SeeQuant Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Maria Fahlsing By twenty minutes into the film, I was already tired of hearing Fiona call Cyril and Hugh "Baby" every few minutes. As the story progresses, she continues to say "Baby" at least fifty more times. This gets extremely old very quickly.I found the disjointed, time-jumping method of story-telling to be a bit hard to follow.Also, I think that the sexual nature of the relationship between the two couples started too quickly after everyone met. It seemed unnatural. There should have been a more gradual progression toward full swap. I'm still not sure what the point or moral of this story is.The chastity belt scene was really hard to watch. Hugh is a sick, twisted, sadistic bastard. What Kathryn could possibly see in him is a complete mystery. Also, I fail to see what Cyril sees in Fiona other than eye candy. Overall, I liked the movie for its exploration of open marriage and alternative sexuality.

pyenme I got this for my "Charles Dance" collection. Had seen "Angels and Insects", like many others, so that added to the appeal. Hope the book was better. The premise was fine - an attempt at a somewhat surreal tale of sexual intrigue. Aside from Dance, however, the performances were stilted and silly (especially Sheryl Lee, even if she was supposed to sound like she did - it was a distraction). The dialog certainly could have been written to better develop the characters. Pretty to look at, not enough erotica (and I don't mean soft porn, just erotic). But even Dance looked a bit silly with the "love lunch"...... I like it just enough to watch it again as part of my film library - and even to recommend it to friends who would see the value and look beyond the inane.

legumes9 I have seen in various places negative comments about this film, but I found it engaging and well done. The characters are complex,interesting,human, and don't fit the usual stereotypes. The situation is not at all formulaic. I can see how some people may not get this film, or may be turned off or threatened by the subject matter, which has to do with people exploring alternative forms of intimate relationships, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. The acting is very good, especially Charles Dance - plus you get to see him sans clothing a few times, if you like that kind of thing, which I do. Sheryl Lee is kind of an odd actress, and it's kind of an odd character. The narrative, told from Cyril's point of view, goes back and forth in time, and the way it's structured creates a mystery that hints at tragedy. Cyril is a fascinating character, seemingly laid back, but you get a sense he's controlling everything under the surface. Wonderfully nuanced acting from Charles Dance. The film has tons of one my favorite things - moral ambiguity. Is it really Illyria, or is it Cyril's little kingdom - and does it matter? Now I want to read the book to dig further into the many layers of the story and characters.

lib-4 I thought this would be a sexy movie but it was not- it was just full of hot air and trite sentiments. I loved his other movie Angels and Insects but this movie was not up to that one at all. The acting was bad and the story was stupid. The only person who was somewhat believeable was Hugh's wife. A waste of time