I bet that the assumption of most people reading these reviews is that if you're offended by sex, you'll hate the movie and if you're not, you'll like it. That assumption's not true in this case.
I actually think that introducing realistic (or in this case, actual) sex into a mainstream love story is a pretty good idea. Why is that when we've voyeuristically watched a couple falling in love, there should still be a taboo on the sexual side of things? The problem here is that we haven't watched a couple fall in love. We've seen a pair of obnoxious metropolitan London stereotypes bump into each other at one of an increasingly irritating series of concerts by flavour-of-the-month indie bands. To be honest, I can't imagine a less lovable pair of characters and a less interesting set-up.
There are a few interesting cinematic devices at work in the movie which temporarily make it interesting in an academic sense. The idea of the film as representative of the male character's fading memory of the short relationship (remembering the exciting bits - music, sex, arguments) is fairly novel and the modern updating of the classic French "art house" movie concepts of the 1970s (affluent couple struck by ennui meet for series of meaningless sexual encounters) is relatively astute. The main problem with all this technical, academic exercise is that there's no heart or soul to the movie and nothing to make the viewer actually want to keep watching unless they happen to be fans of the musical acts.
The much publicised sex is actually quite inoffensive. There's no sexual violence or physically harmful practices which would justify the uproar surrounding this film. It's consentual sex between adults. Nothing that the majority of viewers wouldn't have tried out themselves.
So you have a film that seems designed to shock or to be an exercise in experimental cinema. But the "shocking" sex is simply ordinary lovemaking, the music is forgettable bordering on awful and the characters aren't in any way engaging enough to carry a plot less film.
Dull. 3/10
I actually think that introducing realistic (or in this case, actual) sex into a mainstream love story is a pretty good idea. Why is that when we've voyeuristically watched a couple falling in love, there should still be a taboo on the sexual side of things? The problem here is that we haven't watched a couple fall in love. We've seen a pair of obnoxious metropolitan London stereotypes bump into each other at one of an increasingly irritating series of concerts by flavour-of-the-month indie bands. To be honest, I can't imagine a less lovable pair of characters and a less interesting set-up.
There are a few interesting cinematic devices at work in the movie which temporarily make it interesting in an academic sense. The idea of the film as representative of the male character's fading memory of the short relationship (remembering the exciting bits - music, sex, arguments) is fairly novel and the modern updating of the classic French "art house" movie concepts of the 1970s (affluent couple struck by ennui meet for series of meaningless sexual encounters) is relatively astute. The main problem with all this technical, academic exercise is that there's no heart or soul to the movie and nothing to make the viewer actually want to keep watching unless they happen to be fans of the musical acts.
The much publicised sex is actually quite inoffensive. There's no sexual violence or physically harmful practices which would justify the uproar surrounding this film. It's consentual sex between adults. Nothing that the majority of viewers wouldn't have tried out themselves.
So you have a film that seems designed to shock or to be an exercise in experimental cinema. But the "shocking" sex is simply ordinary lovemaking, the music is forgettable bordering on awful and the characters aren't in any way engaging enough to carry a plot less film.
Dull. 3/10