This was a controversial film at launch, and it's easy to see why. I certainly don't mind controversial films, and I don't mind films that strive to be controversial. But for the latter category, I want to understand the purpose of the film, and of the controversy the director is aiming for. And while this movie addresses some very important topics, it manages to mix them together in a way that just muddies the already dark waters. Challenging restrictive and even oppressive sexual norms is obviously a worthy struggle. The post-war debate on where to draw the line, on how far down the chain of command to prosecute offenders and war criminals is one of the most important ones we've ever had; it is integral to how we view ourselves as a species. Why conflate the two? Naturally, I'm not saying you can't do it. I'm just asking, rhetorically, why you would want to.
The acting comes up short in a number of scenes, while it is quite good in others. Charlotte Rampling's performance is one of the best things about this movie, even though it also wobbles at certain times.
I very rarely comment on sex scenes, but I'd actually like to praise the ones in this film for being realistic and passionate at the same time. Not very Hollywood, if you know what I mean.
The acting comes up short in a number of scenes, while it is quite good in others. Charlotte Rampling's performance is one of the best things about this movie, even though it also wobbles at certain times.
I very rarely comment on sex scenes, but I'd actually like to praise the ones in this film for being realistic and passionate at the same time. Not very Hollywood, if you know what I mean.