Romance (1999) User Reviews (126)

at best a few curious intellectualized moments and some (appropriately) uncomfortable real sex. the rest...

[Quinoa1984 · 5/10 · 28 August 2009]

Someone hit the proverbial nail-on-the-head with Romance. A critic wrote that it's like a "bad update of an Antonioni film", and I think that's about as fair a description as one could ask for. It may also depend on how you feel already about Antonioni and his depiction of the precise lack of love or responsiveness of emotional contact in people - or, perhaps, if you've even actually seen an Antonioni movie. While Catherine Breillat probably (and, I would admit, rightfully) considers herself a thoughtful, passionate filmmaker interested in passionless people and in trying to pick apart the thoughts (or anti-thoughts) of a character like Marie, I have to ask after a while, in a film that doesn't have Antonioni-stature direction or compositions: what's the point? We have seen women like this in other movies, in loveless relationships or going out to spread or fulfill their empty wishes or such with others. Such as, yeah, Antonioni, but others too.

It's frustrating to watch, to say the least, but I wasn't ready at first to hold that against the movie. I wanted to see what it had to say, to see how Breillat would show people just having realistic sex, explicit in depiction (naturally, and believe you me its real sex) and talking like couples (or not-couples) do in such situations. I tried to stick with Marie's self-analyzing, her self-aggrandizing thoughts expressed in the first-person narration. In an odd way Caroline Ducey gives a good performance, or better than I remember at the time watching it, since she is good enough to not really need the narration to fill in the audience. Her face, her lack of expression, her inverted and bored and, perhaps, deep down f***ing scared self, show enough. The telling becomes overkill, even from a psychological stand-point.

Some may not agree with this, and that's fine. Some may watch Romance and just love that it shows real people having problems and having such problems during real sex. For the first half I could stick with the movie even as it had its pretensions because I wanted to see where it headed with Marie's infidelity (with the unnecessary lie about being married). It's when the other guy at the school Marie teaches at, and takes her in and turns things up on the sado-masochist meter that I started to waver on it... and, odder still, got bored. It didn't interest me seeing how perverted this guy could get, or how accepting Marie was of it or how it was shot or scored or edited. I admired that it attempted at depicting such a torrid sexual situation so seriously, but it ultimately just didn't do it for me - not on the kind of level the old-school hardcore-serious-erotic films did (i.e. Last Tango in Paris).

Romance is intelligent, and it does have something to say about women and loveless relationships. But was I moved by any of it or intellectually engaged after a certain point? No. It's a movie in a limbo where it wants to have something important to convey through art no matter what the cost, but the points aren't as interesting as its filmmaker thinks or terribly original. And if you just want to watch it for the sex, you're in for a not-too-good surprise. 5.5/10

Not as dreadful as you've read, but too much TALK.

[alice liddell · 4/10 · 3 November 1999]

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.

Not for me

[kaja751991 · 4/10 · 16 January 2018]

Beyond my comprehension.

I desperately wanted to understand the female lead character but as movie progressed I started to lose interest and said to myself that there is no need to even try to understand her.

Skip the R-rated version and go for the NC-17 version.

[SanDiego · 28 May 2001]

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.

Pretentious and Boring

[filfy · 2/10 · 17 November 1999]

Let me start out by saying that I love non-English films, and I especially love those films with philosophical content, so with that in mind:

THIS FILM STINKS!!!

Supposedly this film investigates shows how "love without sex" for the main character is unfulfilling. What this film presents--lots of casual sex with endless philosophising about it---is really boring and quite unsexy. It reminds me of one of director Catherine Breillat's previous films, "36 Fillette," which I also disliked.

Breillat made a poor choice with lead actress Caroline Ducey. She has a expressionless face that engenders little sympathy for her situation. She also has the terrible misfortune of resembling Celine Dion.

The film, as serious as it is, has many unintentionally funny moments, especially the scenes with Caroline Ducey's principal at school. SPOILER ALERT: The ending is so ridiculous and preposterous that it seems to be a bad rip-off of a Michelangelo Antonioni movie from the '60's. (And I don't mean that as a compliment)

Insolid as a Rocco!

[Vinzi · 1/10 · 1 September 1999]

A male porn star in a wannabe feminist treatise about human sexuality and unrequited desire? Get outta here!

I feared the worst when I went to see this movie with some friends (we were 2 men and 3 women). After about 15 minutes (when the first person of the audience ostentatively left the cinema) we looked at each other and braced ourselves to sit through this uninspired, unsexy, unintriguing piece of film-making, and we knew that, yes, we would not be disappointed in our prediction: This in one BAD movie!

Although in some scenes the main actress is doing a fine job, her annoying voice from the off gets on your nerves after the second time you hear it.

The sex scenes, albeit very graphical with frontal, dorsal and every other type of nudity imaginable, are rather more sickening than scintillating. Maybe that's the one point where the film succeeds; to depict sexuality as something frustrating, nauseating from a frustrated, nauseated woman's point of view.

What my female colleagues hated the most about the movie was the tone of generalization. The film suggests that all women are like the main character and experience sex in that way; but, thank God, that's not true!

The best scene of the movie was, strangely enough, dominated by a man (in the most literal sense), as the sadistic school head-master ties up the female main character in a Japanese bondage ceremony, all the while ranting on about how he f***ed "Grace Delly" (sic!) in Monaco some years ago. The monologue there was most likely improvised and, sadly enough, the improvisation is better than the rest of the (scripted) dialogue.

Sorry folks, this film is not worth watching. If you wanna see well-done porn, rent porn. If you wanna see a well-done, psychologically sound movie about the troubles (and joys) of sexuality, watch "Better than chocolate".

This one here qualifies in neither category.

Quick!!! Somebody get this girl laid!!!

[Meven_Stoffat · 1/10 · 16 May 2009]

This is the second Breillat movie I've seen. And I already agree with the haters. Catherine Breilat is a pretentious hack, and this movie proves it. Watching this film, I kept thinking "Breillat needs to get laid, so that she can stop making these 'MEN ARE EVIL!' films".

My first Breillat experience was Anatomy of Hell, and it was the biggest hogwash ever. It was like the porn version of the Lifetime network. I decided not to let one bad experience ruin it for me, so I watched Fat Girl and Romance, both left me feeling as though I wasted time and money.

The movie has no plot except some woman being upset with her love life. The cover's statement "the sexiest movie ever made" is a flat out lie. There's NOTHING sexy in the movie. The sexiest thing in the movie is the cover art and that's it. The sex scenes are boring too, none of which are erotic.

As for Catherine Breillat. I know her object is to explore Female Sexuality and that's not a bad thing. But the way she does it, it's like a parody of European Art House Cinema. I think she's faking the whole feminist angle so that she can get attention from art house seekers. Dude, do you know what would happen if a guy made a film about women the same way Breillat makes movies about men? He'd be torn to shreds. But with Cathy, it's "intellectual". Yawn. Someone needs to slap Cathy upside the head and tell her that not all men are the evil creatures she makes them out to be. If anyone actually thinks Breillat is intellectual, then they don't know what "intellectual" is. "Something something Vagina, Something something Penis, Something Something Woman, Something something Vagina and Man" is NOT intellectual. It's just "I hate men" droning.

Do not give your money to this pretentious hack or a filmmaker. Even Uwe Boll and Uli Lommel make better movies.

Not a Harlequin style romance.

[bbhlthph · 7/10 · 23 August 2004]

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.

Sex in the City going borderline psychotic

[Loredan · 2/10 · 14 November 1999]

As is the glossy-mag custom to describe films I'd say this is "Sex in the City" going..going..gone borderline psychotic. Although I fully acknowledge, as a psychologist with a background in psychoanalysis, the twists, turns and depths of the human mind and state (as another user comments), I was really bored to tears in a film that makes-up really rather distressing psychopathology as uber-philosophy, choice, personality, etc. No, she was simply breaking down. My evidence- the totally facetious claim that "the past is all gone". I wonder what the child whose (obsessive, boring) father she blew up will say about this past. Anyway, I was not shocked, I was simply bored and turned off.

Romancing Marie

[jotix100 · 7/10 · 2 May 2006]

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.

As sexy and romantic as a toilet

[gilgeoIII · 1/10 · 7 November 2004]

Only the French would make an explicit sex "art" film called "Romance" (ironic title, get it?) with the sexual elements like a dentist filling a decayed tooth, and the romance like watching somebody going to the toilet.

Actually, I'd rather watch a dentist at work rather than view this merciless atrocity directed and written by the criminally untalented Catherine Breillat.

Her leading actors, Caroline Ducey and Sagamore Stevenin play lovers who spend their entire time on camera looking sullen, jaded and bored with each other and life, and acting as if they too had watched themselves on screen doing nothing for 98 minutes except looking sullen, jaded and bored. Even the Italian stallion porn star, Rocco Siffredi, can barely get it up in his explicit scenes, and when he finally does, much ado about nothing.

This deconstruction of sex and romance would make the illustrious Marquis de Sade, wherever he is, and Danielle Steele repent and join a good 12-step program.

A movie about realising identity - not about gender

[Chris_Docker · 8/10 · 23 August 1999]

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.

Romance **1/2

[Bunuel1976 · 6/10 · 23 February 2006]

This explicit study of sexual obsession, which has some interesting parallels with Vicente Aranda's equally torrid LA MIRADA DEL OTRO (1998), was my first encounter with the work of the controversial French film-maker. Even if the film does feature adult film star Rocco Siffredi (who does get to do his thing on camera, of course), it turned out to be more restrained than I had been led to believe. Don't get me wrong: the sex scenes on show here do not leave anything to the imagination...and that, in a way, renders them less erotic and thus less effective. Having said that, the film benefits from a strong leading performance from Catherine Ducey who, although portraying a character whose abrupt changes of mood proved rather off-putting at first, eventually grows into her part as, through the course of the film, we see her submitting to (among others) rape, casual sex with a well-endowed stranger (Siffredi, naturally), regular S&M sessions with her boss (I'm sure the fact that she was a primary school teacher did not sit well with the French Educational authorities), voluntarily offering herself as a live patient for a group of apprentice gynecologist and finally being impregnated by her frigid boyfriend! The lengthy, meticulous and dispassionate S&M sequences are disconcerting in themselves but nothing quite prepares one for that abrupt, surreal and possibly heretical finale.

Porn minus the fun.

[MOscarbradley · 2/10 · 3 March 2017]

Gone is the romance that was so divine, except in the case of Marie and Paul there never appeared to be much romance to start with, nor sex either which is why Marie goes in search of her Mr Goodbar. Sex in the movies is only interesting if the context is interesting which is why porn gets boring very quickly. Catherine Breillat's film is boring because the characters are boring and because they exist in a vacuum, in this case a sexual vacuum. It's like being made to spend time with dull acquaintances who don't get along, in or out of the bedroom.

Amongst women directors Breillat has often been called a feminist, dealing almost exclusively with sex from the woman's point of view yet in "Romance" she seems to be taking as much pleasure in showing men's bodies as those of women and in picking men who are definitely sexually attractive even if, in every other respect, they are as dull as dishwater. As for Marie herself, as played by Caroline Ducey, she has about as much personality as a sponge. Anyone who claims "Romance" as some kind of feminist manifesto are surely kidding themselves; it's really just porn minus the fun.

Why all the fuss?

[Infofreak · 26 June 2001]

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.

blech

[shh-3 · 1/10 · 19 April 2005]

My god, what a tedious, dull, unpleasant affair. This movie fails as erotica and as a "feminist manifesto," which so many misguided viewers seem to believe it to be. I had written a much longer, detailed description of this movie's countless flaws, but IMD seems to have deleted it. So let me just say that there is no reason to watch this movie. It is NOT shocking, not erotic, not even remotely interesting. If you have the choice of picking at your toenails or viewing this steaming pile of manure, pick the former.

And in answer to what many fans will likely say, I watched the movie with three intelligent women who found it equally dreadful.

Should this movie be taken serious ???

[FMF · 3/10 · 25 June 2000]

German Critics wrote about this movie "Men aren' t able to like this film!" I have seen it and I confirm it. But I have to add, that the female audience laughed much more about this movie then the male. It seems that the (in the US) forbidden advertisement poster was no provocation but an announcement: This movie contains exactly that stuff, horny boys pay their bucks for. In addition the movie provides many trivialities about men, women and their relationships, I don' t consider to be correct or even important. If it wasn' t a woman who had directed this movie, I would call it a dirty mind of an old man. I hope the crude dialogs were a result of the translation - otherwise even the especial point of view (in the abstract!) and the exceptional roles (e. g. man has no sexual desire, instead his girlfriend) couldn' t save this movie from being pure crap.

Only half as interesting as it looks...

[Coventry · 2/10 · 14 February 2004]

I really wanted to enjoy this film but it just didn't work out. I was hoping to see a realistic and perhaps even educational story about relationship-conflicts and adultery but, to my regret, I saw an incredibly pretentious and isolated film...All very stylish and dared... I won't deny that... but overall un-involving and illogical. It's about a young woman who goes out on a sexual odyssey because her lover does NOT want to have sex with her. The obvious decision would be: brake up with him if it really bothers that much!! But no, she doesn't and therefore we get to see a series of semi-pornographic sequences and a whole lot of philosophical mumbo jumbo! Writer/director Catherine Breillat really tests one's attention span here. In general, I love films that are slow and atmospherically built sequence by sequence but this Romance X was a bit exaggerated. Sex sequences are explicitly observed and then you receive a whole analysis of them...You either appreciate this style or dislike it. Also, it didn't bother me that much, but Romance X clearly is a "woman's film". The portrayal of several men in this film isn't exactly anything to be proud of. Either way, there are better things to waste your life with...

pornographic art house movie

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 25 March 2015]

Marie (Caroline Ducey) is a schoolteacher with steady boyfriend Paul who doesn't have sex with her. She keeps cheating on him with ever riskier partners. One older man likes to tie her up. She's a detached damaged person as she tries to come to terms with her relationships.

This is a pornographic art house indie from France. The sex is explicit. It's basically one nude scene after another. She is completely naked with a lot of male nudity as well. This would be shocking twenty or thirty years before. It does feel like another graphic sex art house movie. Ducey's cute looks clash with her sexually depraved encounters. The sex is visual shock and awe but the interior monologue is somewhat mumble jumble.

You MUST watch the cut version of this film!

[P-McDonald · 1/10 · 27 May 2005]

'Romance'. Another infamous French film of recent years. I just saw this in the UK on what I would be led to believe is a largely uncut release of the film. It ran at 95mins. While I am an absolute defender of the principle that films should be released uncut on whatever media, I have to go back on that stance and say not in this case. I wish I'd seen the cut version, not because of any moral concerns but merely because the film would have been shorter. At 95mins its not a long film anyway but it is just completely awful, truly awful. I really thought French cinema had shaken off all that portentous, overly written cine-philosophy. Clearly I was wrong. Do we really need another run down the road of the unknowability of woman, the contradictory impulses of desire, the dark continent of the body? - sorry, I sound like I'm writing the sequel here! Unintentionally parodic of the worst characteristics of French cinema, this film can only be saved by drastic cutting. How come 95 mins can say so much less than Tex Avery could in 10mins or fewer?

Semi-porn with an intellectual touch

[PeterJackson · 6/10 · 19 June 2000]

Romance X is about a young girl, Marie, who's deeply in love with her boyfriend, Paul. The only problem is that he's not willing to have sex with her. This brings their relationship to the edge. After a year or two, Marie 's starting to become obsessed by it and ends up picking men off the streets to have sex with her. Soon, it's not all about the "deed" itself (or pleasure) anymore and Marie finds herself in the middle of a sickening game of sexual power and perversion, which goes further and further...

When this film came out, it caused a bit of a fuzz. Its sexually explicit scenes upset many viewers. It raised some questions about whether it was pornography or art. Having seen the movie, I can say that it's certainly not a porn flick, but that it's not better than your average "relationship" drama. The problems of these characters are very recognizable and the acting is pretty good too, but Catherine Breillat(the director)seems to focus on sensationalism rather than on story. This film got a lot of attention in the media and I'm sure many people watched it.(including me). It was even programmed at a relatively early hour on one of the Belgian channels. And I think this is the problem with the movie: people watched it "for art's sake". There's nothing wrong with that (there's nothing wrong with seeing an ordinary porn film either), except for the fact that everybody was made to believe that this was ground-breaking stuff and that it was cool to name this a masterpiece. Well...it isn't: neither original(see THE IDIOTS(which was good), or the Belgian "S."(the same problem as this film)or some recent French(!)films(SITCOM for example)), nor a masterpiece. Still, this isn't a bad film either. There are some good ideas and feelings in it. But that doesn't distinguish it from an average "normal" film. Except for the explicit sex scenes that is. 6/10

Abstinence never seemed so considerable.

[fdpedro · 2/10 · 14 April 2005]

It is not very hard to believe "Fat Girl" and "Romance X" were made by the same director, as much as the films differ in quality. The problem is that both films handle different subject matters. And while "Fat Girl" was successful in what it set out to do, "Romance X" fails miserably. This year I re-watched another chick-flick I never thought much of, Bertolucci's "Stealing Beauty", and found myself enjoying it a great deal, so I tried to do the same with "Romance X". It didn't work out, I now hate the film even more.

The film is described as "porn for women", and it already starts with a totally unbelievable premise: School-teacher Marie (Caroline Ducey) has a boyfriend (Sagamore Stévenin) who refuses to sleep with her for no reason whatsoever. He doesn't have any problems with getting an erection, or finding her attractive, he just doesn't want to have sex. What a believable premise! Maybe it was supposed to be unbelievable, maybe this is a deep, thoughtful, surrealistic film, but it's just not interesting. The fact that it never crosses Marie's mind that her boyfriend might be GAY doesn't help it from being existentially funny. But again, maybe it was supposed to be unintentionally funny, maybe this is a deep, thoughtful, surrealistic film, but it's just not interesting.

Marie fails to be a likable character as well, like most in the film. She is about 23, has the body of a 13-year old, the face of a 30-year old, and talks like a repressed, grumpy 75-year old. Every single line of dialogue that comes out of her mouth are mostly complaints on how miserable her sex life is, how much she hates men, and her amazing depressing theories on sex in general. It is not a very far stretch to assume it is Breillat speaking her lines, not Marie. Anyone who watches this film will get the impression that Briellat has never spoken to a human being. The most charismatic character, and actor, of the entire film is Ducey's first affair, a lonely Italian man named Paolo (Rocco Sifreddi) who seems to be the only human being in the film. The problem is that… well… Rocco is not an actor, he is a porn star only cast because of the size of his penis. You know you are in trouble when a "guest porn star" is the film's most interesting personality, because compared to Marie's boyfriend, he is Cary Grant. But again, maybe it was supposed to be unrealistic, maybe this is a deep, thoughtful, surrealistic film, but it's just not interesting.

While it lasts for about 90 minutes, it feels like you are watching a much longer film. There is nothing wrong with films being slow and taking their time, but this one does it for no reason at all. There is a scene where Marie is lead by a man into being tied up for a bondage experience. It last about ten minutes for the man to lead her into his room and pull the ropes around her, only for her to give up. Later in the film, she tries it again, and so we begin to roll our eyes. But again, maybe it was supposed to be slow, maybe this is a deep, thoughtful, surrealistic film, but it's just not interesting.

So you might be thinking that at least if the film is a pretentious, boring mess, well, at least it delivers as a soft-core porno, right? Wrong. This is the most misfire I've ever seen as an erotic film. Although I applaud Caroline Ducey for taking her "extentions" as an actress to the limit during the sex/nudity scenes, but they are anything but arousing. In fact, they are unbelievably boring. Only one involving Rocco Sifreddi is a bit, dare I say, far from tedious, but it would have helped if the actress at least seemed like she was enjoying it. I know this was not supposed to be a film about titties, but what else could one look for when there is nothing else? But again, maybe it was supposed to be non-erotic, maybe this is a deep, thoughtful, surrealistic film, but it's just not interesting.

"Romance X" is one or those films that think they are art-house masterpieces, that they are groundbreaking, and that in the future it will be remembered as a classic. I've seen Lifetime Original Movies that portray strong, independent women in a more successful way than in this film. Maybe this film would have been quite a statement had it been released back in the early 70s, but in 1999 it does feel a bit outdated. Surely a film with such a controversial topic as a woman committing… gasp… adultery would be very shocking. How couldn't it be, a woman who attends…gasp… nightclubs by herself. What will she do next to be outrageous, take a valium? As a side note, the nightclub sequences have to be seen to believe. The music is bad even for Euro-techno standards and it is so low you can hear people's footsteps in the dance floor. But that is only a minor flaw in such a mess of a film. While the cinematography is beautiful and the work with colors (especially red and white) is effective, it doesn't manage to make this worth 90 minutes (which feel like 4 hours) of your life. But again, maybe it was supposed to be an unintentionally funny, unrealistic, slow, and non-erotic. Maybe this is a deep, thoughtful, surrealistic film, but it's just not interesting.

Essay about the Female Erotic

[Imdbidia · 8/10 · 8 February 2011]

This is an independent thought-provoking French film with a great philosophical depth and very explicit sexual scenes, the ones that have got the attention of those morons who will forget everything when they see nakedness and hear the word genitalia.

The sexual act is not the object of the movie, but the analysis of female desire and sexuality. In fact, this movie is a philosophical reflection on why female sexuality is culturally and gender repressed, and justified only when benefit men, never as a natural expression of women's nature. The movie reflects on the nature of woman desire. Is it the same as man desire? Do women have the same sexual needs? Do they express their desire the same as men do? Does a woman really need sex in a relationship for the romance to work? What is it romance?

The elements that director Catherine Breillat uses to explore what female desire and how it works are:

1/ The main role, Marie, is a very sweet looking girl with barely sensual physical features. No big lips, angular face features, curves or full breasts. Actually, Mary is almost childish, very innocent and virginal looking. However, she has a very strong sex drive. Marie is not a sexual object, but the subject from whom desire emanates, a sexual being without shame, in control of her sexuality, driven by her own volition and decision, not to satisfy the man, but to satisfy herself.

2/ The man is denying sex to his partner, and not the opposite. This is both a metaphorical representation of the domineering male sexuality -in movies and in society- that always wants to control and objectify female sexuality. However, it is a wonderful point of start to see how a normal woman, as any man, would find this disturbing and painful to put up with. By not having sex, Marie craves touching and being touched, opening the door to her desire and being desired, share her desire with the man she loves -- Physical and emotional touch.

3/ Marie is not ashamed of her sexuality, and the paths of sexual exploration that she follows, although sometimes confronting, show that sex, per se, is not what she is looking for. However, she needs the sex, even in raw form, as any man would.

4/ This movie shows that sex is necessary in a relationship to build a relationship, beyond the emotions you put into it. Otherwise is bound to fail. This is specially daring, as most movies will show and put on a pedestal abstract and non-real romance and love, and show that daring women end badly, and that satisfying men's urges is natural, but satisfying your own is unnatural.

Marie is wonderfully played by Caroline Ducey, who is able to portray innocence and passion with great easiness and in a very convincing way. Also great is Sagamore Stéenin as Marie's macho jerk boyfriend, and François Berleand as the middle-aged unattractive man who initiates Marie in bondage. I especially liked how the character of Marie changed her clothing while she was changing, from virginal white minimalistic dresses to very sensual red feminine ones, and the inner strength she got by exploring her sexuality.

The dialogs are brilliant, especially Marie's monologues and thoughts, and serve to show, from a philosophical point of view, that culture, morals, and gender division have reduced female desire to what men want it to be. There is a mix of candor and heat percolating all of the dialogs, and a lot of depth.

The sexual exploration of the character is sometimes very harsh to watch, mostly because they are paired to a a great emotional distress (loneliness, self-hatred, despair, and shame). At the same time, by confronting all of that, Marie is facing her own demons and putting her shame aside.

The sex scenes are not that scandalous. In fact, most of what looks like real sex is actually simulated fake sex. What is real is the bunch of erected penises there, who were due, because we women are sick of seeing fully naked women shown all around in movies while men barely show their pecs and, in the best case, their buttocks. Beyond this, most of the shocking scenes are intended to make you think, not to make your horny. Three scenes deserve a special mention: 1/ the gynecological examination of Marie by the Medicine students. To me the most invading shocking scene, despite being part of the life of any woman. 2/ Marie's sexual fantasy in a brothel. 3/ The scene of a real birth, of the head of a baby coming out a woman's vagina.

The movie is so daring, so no-mainstream, so thoughtful and sensitive in the exploration of the female Eros, that I was really disappointed with the end. I was really annoyed. To define womanhood and woman's strength by maternity is so traditional and conventional that really ruins the great job done in the rest of the movie. It is like a slap on the face. If you want to be daring do so to the very end, all the way along.

This is a great movie, not always easy to watch, and not for everybody. However, it has so many good things that I wonder what where the critics watching and if they had heir brains switched off when doing so.

Not so shocking, really

[davek28 · 6/10 · 26 December 2021]

I was interested in watching this. It reminded me a lot of Eric Rohmer's Comedies et Proverbs but here, instead of talking rubbish about love, they talk rubbish about sex. Unfortunately there's nothing sexy about this film.

What I really do not understand is why she stays with her boring sexless boyfriend. She leaves it rather late to leave him. And where did the cat come from?

The ending is suddenly like Antonio filmed it in the sixties. Weird.

In summary, it's okay if you like this sort of thing. If not, you'll absolutely hate it.

A sophomoric and carnal view of the world

[Solaskaze · 1/10 · 9 March 2002]

A sophomoric and carnal view of the world - there is absolutely nothing in this movie worth watching, unless you enjoy pornography or suffer from an uncontrollable urge to gawk at that which is disgusting and unwatchable.

If Catherine Breillat aspired to be deep or far reaching in this creation, she needs a few lessons from Hitchcock: it's the subtle and *unseen* that is profound, not the shocking. This movie is over before it begins, and is helplessly drawn to sex scenes, just like porn, because it truly has nothing else to show. A movie like the "Unbearable Lightness of Being" or "Dangerous Liaisons" are only a few examples in sex topic space that show what a piece of trash "Romance" is.