Corpo,? which I saw (uncut) on Italian TV (quite late at night, to be honest).

This outrage, however, and the puritanism that generated it, give this film its true significance, beyond the plot and the acting: the reversal of the traditional Hollywoodian standard. The essential fact about this film is that, while sex is depicted with immaculate candor (without, I must add, the lewd and voyeuristic aspects of Hollywood?s depiction), violence is symbolic, hidden from view. The only violent death of the film is in an explosion that we only see from afar in a very sanitized version, the dead body is never shown, and the Fellinesque funeral points to the unreality and the absurdity of the whole occurrence.

If a political message should be derived from this film, is a rejection of a culture that is trying to make sex unacceptable channeling sexual energies into violence, which is so often and so absurdly glorified and depicted into every gory detail. The call for sex versus violence implicit in the editing and the direction of this film is, I will add, a very healthy one.

Not a great film, but a fairly good one. Recommended.

---

11 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
A misunderstood masterpiece..?, 1 December 2001
Author: Le Froque

Same as the likewise French exploitationer "Baise-moi", which was released almost at the same time as this movie, there are some scenes of hardcore pornography added. But as "Baise-moi" only concentrates on surface visuals the message of "Romance" is to explain the emotional conflict of love and sexuality between men and women - told from a female point of view.

A strange film at all, but also very fascinating and interesting executed - as long as you can put up its long dialogue-sequences, the sometimes metaphoric style and the fact that "Romance" is quite difficult to watch... Not the kind of stuff you´re normally used to enjoy as pure entertainment, because you´ll need time and nerves to sit this through..!

8/10

---

15 out of 24 people found the following comment useful :-
Why all the fuss?, 26 June 2001
Author: INFOFREAKO from Perth, Australia

Romance achieved a lot of attention in Australia as it was initially banned. Now it's available from any decent video store so every adult can see what the fuss was all about. I think few of them will be able understand why the censors had so much problem with it. Basically you have several hard-ons and a bit of bondage in the middle of a talky French art-house movie. The fundamental problem with Romance is we can never understand what Marie sees in Paul. It's as simple as that. If we COULD understand then perhaps we'd have a provocative and thought-provoking examination of love, sex, loyalty and betrayal. But we don't. It's not to say the movie isn't worth watching, just don't expect too much. Last Tango In Paris was much braver and confronting (albeit less explicit) nearly thirty years ago. Closer to home, Breaking The Waves shares some similar themes and situations, and is a much more successful and emotionally involving experience.

---

4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
intense, but unromantic film, 30 December 2006

Author: postmanwhoalwaysringstwice from usa

From Catherine Breillat, the director who has made a name for herself bringing highly daring tales with female protagonists to the screen, such as "36 fillette" and "The Fat Girl", comes "Romance", a melancholy story of dissatisfaction. Twenty-two year old Caroline Ducey delivers a wonderful performance as Marie, a school teacher lost within a sexless, unromantic relationship, who goes on a quest of sexual exploration. "Romance" is a film for mature audiences that tells a sad story of a woman searching for pieces of her fragmented identity. It's a graphically beautiful tale with explicit realism that sometimes treads within ambiguous waters.

---

---

Page 1 of 12:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
Newsgroup reviews	External reviews	Parents Guide
Official site	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history