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.
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.