The Blood Oranges

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

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.

''My fiction,'' he goes on to say, ''is generally an evocation of the nightmare or terroristic universe in which human sexuality is destroyed by law, by dictum, by human perversity, by contraption, and it is this destruction I have attempted to portray and confront in order to be true to human fear and . . . Ruthlessness, but also in part to evoke its opposite, the moment of freedom from that constriction, from that restraint, and from death.''

While the acting wasn't fantastic, I found the movie interesting from the point of view of the way the open marriage of Fiona and Cyril was explored, and how it was treated by people viewing it from the outside. And how the new couple of Colin and Catherine reacted in different ways to the ideas presented, and how their feelings evolved.

I think that a lot was left out, and I am looking forward to reading the book to get some more of the background about why things happened they way they did, and what the history of the two couples are.

I'd recommend watching this movie, but keep an open mind, and imagine how you would react, given the situations presented.