The Blood Oranges

I have seen in various places negative comments about this film, but I found it engaging and well done. The characters are complex,interesting,human, and don't fit the usual stereotypes. The situation is not at all formulaic. I can see how some people may not get this film, or may be turned off or threatened by the subject matter, which has to do with people exploring alternative forms of intimate relationships, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. The acting is very good, especially Charles Dance - plus you get to see him sans clothing a few times, if you like that kind of thing, which I do. Sheryl Lee is kind of an odd actress, and it's kind of an odd character. The narrative, told from Cyril's point of view, goes back and forth in time, and the way it's structured creates a mystery that hints at tragedy. Cyril is a fascinating character, seemingly laid back, but you get a sense he's controlling everything under the surface. Wonderfully nuanced acting from Charles Dance. The film has tons of one my favorite things - moral ambiguity. Is it really Illyria, or is it Cyril's little kingdom - and does it matter? Now I want to read the book to dig further into the many layers of the story and characters.

I saw this movie just recently and liked it a lot. It's a different take on marriage and relationships and for that reason alone worth seeing. It's very different from the usual Hollywood version of romance and marriage. I once saw Hollywood described somewhere as a machine for making marriages, well this movie is an antidote. As a movie it's subtle and works through imagery and symbolism integrated into everyday reality and succeeds pretty much. John Dance does a great job and the supporting cast is just as good. The movie is perhaps summed up by the line utterance by John Dance's character Cyril: "Monogamy is the enemy of marriage". Many could be outraged at this movie, but it's just possible the movie has got it right.

I got this for my "Charles Dance" collection. Had seen "Angels and Insects", like many others, so that added to the appeal. Hope the book was better. The premise was fine - an attempt at a somewhat surreal tale of sexual intrigue. Aside from Dance, however, the performances were stilted and silly (especially Sheryl Lee, even if she was supposed to sound like she did - it was a distraction). The dialog certainly could have been written to better develop the characters. Pretty to look at, not enough erotica (and I don't mean soft porn, just erotic). But even Dance looked a bit silly with the "love lunch"...... I like it just enough to watch it again as part of my film library - and even to recommend it to friends who would see the value and look beyond the inane.

Sheryl Lee gets to play a dull-witted strumpet--now isn't that creative! Her supposed love interest, Colin Lane, is no heart-throb, but does get to play a tight-arsed boor. Charles Dance is good and likable, but cannot save this turkey. The decayed, picturesque Latin American village is photographed gorgeously, but the movie is better with the sound off.

I thought this would be a sexy movie but it was not- it was just full of hot air and trite sentiments. I loved his other movie Angels and Insects but this movie was not up to that one at all. The acting was bad and the story was stupid. The only person who was somewhat believeable was Hugh's wife. A waste of time