User reviews

Jeremy Irons and Juliette Binoche do some "Damage" in this 1992 film also starring Miranda Richardson, Rupert Graves, Ian Bannen and Leslie Caron. Irons is a British cabinet minister who falls for his son's girlfriend (Binoche), a deeply disturbed young woman.

Despite the facetiousness of my summary line, this is quite a brilliant film about emotionally damaged people and obsession. It also comes off as very realistic because the emotions are portrayed so honestly. On the surface, it seems ridiculous, sort of a sex-change version of The Graduate, with Binoche involved with both father and son. Here is the Irons character, Dr. Stephen Fleming, with a brilliant career, a beautiful wife (Richardson) whose father (Bannen) has had a brilliant career; they have two children and a lovely home and lifestyle. Why threaten it with a tawdry affair? I kept thinking what an idiot Irons was throughout the film, yet we know that in real life, people have played Russian roulette with their careers before.

It's clear when Anna seeks out Stephen and introduces herself that her attachment to Martyn (Graves) was simply to get to him - and she does -immediately. All they can do is stare at one another. When she invites him to her apartment, she is sitting on the edge of her bed. Seeing him, she sinks to the floor, her arms outstretched. Because she never wears underwear, they can usually have sex with most of their clothes on and have it anywhere - street corners, tables, Stephen's father-in-law's house. The sex isn't particularly erotic to watch; it's awkward-looking because of the frenzy involved.

Part of the obsession for Stephen is the unleashing of passion that's been sublimated; part of it is the danger - and is part of it having something he didn't have in his own youth that his son has now? Does he look at Martyn and see that Martyn's life is ahead of him and that he, Stephen, is no longer "young?" Possible. Is he angry with Martyn for replacing him in his wife's affections? Perhaps. For Anna, the motives and thrills are different - due to a tragedy in her life involving her brother who apparently was in love with her too, she is playing some weird psychological game in which there is no real winner.

The acting is marvelous - Binoche is exquisitely dressed though some of those marvelous clothes are ripped off of her - she brings an exotic, androgynous and mysterious quality to the role of Anna. Irons is excellent as an up-tight father and half-crazed lover. Leslie Caron has a small role as Anna's mother. She's lovely as ever and strong in a dramatic role of a woman who drinks a little but who nevertheless has Stephen's number.

The last 30 minutes of this movie are some of the most shattering moments in film, and what makes them so shattering is not only the situation but the absolutely devastating, visceral, no holds barred performance by Miranda Richardson. She is ably supported by a writer and director who both knew something about profound pain. Her performance is great - that she had the material to give that performance and a director who let her go makes this film truly unforgettable.

When Damage is over, you won't be the person you were when you started watching it. It's so rare nowadays to see such a fascinating, character-driven film. It will stay with you for a long time.

My main reason for seeing 'Damage' was for the cast. Especially love Jeremy Irons, who very seldom has done wrong (in terms of performances that is, he has been in his fair share of misfires but is a bright spot in most of them). But also love a lot of Juliette Binoche's performances ('Three Colours: Blue' being particularly notable, she is astonishing in that) and the same goes for Miranda Richardson in much of her work.

That the director was Louis Malle ('Au Revoir Les Enfants') in his penultimate film, and the composer was Krzysztof Kieslowski regular Zbigniew Preisner were further attractions. The themes of lust, passion, betrayal and the consequences of damage are not unfamiliar ones in film/tevision before 'Damage' or since it, but there is nothing wrong with that and when explored well in film/television they do leave a very powerful impact. Familiarity is not a bad thing, it's over-familiarity on top of not being interesting or unintentionally funny (or all of those) when it is a problem.

'Damage' is, has been and is going to be, a beautiful and interesting film to some. To others, it is, has been and is going to be cold and dull. Count me in as somebody in the former camp, while totally seeing why it won't connect, and hasn't connected, for others and am not in any way going to hold that against them. It is not one of Malle's best films, nowhere near, and most of the actors have done better work before and since. Irons with 'Dead Ringers', sorry about going on a lot about this particular film but just love that film and his performance in it, and Binoche with 'Three Colours: Blue'. It is some of Richardson's best work though. With it not being a good or particularly fair representation of Rupert Graves in my mind.

Found Graves to be wasted in an underwritten clueless dullard sort of role with nowhere near as much screen time as he should have done, his biggest scene/moment being one of the film's most memorable near the end. A shame because he has given numerous good to great performances, unforgettable for example in 'The Tenant of Wildfell Hall'.

Some of the editing in the early parts of the film is on the rushed side, likewise with how the central relationship begins and unfolds so easily and quickly. Stephen's motivations could have gone into depth more.

However, 'Damage' is beautifully and stylishly filmed and most of the editing is fine. The closing shot is very hard to forget. Preisner's score is hauntingly intimate, sometimes hypnotic and at other times ominous, which fits the tone more than ideally. Not some of his very best work, but Preisner even not at his very best still delivered. Malle shows no signs of fatigue in his directing despite it being his penultimate film, do prefer it when there is more of a personal touch to his direction seen in especially 'Au Revoir Les Enfants' (that film though is very personal, auto-biographical actually) but he is hardly out of his depth. Props to him to even attempt exploring a very interesting but difficult subject and do so as compellingly and bravely as he does.

Morever, 'Damage' is thoughtfully and leanly scripted. The clear highlight in this regard being Richardson's big scene at the end (the one that garnered her the acclaim she got for her performance), will try not to spoil it too much but it sure does pack an emotional punch. Another highlight too, and the line to sum up the entire film, is the line from Binoche regarding the impact of damage. The story thematically is nothing new and from reading any basic plot summary sounds like familiar territory and very thin. It's the way the themes are explored that is unconventional and surprisingly insightful, lust and betrayal has seldom been portrayed in such a dark, intense and devastating way even when the film is deliberately paced. The tension does simmer and often when not a word is being said and when expressions are so subtle. Ingrid's big scene at the end is the dramatic highlight, searing in intimacy and devastating in emotional impact when seeing how much damage has been caused, got the sense that even Irons was trying to hold back emotion filming the scene.

It does have to be said that 'Damage' has some of the most interesting love scenes of any film (easily), know very few films to have love scenes these gymnast-athletic and searingly intense while also being passionate and erotic enough, most of the passion coming from Irons though. Binoche apparently disliked working with Irons when his approach to the love scenes became too physical (there is that sense in the first one), but that dislike to me didn't come out on screen and liked that their chemistry wasn't overwrought. What is also interesting about 'Damage' is how it portrays the characters, particularly in Stephen and Anna being such polar opposites in type and their attitude to relationships

Of the three leads, despite having the least to do Richardson is particularly great and is a fierce powerhouse at the end. That is obvious in terms of awards attention too, her performance was the most acclaimed of the three. When it comes to tortured characters, upper-class gentlemen with moral issues and understated intensity, Irons was one of the best, and he shows that here. Should be is, but he's had material well beneath him for a while now with some exceptions here and there that doesn't show those qualities anywhere near enough. Binoche is exotic and suitably despairing in one of her "sorrowful sisters" roles that she always played superbly and never in an over the top way, subtly expressive actually. Just to say that that phrase is her words and way of coining some of her roles, not mine. Leslie Caron is memorable in her small role.

Altogether, not for all but to me it was very good with a few reservations. 8/10

I'm mainly posting this because I've been reading the other comments here, and I just had to respond. While a movie's quality is (for the most part) subjective and everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, I must say that those who thoroughly panned this movie have really demonstrated how little imagination most people have, and their lack of appreciation for subtlety in film or any other artistic medium is readily apparent.

For all the talk about the sex scenes in this movie and how they're laughable, or not erotic or whatever, no one is getting the point: the sex between Irons and Binoche is not there just to get the audience all hot and bothered. You have to look at it within the context of the story: these two people are not just out to get laid, to satisfy some momentary sexual whim. They didn't say, Oh, hey, you look hot, I'd sure like to bang you. From the moment they meet they are both captive to an overwhelming, inexplicable passion, due to deep-seated, subconscious motivations stemming from each person's individual history and emotional nature. It's fairly clear from the mostly silent, often awkward, and sometimes almost painful-looking sex that they are not in it for the sheer physical sensation, or even to show affection/love for each other. They simply can't help themselves. Through sex with each other they appear to be working out their own individual pain, a sense of loss or longing for something they are unable to express any other way, and the physical act is almost incidental. Whether they betray or hurt anyone else is beside the point. Each is damaged, and this is how they attempt to repair that damage, but it's a hopeless cause. This is why the sex comes off for the most part as passionless, futile, and far from pleasurable. These are not happy, normal people--they cannot experience much real pleasure the way the average person does. The sex, in service to the story and the characters, is portrayed just as it should be.

'Damage' a terrible film with bad acting? Nonsense. Even if you don't like it, i.e., it's just not to your taste, it's really impossible to deny that this movie is well done in every respect, and when it comes down to it, that is the only real criterion for judging the merit of any work of art. Did all the elements of the movie work to get across what the filmmaker was trying to do? Absolutely. Most people seem to be judging this movie based on their own petty, immature biases developed over years of watching empty, brainless, formula movies: do I like this actor's voice or looks; am I turned on by this actress's body; are these people and the things they do and say close enough to my own ideas about what people are like and how they should behave; does this movie let me remain in my safe, shallow, ignorant bubble of conformity and enjoy my microwave popcorn on the couch? I'm also amazed when people talk about how there are no characters to 'like' in a movie. Who cares? This should not be the point of any work of art. Life does not always present us with likable people, and neither does art. Jeremy Irons, Juliette Binoche and Miranda Richardson are all superb. Richardson's intensity is mesmerizing, and Irons and Binoche communicate incredible depths to each other and the audience with the smallest gesture or a seemingly pedestrian line, proving that less is almost always more. Watch Irons early on as he portrays his character's quiet sense of desperation and yearning to break out of his comfortable but dead existence, as though all his life he's been out of place, wondering how he got there but unable to articulate it. Binoche has few lines most of the time but doesn't need them: she shows convincingly with her face and movements an entire world of desolation and pain in Anna, along with the fierce drive she carries to maintain some semblance of hope in her life. This is all also due of course to the script and the direction. Besides all this it's also an incredibly stylish and gorgeous movie to look at. I don't know how anyone with any imagination or perceptiveness could find this movie boring or badly done. All in all, I highly recommend this film for a mature, sensitive, and powerful look at human relations and behavior. It's almost mythic in its ability to convey a sense of inevitability and emotional devastation. Brilliant, and hard to forget.

This movie made me absolutely sick to my stomach. Story of what happens when two narcissists meet each other.

They destroy everyone in their paths in quest for self satisfaction. Once they meet their needs they're gone. Single minded focus on their selfish desire at all costs. Risking everything for a moment of self gratification.

It affected me so much I actually started to "hate" the actress, Juliette Binoche.

Juliette Binoche's character was so manipulative, selfish, self absorbed, delusional, and cunning. I don't know how any man would fall for her.

Jeremy Irons is equally selfish, but Juliette was the personification of an evil woman who enters the picture and destroys everything and everyone in sight.

She was like a predator waiting to consume.

Fatale (Damage) is one of the most deeply lustful and emotionally charged films I've seen in years, a true Louise Malle masterpiece of unbridled passion. The love scenes are hot, to say the least, and I'll never be able to look at Julliet Binochet again without remembering them. Jeremy Irons does incredible work here and Amanda Richardson, who's part really doesn't require much during most of the movie, actually steals the film with some over the top acting at the end. However, it's Julliet Binochet who anchors this fine movie with her riveting performance and her strong and quite impressive visual presence. I simply couldn't take my eyes off her whenever she was on screen.

I saw this movie more than 30 years after it was made, so the question is also, if it aged well. Yes and no. The colors and scenery is very 1992, and while it might have seemed modern and high-class back then, it seems gray and claustrofobic today. The erotic sceens might have been daring back then, now they seems ordinary, abait they still do the job. And Juliette Binoche is lovely as always.

My main objection to the movie is however that I don't understand the attraction between the two, which partly is because they both plays there roles understated, him as typical british upperclass stif upper lip, her with not much expression in her face.

I don't like the ending, and I think the theme "damage" should have been explored more.

But still a movie worth watching.

After all comments I already read here, I am kind of confused. My opinion? Good script, good casting, beautiful people, carefully made movie, but for some reason, not quite convincing. Binoche and Irons became lovers and they are living a completely forbidden passion, a passion so violent and complete that they risk everything around them (specially Irons). But their performances are so rigid, so empty of life and (precisely) passion...!! I've seen people greeting friends at a birthday party with more enthusiasm and sparks in their eyes that Binoche and Irons meeting to have sex in a secret apartment. They both look like they were in drugs, and the boyfriend/son who does not know anything... well, my cat is a better actor when he wants food. One thing is that some people is not running around crying aloud when they are in love, and another thing is acting a love scene like you are thinking of you are out of milk and have to go to the supermarket.

A FAILED EROTISM.

It's a shame that this film, with a theme that occurs many times in real life, wasn't staged better.

The sexual scenes are ridiculous, if they change the background music they could easily be classified as a wrestling match between a man and a woman. There is no sensuality, nor that overflowing passion that is born as a result of unbridled attraction.

There is another aspect that was not touched on in the film or at least was not sufficiently exploited, the position of the wife Ingrid who, like any woman who has been married for several years, has to notice her husband's emotional changes, especially in their sexual relations.

The theme could go much further and instead of that, here too much emphasis was placed on scenes that, while purporting to be erotic, they are lack of realism and art. More than a lack of good actors, what was missing here was better direction.

A movie about a passionate sexual affair between a middle-aged man and his future daughter-in-law shouldn't be bland, tepid and boring, but it is! Juliet Binoche is such a cold fish, it's hard to imagine why any man would risk his family and his position to sleep with her.

This movie is really much less shallow than many people criticizing it would think. Actually, I was captivated by it from start to finish. It is understandable that one would question the likeliness of all these events happening, and in that respect the characters might be a bit unreal. But I don't think the movie should be watched that way. The sheer unreasonable passion between Anna and Stephen should be felt, not analyzed. I think that a lot of people wished that they would or could feel something like this for another in today's harsh, business-like world. It is always an easy way out to be cynical about it. Although the characters and their relationships are not very "deep", I found everything entirely believable, and that is the only thing that counts.

I did not really ever see an entire movie with Binoche or Irons, and I wonder how they managed to slip through for so long, because I loved them both. Funny how one commentator remarked that the Anna character should have been sleazier for credibility. Don't you see that this all about self-destruction? The tiny, innocuous-looking Anna that Binoche portrays, a girl that most people wouldn't give a second look, a girl that might seem cold at first sight, is just what attracts Stephen, because they both find in each other what they have never found in anyone else. Both characters are on a mission to make their lives more miserable, because that it what defines them. This certainly goes for Anna, but Stephen is even more interesting because his life is so well organized. Anna is just a catalyst for everything he probably wanted to happen one way or another, and that is why he will not stop their "collision course" when he still can. The inevitability of it all shows best at the end: he shows no remorse, or any other emotion, just acceptation. He was subconsciously wanting to put and end to the life he had been living so far. This is also a feeling that many people can relate to, I think. Yes, the end is a bit theatrical maybe, but it didn't bother me. I'd watch it again next week.

Great movie. **** out of ****.

I watched this show on E! a couple years ago called "What Hollywood Taught Us About Sex" and Damage was mentioned, I absolutely love Jeremy Irons and couldn't believe I didn't see this movie. When I went to go rent it, it wasn't available, but I just didn't want to give up on this film. I finally found it on youtube thankfully, even though I had to watch it in parts, but it's all good. So I watched it this weekend and absolutely enjoyed Damage, the thing that makes this film great is truly the performances. Both Jeremy and Juliette are just beautiful together, another performance that deserves a notice is by Miranda Richardson, her line "I would've buried you... and I would've wept", so powerful and beautifully delivered and I'm sure so many could say this line about a person who just utterly betrayed them. This movie isn't just about sex, but human nature, it's lust, power, behavior, and cruelty, not to mention the most dangerous emotion that could possibly destroy lives... love.

Stephen Fleming is part of Parliment in England, his life is actually pretty decent, he has a loving wife, two great kids, one of them who is about to become a doctor and marry a lovely woman, Anna. Stephan and Anna meet and instantly they know they want each other, without saying a word, they start a passionate affair, filling a void in their lives they did not know they were missing. Knowing that the ultimate betrayal they have bestowed on the loves of their lives they try to break up, but are still drawn to each other leading to the ultimate karma of killing someone.

Well you'll see what I mean by that last line, the reason this movie is good is because it isn't just a sex movie, it is a drama that really works well and just brings you to tears. The interesting thing is that Stephen and Anna are horrible people, they're destroying lives, yet you can understand their passion for each other. This is a good movie, I would recommend this adult drama for the film buffs, if you need a sexy film, this is a good one. I'm glad I got the opportunity to see this film, it makes me love Jeremy Irons just a little bit more.

7/10

What a dreary and depressing movie! The script is ridiculously inadequate to begin with and takes a laughable turn towards ludicrous. The romance between Irons and Binoche comes out of nowhere and is not believable for a moment. Their love scenes are obviously meant to be passionate but they are so poorly executed that they come across as rather comical. It is hard to believe that someone like Irons would risk everything for someone as incredibly bland as Binoche is portrayed to be here. Irons does his usual pompous blow-hard routine. The only notable performance is given by Richardson as Irons's suffering wife. This is undoubtedly the worst film of Malle's career.

When a prominent politician embarks on an obsessive love affair with his son's fiancée, one could easily disregard this to the trashy Romance novel from where it came. But Damage is so much more than this, because it meticulously explores this subversive action with honesty and empathy. Jeremy Irons (Stephen Fleming) has everything a man could want, a great career, money, nice wife, beautiful house and numerous connections with influential people. He's a public figure who seems to have it all. But when he meets Anna (Juliette Binoche), he is awe struck. Anna is a raven-haired beauty with porcelain skin, sharp features and a quiet seductive quality that differs from the usual Hollywood hussy stereotype. The attraction he has for this woman is instantaneous and takes a fierce stronghold onto his pompous, dignified and stuffy nature. A man who is incapable of expressing his feelings due to upbringing, his station in life or whatever, suddenly spirals into this pitiful and lovesick man who can't resist the mysterious and stoic nature of Anna. As they embark on a sexual affair we see that his proper personality is put to the test. As Stephen makes numerous efforts to have sex on the sly with her we witness this prominent man becoming an emotional wreck. Looking gaunt and worried, Stephen finds it hard to sustain his life while maintaining this fling.

Although Anna is complicit in this immoral act, she at least addresses the danger and unethical nature of it. Martin Fleming, her fiancée, loves her and she knows it. She knows how this would affect him if he discovered their fling. But Stephen is willing to forego his son's well-being. The obsession Stephen has for Anna is that intense. How could a father do this to his son ? "we ask ourselves". And this is what this dark and moody tale is about. It's about how a seemingly upstanding citizen and father can lose complete control of his sensibilities in pursuit of his prurient desires. The only way to fill the void in his life is to pursue the beautiful Anna. Is he dissatisfied with his wife? He is now that Anna came into the picture. Juliette Binoche is deceptively effective in this role. She is coy, confident, and doesn't resort to behaving in a loose or sassy manner. She's able to convey so much without even showing any expression. We discover, in two dinner settings, that Anna has a tragic past that involved her brother's suicide. The parallel between Stephen's and Martin's attraction toward Anna is alarmingly similar. We know this is a doomed relationship for all involved, but who will come out unscathed and who will be destroyed is the question. Why Damage is so enthralling as a drama is the complexity of the situation. The psychological impact this has for Stephen is almost unbearable to watch, but we are still fascinated. A woman's intense power, whether it's her beauty, demeanor, collectedness or charisma can have an unyielding stronghold on any man regardless of his position in life. Stephen's weakness was his inability to rationalize and stop what was happening to him and the effect this would have on his world. Even after he ends the affair with Anna by phone in a feeble attempt to stop it all, he soon falls for her again completely smitten and owned.

Louis Malle often intents to expose at its movies many unconventional issues, in Damage he repeats the patten by laying a sort of sick love widely-supported by psychological disorder in the female character played masterly by the sexy Juliette Binoche in may previous relationships from whom is possible draw such grasp over so dangerous behavior.

The drama took place at high circle of the British aristocracy where the Minister Dr. Stephen (Jeremy Irons) falls in love by his Son's fiancé the French girl Anna (Juliette Binoche) the overwhelming passion stepping over basic tenets of human dignity, even Dr. Stephen has a happier marriage with a kindly and beauty woman Ingrid (Miranda Richardson), worst his young son Martyn (Rupert Graves) holds high regard his father, worsening the damage, upcoming tragic events hanging around of the family.

The picture is surrounded of sexiest and hottest scenes, with strong sexual appeal allowed lavishly by the gorgeous Juliette Binoche, amplifying the extent of the matter whereby Dr. Stephen isn't no able to quit, no matter how hard he tries, he reached at point of no return, aside the dramatic nature Louis Malle pass it without many bruises, instead the sorrowful audience, although deserves respect.

Thanks for reading.

Resume:

First watch: 2006 / Source: Cable VHS-DVD / How many: 2 / Rating: 7.5.