Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Console best movie i've ever seen.

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

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.

yogi2436 I saw this movie just recently and liked it a lot. It's a different take on marriage and relationships and for that reason alone worth seeing. It's very different from the usual Hollywood version of romance and marriage. I once saw Hollywood described somewhere as a machine for making marriages, well this movie is an antidote. As a movie it's subtle and works through imagery and symbolism integrated into everyday reality and succeeds pretty much. John Dance does a great job and the supporting cast is just as good. The movie is perhaps summed up by the line utterance by John Dance's character Cyril: "Monogamy is the enemy of marriage". Many could be outraged at this movie, but it's just possible the movie has got it right.