Henry y June

So some people described this film as: "great cinema", "absorbing movie", "perfectly acted", "amazing story", "stunningly filmed", and so on. I must have been watching a different movie!!!

Maybe we like movies if we see ourselves reflected in them? I couldn't relate to these characters. Were they really like this? I've been curious about Anais Nin for years and if this her actual portrayal, well I'm very disappointed. Henry, June and Anais are all selfish people who actually need to feel pain to feel alive! What a weird lot! And Hugo, what a fool to love someone like Anais.

None of them seem to know the meaning of true love. Anais particularly. June got it right when she criticised her for using people as food for her writing.

There's nothing in this film that makes it endearing or memorable to me. I lost interest early on but watched to the end in the hope that the film would redeem itself. But if you want an experience of erotica, then maybe this is a good example. And June Miller became a social worker (end credits)... give me a break!

Director Phillip Kaufman stirred up quite a bit of controversy when this film was first being released, most likely because of the intensity of the love scenes, but after watching the DVD I am now thinking that this film could have maybe slipped by with an R rating. The film faired poorly at the box-office, but seemed to have received generally positive reviews. The best element of this film is the atmosphere, which truly resembles the time period in which the film takes place. The story of the romance between the two writers is interesting on its own, but the great acting gives it a boost. Overall, a highly worthwhile film that will come as a pleasant surprise. The 6.3 rating is too low. I would say it deserves at the very least a 7. Ill give it an 8.

Anaïs Nin is hailed by many critics as one of the finest examples of writers of female erotica. She was one of the first women to really explore the realm of erotic writing, and certainly the first prominent woman in modern Europe to write erotica. Henry and June is based upon her life in Paris around 1931, and her relationship with Henry and June Miller. This relationship strongly influenced her as both a woman and an author.

Phillip Kaufman (Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), Quills, Raiders of the Lost Ark) does a superb job of directing his own screenplay and presents a story that flows smoothly as it presents a picture of bohemian life in Paris that consumed the banker's wife.

I am not sure they could have found someone better than Fred Ward (Remo Williams) to play Henry Miller (Tropic of Cancer, Tropic of Capricorn, Black Spring). He just seemed to fit right in with the character.

Uma Thurman (Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction) was fantastic as his wife, June, the bi-sexual who fell in love with Nin. After realizing that she lost Nin to her husband, she left him. What was interesting was that Nin immediately left Miller to return to her husband. You really need a scorecard to figure out who is married to and sleeping with whom.

Nin was played by Portuguese actress Maria de Medeiros (Fabienne in Pulp Fiction). She was sensational as the woman who fell into the bohemian life and lifestyle.

There were brief appearances by Kevin Spacey as a lawyer who wanted to be a writer, and the person who introduced Nin to Miller.

The slice of life in Bohemian Paris in 1931 has to be seen to be believed. It was an exciting time and certainly an exciting place. To see a piece f some of the greatest writers in American erotica, even fictionalized, was also great.

Henry and June holds the distinction of being the first film to receive an NC-17 rating.

Phillip Kaufman's loving examination of Anais Nin's relationship with Henry and June Miller is an enthralling journey. In the film Anais is inspired by Henry and June to descend into a world of debauchery that fuels her erotic writing. We the audience see Henry and June through the eyes of Anais, which may mean it's not exactly as they really were, but rather a romanticised version of them. This is NOT a biopic of Henry Miller, which is the foolish mistake that some reviewers seemed to make on the films release.

The script tends to meander a bit, lacking any real plot. Each scene lives for itself, some more successfully than others. But in the torrid climax when Anais' wild ways have finally caught up with her, it all comes together nicely to leave a feeling of completion.

The cast is first rate. Maria de Medeiros, despite not having top billing, get's the bulk of the screen time as Anais. She has a captivating look, and embodies a sense of innocence throughout, despite displaying the most promiscuous nature. If at times she overdoes the melodrama, she should be commended for managing to purr out some rather flowery dialogue without sounding silly. Many lesser actresses would have faltered.

In what is undoubtably the highlight of his film career, Fred Ward instils Henry with some old styled charisma and gusto. While he gives us a throughly entertaining Henry, I still however have trouble seeing this character as a writer of erotic fiction. He seems too much like a man's man. The original casting choice of Alec Baldwin would make more sense in this case, but I doubt in the end he would have been as entertaining in the role as Ward.

Uma Thurman, as June, gives a memorable performance. It's the most showy character in the film, and Thurman gets the chance for plenty of legitimate scenery chewing. She uses the full scale of emotions and performs a transformation of the character from menacing seductress to pitiful emotional wreck. Despite the surprising comments of one of the other posters here, it really is one of the best performances of her young and promising career.

In support, Richard E. Grant is awkward (probably purposely) as Hugo, Anais' well-hung and faithful husband. Jean-Philippe Écoffey is adequate as Anais' cousin and brief lover. Kevin Spacey is amusing in what now looks like a cameo, but then was quite an important role for him.

Philippe Rousselot's cinematography is beautifully done. He creates an almost surreal feeling of Paris in the 1930's. The music is also well placed and adds to this mood. Kaufman and Rousselot make the numerous sex-scenes things of beauty rather than titillating, they get creative with them. In fact, the film is surprisingly unarousing considering the amount of sex occurring in it. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing I guess you can decide for yourself. Why on earth it got an NC-17 rating I don't know. I doubt it would if released today.

Not everyone will like this film. It is 'arty farty' so to speak. It's maybe even a little pretentious. But I find it to be a fascinating and just plain absorbing trip. I have managed to find the time to watch it quite a few times, and it seems to improve with age. I recommend it to any thinking filmgoers.

9/10

A sexy movie with two very interesting faces - Maria de Medeiros and Uma Thurman - and one ugly and obnoxious one (Fred Ward, playing American writer "Henry Miller.")

I wish Thurman had a bigger role in this movie. The photo of her in this picture - the one Ward stares at periodically - is one of the most fascinating portraits I've ever seen. De Medeiros is shown naked quite a bit but it's her face, with those big eyes and the 1930s look, that's interesting. The nudity and lesbian sex scene gave this a NC-17 rating, the first movie ever to get that rating (from what I read.), and deservedly so. In Paris in the 1930s, where this story is set, they were "ahead" of their time (secuarly speaking) regarding decadence. This movie captures that atmosphere, although it's a bit TOO sleazy at times.

The film features some wonderful photography. One of the best cinematographers in the business, Phillipe Rousselot, filmed this. The worst part of the film was simply no likable characters and a bit too many dull spots. But.....the film really offers some visual treats.