Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Ensofter Overrated and overhyped

Glimmerubro It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Red-125 Intimacy (2001) was co-written and directed by Patrice Chéreau. The movie stars Mark Rylance as Jay, the head barman at a club. Somehow, he has met Claire, played by Kerry Fox. To Jay's surprise, Claire reappears every Wednesday at his apartment to have sex with him. (That's the only way to phrase it. They don't talk, and there's no foreplay. They just tear their clothes off and go at it.) There's plenty of nude scenes of both Fox and Rylance. However, it's not really erotic, because the apartment is so dirty and unkempt that all I could think of was "it's disgusting."Matters would have apparently continued along in this way, except that Jay wants to know more about Claire. He manages to track her down to a pub/theater, where she's starring in "The Glass Menagerie." This brings him into contact with Andy, Claire's husband, played brilliantly by Timothy Spall. The plot really begins at this point, and I will carefully avoid explaining what happens next. I won't avoid saying that the plot appeared contrived and, basically, ridiculous. I wasn't familiar with the work of Kerry Fox, but she's an excellent actor. Rylance and Spall are great actors. It's hard to understand just what went wrong with this film. Some reviewers have suggested that director could have made a better movie in France than in England. Maybe we in the English-speaking world think that this bizarre plots works better if the actors are smoking Gauloises and drinking wine, rather than smoking Mayfairs and drinking ale.If you really want to see this movie, you'll have to decide whether you want to see all the sex (unrated version) or just the suggestion of sex (R-rated version). The movie has no real outdoor scenes, so it will work as well on DVD (which is how we saw it) as it will on the large screen. This isn't a great movie for anyone. If you want porn, buy porn. If you want narrative drama, buy narrative drama. Intimacy promises both, and gives you neither.

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

fedor8 "Intimacy" in a porn film? Was this supposed to be a joke title? Is this Europe's "cinema Veriee"? Or perhaps "neo cinema Veriee"? Makes no difference what they call it, but it doesn't come off as particularly realistic. Perhaps it's "neo Euro-trash porn". They tried to put porn into mainstream movies in the early 70s and it failed. And so it will fail this time, too, in spite of such talentless - and hence highly regarded - Eurotrash directors such as von Trier who propagate such junk. I hardly think that showing a man's erection adds to the realism of a movie. What about the dialogue? On quite a few occasions the characters talk and interact in an unrealistic way; real people simply don't behave the way these characters do half of the time. Yet, there is a belief that just because Kerry Fox is actually shown putting her co-star's erection in her mouth that this will somehow add new dimensions to the realism of a movie, realism never seen before. I think not.On the other hand, I always had the wish to see the seemingly impossible: a (semi-)famous actress in a pornographic scene. I can't say I wasn't pleased when Kerry Fox in one scene grabs her co-stars penis, and then even orally pleasures it (briefly, unfortunately) in another scene. And it's rather nice that it was Kerry Fox who has had the dubious privilege of becoming one of extremely few known actresses to become a temporary porn star. Of course, I'd love to see Shirley MacLaine get it from behind, Elizabeth Taylor engage in masturbation, Susan Sarandon do it doggy-style, etc, but Fox is a pretty good choice, too. Though, I must say, Fox looks more than a little embarrassed in the porn scenes. Considering she got some award in some meaningless little European festival, this is surprising. I mean, didn't the jury who awarded her notice her obvious lack of relaxedness during the sex scenes? Lousy Eurotrash jury...The movie isn't too boring. The hand-held camera shtick is quite tiresome at times - another hint that this director belongs to the Lars von Trier trash director's club of European losers. (Losers 95.) The film would have been a shade weaker if it weren't for Fox's charisma. The male lead was ideally cast in "Institute Benjamenta", but rather badly cast this time around. Being a continental European, his accent takes too long to get used to and it's rather silly the way he tries to do a British/London/whatever-accent-he's-supposed-to-be-doing and his swearing (which is regular) comes off as totally unconvincing. There is also a character who plays a gay man - which seems to be a must in today's movies and sit-coms: every film and series has to have a homosexual, and it's almost always a happy-go-lucky smart-ass full of wise advice for the lead characters, who are of course straight. (And every courtroom scene nowadays has to have a black female judge, as if that will contribute to solving the problem of racism, but that's another story.) All in all, much better than anything von Trier has/will ever come up with, but ultimately pointless.How dumb does Kerry Fox have to be to be suckered into doing a porn film? "Don't worry, dear, it's art. People will respect you even more as an artist."

MovieAddict2016 I expected much more from "Intimacy." I remember when it first came out in 2001 and got a lot of bad reviews from the critics, but at first I thought it was probably just because they couldn't handle the (allegedly) "explicit" content matter. I was wrong: it really is a mediocre movie.The main problem is that we just don't care about the characters at all, I suppose. This could be compensated for by a strong director or interesting script, but it has neither. It's an independent film and the standards of film-making are simply just OK.Not all great low-budget films have likable characters but when you have one so ugly, it helps to make up for it by at least having characters we can relate to. (Good example: "The Panic in Needle Park." You feel like yelling at the characters, but you care for them because you can relate to their daily struggles -- lack of food, employment, money, etc. -- anyone who's been down on luck before can understand.) But "Intimacy" isn't the same. It's about a family guy who dumps his wife and kids and becomes a bartender at a London pub. He meets an anonymous woman for sex every week in a dirty apartment in a bad area.The movie doesn't work as an art-house experiment because it's neither artsy nor experimental. It pretends to be by showcasing those famous "lingering" shots that's become really tiring since every indie filmmaker decided it was a sign of talent and originality. It's not experimental because it follows the guidelines in terms of direction, cinematography and acting. It's not erotic because the sex scenes are dull and Kerry Fox is, to be totally honest, an ugly woman. (Which is the point - it makes the story more realistic - but all the same it also makes it un-erotic.) I think women would probably say the same about the male lead - and I hate to be the first person to point it out, but in regards to the infamous "real" sex scenes in the film... he's about as "big" as a blade of grass, and Kerry Fox is about as stimulating to watch as bumer-to-bumper traffic.It's not deep because it's so basic - we get to see the lack of morality in the leading characters. Well whoop-dee-do, so what? You're likely to find much better films out there than this. In terms of independent cinema it's a big let-down because it seems like any major Hollywood film hiding underneath the mold of something it isn't. The story isn't anything special and has been done before, the acting is just so-so, the "erotic imagery" isn't erotic, the level of entertainment is about zilch.All in all it comes across as a cheap imitator of "Last Tango in Paris," which is about a hundred times better and a much more prominent example of having unlikable characters in a movie that we can still feel a connection for.