Damage (1992) User Reviews

what happens when you don't wear underwear

[blanche-2 · 8/10 · 27 December 2007]

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.

I like this movie.

[mainecoon50 · 8/10 · 12 January 2005]

I like this movie, not so much because of its analysis of but because of the directness with which it portrays obsessive behavior and the price it demands. All the action struck me as very immediate and real, not contrived in any degree. We read about such behavior every day, be it the bank teller who embezzles huge sums to feed a crack habit, or the respectable family man who throws everything away on a gamble.

Some, undoubtedly, will be put off by the film's graphic sexuality. But I'm one who regards all human activity as some form of sexual expression. To me the sexuality was simply a medium. The drives, the betrayals, the lies, and the ultimate tragedy were the real story.

I also regard Anna as a tragic character, not self-indulgent or spoiled. Watching her play out the drama with Stephen is like watching Greek tragedy. She knows what's coming, but it has to be, and she really can do nothing to stop it. And when the story comes to it's resolution I pity her. She knows the damage she's done, and now she has to go on and repeat the tragedy. And it all stems from her sense of original sin with her brother.

There's a parallel here with Brenda and her brother in HBO's Six Feet Under.

I also like the fact the it ends with more questions than answers. When Stephen is talking to the detective following the death of his son the man asks, "And your son didn't know about your affair?" Stephen shakes his head matter-of-factly. The detective responds, "Are you sure?" For just a moment the camera makes it evident that, no, Stephen is not sure. And as he regards the photograph at the end, what is it he's searching for in those faces? His son looking at Anna, he looking at his son, and Anna looking straight at the camera.

Truly an interesting and stylish drama of human relationships that could be quite immediate, quite real.

The dark side of lust and betrayal

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 9 June 2019]

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

A brilliant but misunderstood film

[theodarsey · 13 January 2004]

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.

Made me absolutely sick. Two narcissists meet.

[purduegrad-47653 · 6/10 · 7 October 2023]

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.

Hell Hath no Fury Like an Insane Woman in Love

[JasparLamarCrabb · 6/10 · 28 October 2007]

A powerful and married British politician (Jeremy Irons) falls wildly in lust with his son's new girlfriend (Juliette Binoche) in a mostly well made film directed by the great Louis Malle. Malle's direction is very claustrophobic, even more so than his early ELEVATOR TO THE GALLOWS. Irons, whose film career really hasn't panned out since his Oscar win, is stellar and Binoche outdoes both Sharon Stone and Glenn Close in the femme-fatale department. She's carnal evil in the flesh! As Irons' wife, Miranda Richardson, in one scene of absolute rage, is brilliant. It's a scene and performance reminiscent of Beatrice Straight's dejected wife scene in Sidney Lumet's NETWORK.

Although it is indeed potent film-making by Louis Malle, DAMAGE is also notable for its insanely overwrought sex scenes between Irons and Binoche. A real blunder on Malle's part. They resemble Solid Gold Dancers gyrating and stretching presumably to express utter ecstasy. Rupert Graves plays Iron's doomed son.

The Cruelty of Eroticism

[nycritic · 10/10 · 14 June 2006]

It's been accused of being a cold study in sterile eroticism, a completely passionless love story, and a rip-off of LAST TANGO IN Paris. Whatever it is, Louis Malle's movie DAMAGE is an unforgettable experience that takes the viewer into a story of cloying obsession that spins out of control and literally "damages" every player in the movie.

The story is simple. Dr. Stephen Fleming meets his son Martyn's fiancée Anna Barton during a social gathering and from the moment they lock eyes on each other, Stephen feels his own world start to crumble. (A quiet scene in which Jeremy Irons stands in his living room surveying his Architectural Digest house, looking completely bored, is telling.) He receives a phone call. It's Anna. She, interestingly enough, wants to meet him. He goes to see her, and finds her sitting in a chair, regarding him with haunted eyes. From then on, they embark in an affair that is supposed to be torrid but comes off as increasingly disturbing -- indeed, the camera has them at one point making love while covering their eyes, as if they were practising some mechanic erotic session. It's art directed within an inch of its life, and that makes it more unsettling.

Anna, in the meantime, has let Stephen know that she will not leave his son, and that she is damaged: hence the title. Of course, a man of Stephen's stature would know better even when Anna's mother (Leslie Caron) drops by and hints that maybe it's best that he not pursue Anna. However, a man in lust can't be dissuaded that simply, but neither can a woman whose motives for pursuing a relationship with her fiancée's father seems to be out of the need to get caught at one point.

When it happens, it has the deadly silence of time standing still. Martyn effectively because a sacrificial lamb to the pair's illicit love affair, and this has more repercussions as it finally smashes the crystal ball the Fleming's household always was. Miranda Richardson, as Ingrid Fleming, explodes in a moment of rage so raw she practically bleeds out of the movie's frame. She makes you despise Stephen. It's a moment that truly elevates the movie from its soap origins and plunges it into a void where there is no escape.

DAMAGE has the luminous and haunting presence of Juliette Binoche in a role tailor made for her. With those deep, dark eyes, the alabaster skin, and that cold beauty, she conveys her character's dysfunction only in hints here and there, and is a precursor to what she would further in the character she played in TROIS COULEURS: BLEU. I can understand why a man like Stephem Fleming would have fallen so hard for her to a point where he is literally ill at the thought of not having her. Irons, too, is excellent as Stephen -- his chiseled features play well with his character's hunger for something else than routine.

Needs to be Digested

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 22 March 2017]

A member of Parliament (Jeremy Irons) falls passionately in love with his son's fiancée despite the dangers of discovery.

At the time of its release, the film achieved some acclaim. Miranda Richardson was nominated for an Academy Award and won a BAFTA in the category of Best Supporting Actress for her performance as the aggrieved wife of the film's main character. If anyone deserves to be singled out, it is Richardson.

This film on its surface is not that amazing. You want it to be, because it is Louis Malle. But this is what happens when you cast Jeremy Irons. He is very understated, and his performances are art that may need to be digested, sometimes in multiple viewings. This is most evident in his work with Cronenberg, but very much here, too.

A Louise Malle masterpiece of unbridled passion!

[yossarian100 · 10/10 · 18 February 2004]

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.

Fairly effective

[SB100 · 7/10 · 11 May 2020]

This film is about the damage inflicted upon an apparently happy family when a damaged individual comes into its orbit and seemingly without effort causes devastation by the attraction which a damaged individual can exert. I think that the speed with which this happens at the start of the film is a little overdone, but for most of the film the interactions between the characters are convincing, in particular the total inability of Iron's character to save himself. The acting is good, generally.

I didn't care for the ending where he withdraws from the world and apparently lives in one room in an old house in a small French town. But perhaps that was to try and show just how deep the damage goes in his psyche.

One minor complaint; the scenes set in the minister's office and the interaction between him and his staff are not particularly realistic. But that perhaps doesn't matter much.

great movie...?

[frauna · 5/10 · 19 May 2009]

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.

Real Life

[speedo58 · 10/10 · 11 November 2005]

I found "Damage" to be very authentic in its depictions. At the outset, the family seems perfectly normal, insular, self-absorbed, bored by lack of challenge and predictable patterns of action whether socially or sexually. The father is at that dangerous point in middle age, where so many men become disaffected with careers, marriages, children, past interests: The mother,whose true love in life in her son, which while not having reached the point of physical incest, is as obsessive as the father's later actions; the son, who grieves for a closer relationship with his father who knows he is second best in his wife's eyes; the daughter who is probably the sharpest one of all; the daughter's boyfriend with his headphones...all show the detachment so often seen in family relationships.

When the son introduces his sophisticated, unscrupulous girlfriend into the mix it is an impending train wreck . She is a serial man killer, probably once in actuality, we are given to believe, in the death of her brother, and figuratively many times, as warned by her mother to the father-in-law-to-be. She is the pursuer and Fleming is the pursued. She is emotionally cold but sexually insatiable. This is frequently the outcome of sexual abuse at the hands of a sibling.

The mood, scenery, and music were all well-orchestrated and the actors were all excellent. The wife's anguish is an outstanding performance.

Jeremy Iron's wonderful wreck of a face can convey dissolution better any other actor.

Malle tackles another story about forbidden relationships

[rosscinema · 7/10 · 4 April 2005]

One of the criticisms aimed at this film by many viewers was that the two main characters lacked passion and that their sexual liaison's failed to be convincing but I was one of those that felt the desperation exuding from them after their initial meeting. Story is about Stephen Fleming (Jeremy Irons) who's a member of British Parliament and seems to have the perfect life but he meets the girlfriend of his son Martyn (Rupert Graves) and starts a torrid affair with her.

*****SPOILER ALERT***** Anna Barton (Juliette Binoche) is considered damaged goods even by her own account but she and Stephen get together as much as possible for some rough sexual encounters. They continue their affair even though Martyn announces his engagement and Anna's mother Elizabeth (Leslie Caron) quickly figures out what's going on between them and advises Stephen to break it off now. While Stephen's wife Ingrid (Miranda Richardson) has no idea what her husband is up to it takes the accidental death of Martyn who walks in on them for everyone to understand what has been going on.

This is directed by the great Louis Malle who in other films such as "Pretty Baby" and "Murmur of the Heart" has tackled the subject of forbidden relationships and he seems to be greatly interested in the behavior of the characters in each of these efforts. One of the key points to whether this story works is the believability of the sexual attraction that Irons and Binoche are supposed to have for one another and many have stated on that part just not working for them. I, for one, thought it did work (for the most part) and while Binoche doesn't really have one strong scene that stands out it's her background story about the death of her brother that makes her interesting enough that Irons puts his whole life on the line to be with her. This is regarded as sexually explicit but I have to admit that I found it somewhat tame in regards to the amount of nudity (I guess my standards are completely different than others) and the film is more about possession and gratifying a psychological need than actually wanting sex from one another. This isn't a completely satisfying film (especially the ending) but it's one that dares it's audience to view it and accept it on it's morally indifferent grounds.

It's not easy to make sex this boring!

[astorian · 1/10 · 16 July 2000]

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.

Very Good Human Drama

[dwatts-1 · 4 July 2004]

I don't know. I have read some of the reviews here and some literate folk seem to me to want to wax lyrical about vapor. Meaning, sometimes people get a kick out of writing silly things.

If this is the worse movie anyone has seen, then they've not seen many movies. I'm not saying it is for everyone, it's a long key affair, where everything is below the surface (which is actually referenced in the film over a dinner table scene) until finally it breaks free with horrendous results.

Four great performances, Irons is brilliant as a man with great self-control who finds himself for the first time ever, obsessed. Richardson who nearly steals the entire film with a single scene near the end - writing years of personal grief across her face in bruises. Binoche who knows where safe harbor lies (with Peter) who cannot avoid destroying peoples lives. Graves as the ineffectual son, who knows he's in love with a woman in pain, but does not yet know how it will manifest itself.

It's a good film. Beware of anyone who goes to extremes to say otherwise. It's not an easy film to ridicule. (ps. I watched the R2 DVD, it's an awful presentation - AVOID).

Great performances!

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 7/10 · 10 October 2008]

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

Quelle Damage.

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 1 June 2008]

In this erotic melodrama, Jeremy Irons is tall, elegant, imperially slim, impeccably groomed and coiffed, the very model of a modern major minister. He's a distinctive looking fellow with his big, sunken eyes and thin, almost cyanotic lips. He's a member of parliament here, about to be offered a cabinet position. He's a husband and a father and lives in a more-than-comfortable home where his wife's family has been for more than two hundred years. But he's a fool nonetheless.

One day, his son, Martyn (Rupert Graves), brings home a girl friend (Juliette Binoche) whom he plans to marry. Irons and his wife (Miranda Richardson)greet her politely, but Irons and Binoche seem unable to break off their interlocked gazes. Returning home, Irons finds Binoche waiting for him. She sits on the edge of the bed, then wordlessly slides to the floor, where they make rough love like two aardvarks in heat. Thereafter, despite the marriage plans of Binoche and Graves, she and Irons meet often and make love all over the place. I mean, on the floor, on staircases, in bathrooms, in empty city doorways, on a sea of broken marmalade jars. (Well, no, I made that last one up.) Irons knows he's endangering everything he holds dear. She may be forbidden fruit, but she's very willing to drop. They can't seem to break it off.

There is a visit by Binoche's mother, Leslie Caron, who -- being French and female -- can tell simply from the glances during dinner between Irons and Binoche, or rather their complete absence, what's going on. She warns Irons to knock it off, and he agrees, but, as he already knows, he can't.

Tragedy ensues. While Irons and Binoche are going after it in their usual gymnastic way in a bare hotel room, Graves enters by accident and, stunned, backs away and tumbles over the balcony railing to his death several floors below. Irons loses everything -- his son, his wife, his lover, his job. He winds up in a foreign land, gray haired, supposedly poor but living in an apartment that looks more comfortable, if not as exotic, as the hovel I inhabit.

This was directed by Louis Malle, who has done some splendid work, all of it sensitive to relatively minor interactional exchanges -- glances, silences, the reply that does not quite answer the question. The family is seated at their usually elaborate dinner and someone remarks to Graves that his life has been nearly perfect. He pauses and says with a smile that he wishes he were a little more passionate about things. His mother comments, "You must have gotten that lack of passion from me." "No," he says, "I think it was from Dad." The kid has no idea what passion his old man is capable of. Yes, dear old Dad is a human tea kettle with its lid flopping up and down and nobody but Juliette Binoche has the slightest clue.

It's flawlessly shot, directed, and acted, but the script is a bit hackneyed. And although it keeps our interest and is realistically based on the kinds of conflicts we all experience, the story is rather slender. Two people getting after it, who shouldn't. Sometimes you must deny the impulses your glands put you up to. What we wind up with is "Romeo and Juliette." The film can't be easily dismissed -- a tragedy whose end everyone can see coming except the two protagonists.

Emotionally captivating with brilliant performances by Irons, Binoche and Richardson

[DennisLittrell · 10/10 · 17 June 2008]

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon.)

BEWARE SPOILERS

I don't know whether I've ever watched a film in which I identified more with all the characters than I did in this emotionally wrenching masterwork from the late, great Louis Malle. It is part of the genius of Malle to make every character real and to see and present the depth of even those slightly off stage.

I could begin with the youngest, the daughter Sally (Gemma Clarke) who says little and is always at a slight distance, her serious face in the backseat of the car seemingly thinking dark thoughts, her face down the hallway at night, seemingly knowing that her father has committed adultery with her brother's fiancée—yet not knowing. Louis Malle wanted a certain expression on her face; he wanted the primeval depth of her character as a being that knows more than it knows to be etched upon the screen. And this is because what she knows and doesn't know is what we all know and don't tell ourselves, namely that there is a part of our nature that is not under our control, a part of our nature that can cause not just damage, but disaster. And we are helpless to even see it coming let alone stop it.

In the wife, played with precision and finesse by Miranda Richardson, we see a complex and open person who expresses herself with subtle incisiveness in little gestures and poignant pauses, but then when it all comes crashing down, she speaks with the passion of cold steel cutting into flesh.

Juliette Binoche's enigmatic Anna pulled me in the way she easily vacuumed in Jeremy Irons' high toned minister, Stephen Fleming. She was a low pressure area of enormous force that sucked Stephen to her like some bit of fluff and made him demand incredulously "Who are you?" while realizing that until now he never knew himself and what he could feel. For those who are more familiar with the Juliette Binoche of, say, The English Patient (1996) or Cache (2005), the pure sexual power that she can radiate on the screen may surprise you. Here her power is in what seems like pure surrender. But it is Stephen Fleming who is surrendering.

Anna's mother, played with a nuanced directness by Leslie Caron, is one of those women who say whatever is on her mind regardless of the circumstances, often to the great embarrassment of everyone present. Yet at the end we see in her an instinctive wisdom that in retrospect makes it right that she should speak so candidly and without guile. If only Stephen had listened to her! If only he had understood that what she said was to be taken literally and as a grave warning. Of course in such matters, warnings are of no avail.

Louis Malle remarked in the interview that is on the DVD that Jeremy Irons felt that his character had to be played in some sense "as himself." He would be not only naked to the audience in a physical sense (he was; beware prudes) but also as an emotional human being. He needed to project the fall from all that is proper and circumspect to become someone who would grovel before a passion he did not know existed within himself. He had to go from high dignity to abject humility. Anna was the siren's call and he her chosen sailor. He could not resist even though his passion for her would destroy everything he had, his career, his wife and family, his reputation, his personal homeostasis. He would think that, yes, I must leave my wife and go with Anna, and she would have to tell him that you can't do that, your son would hate you.

And then there is Anna's passion, not just in the physical, but in the deeply emotion sense of the irrational when she says "Do you think I would consent to marry Martyn if I could not have you?" As we see it is only the wife who knows and expresses, after it is all over, the obvious truth: "Did you think you could go on like this every day into the future?" Well, when you think about it, of course not. Yet neither Anna nor Stephen, both blinded by the wild passion they felt for each other, knew the terrible state of danger they were creating. Anna's sin is that of arrogance to think she could satisfy both the father and the son and could manipulate them like toys on a string and nobody would be the wiser. And Stephen's failing is really that of a child-like surrender to this flood of emotion and passion that Anna evoked in him. He, even more than she, is irrational and blind.

Did she love him? Did he love her? And what is love? it might be asked.

Seldom have I felt so much emotion while watching a film. I have seen most of Malle's work, and he is always personal and deeply involved with his characters; but I think here he has created, if not a masterpiece, at least a most compelling story of what it is to be human and to fall from grace. I think it is only right that it took a combination of human error (the key left in the lock by Stephen) and the callous hand of fate that sends Martyn over the railing to bring about his modern tragedy. And, as in all great works of tragic art, the seeds of destruction are there in the psyches of the characters like the heel of Achilles.

Here's a quote from Anna that foreshadows the ending: "Damaged people are dangerous because they know they can survive."

Richardson raises the stakes

[r_j_t_kelly · 7/10 · 18 August 2006]

The Josephine Hart novel on which this movie is based is the literary equivalent of fast food, whatever its pretensions - and the same is (perhaps unsurprisingly) true of Malle's film. There are some crack actors in this, but the biggest disappointment is that Irons isn't at his best (in fact, he is at times cringe-inducingly awful) in this story of sexual obsession. Binoche is great (although her on-set feud with Irons, who tried to direct her performance, is apparent in their lack of chemistry), but she's not called upon to do very much, and Rupert Graves is also good as Irons' son. It is Miranda Richardson - particularly in her final showdown with the husband who has both betrayed her and (she believes) killed her son - who takes the acting honours: absolutely visceral, immediate and able to access huge depths of grief, she shows up Irons' tricks for what they are. It's an accomplished TV movie with an A-List cast, but not all of them are at the top of their game in this instance: nevertheless, it's certainly worth catching.

Damage will leave you damaged.

[imbluzclooby · 9/10 · 19 January 2019]

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.

Irons falls for a woman who is not his wife..

[goya-4 · 6/10 · 1 April 2001]

Jeremy Irons stars as a member of parliament who begins a torrid affair with his son's fiance in this controversial film. Noted for its steamy sex scenes, it explores the relationship between Irons and Juliet Binoche and also its destructive aftermath. While the story draws you in, it lacks a certain conviction in it, so while it is an interesting story, you don't really care about the characters. On a scale of one to ten.. 6

Dreary

[kenjha · 1/10 · 26 December 2012]

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.

Much more then you may bargain for.

[triple8 · 8/10 · 9 February 2004]

I have read some of the reviews on Damage and hope that for someone who hasn't seen it they don't go in expecting some silly little erotic love triangle because this is a lot more then that and, though the story is very well done, it is very difficult to get through. It's NOT light viewing.

Damage is a searing and intense look at the dark side of human nature. (You may want to read the book before you see the film). This so much more then a LOVE TRIANGLE! It examines issues of morality and doing the "right thing" versus giving in to what is basically "forbidden fruit". This story is completely different then "American Beauty" but the tragic tone is set and people who like American Beauty may like this. Josephine Hart has another book called "Sin" that's even better then Damage that I would also recommend although it also has that darkly tragic tone from the beginning. That one also involves family members, in that case the two main characters are sisters. (I do not think "Sin" has been made into a movie though I could be wrong.) In any case-Hart is a master story teller and this is a tragic multi character study but hardly light viewing! Know what your getting into before you get into it and if you haven't, read the book as well. Amazing!

This movie is so freakin hilarious

[victoriaburson · 7/10 · 9 October 2008]

I know it's supposed to be deep and intense and it is... but it goes so over the top it's just hilarious.

****WARNING::: SPOILER FEST ****** the son falling over the railing? The mom: "I've been beating myself"... And of course all of Jeremy Irons' horrible expressions, especially the one where he presses the key to his lips and looks like a little kid with a lollipop. Oh and him hobbling all naked and Gollum-like to his horrified son. Oh and Juliette Binoche's horrible stories about being covered in her brother's blood and going to have sex with that guy. What? How can you not laugh at all these super messed up people? It's as funny as 7th Heaven or all of Rupert Graves' movies (Forsyte Saga, Intimate Relations, Dreaming of Joseph Lees) Oh it's just so painful I had to watch it in 15 minute increments over a whole week. But it was so worth it.

Last Lambada in London

[zetes · 5/10 · 12 July 2001]

This is a huge misfire by a great director. In fact, I have seen many, many Malle films and have given four of them 10s, two 9s, and an 8. That's a great average now brought down considerably by the 5 I'm giving this film.

And, truth be told, it isn't a bad film. It's just uneventful. A movie about a man who falls in love with his son's fiancee just isn't all that shocking, at least in the movies. It might have worked if the characters were better developed. Anna (Juliette Binoche) is given a compelling background story, but it is not well used by the script, the direction, or the actress. And it pains me to say so, because I am in LOVE with Juliette Binoche. Stephen, the main character, played by Jeremy Irons, is even less well off. We learn nothing at all about him. His lust comes about almost immediate (which isn't hard to understand: we're talking about BINOCHE here), but we are not given any real reason to believe that he would so quickly betray his son and his wife. Martyn (Rupert Graves) is the cuckolded son. He has a nice speech about the disappointments he had as a rich child, but that isn't enough to give his character any weight. Slightly better off is Miranda Richardson as Ingrid, Stephen's bored wife. She plays her upper class fears well as she has to deal with the newcomer Anna, who seems suspicious to her. She also has a good scene at the end when she confronts her husband. The one character whom I did find interesting is Sally, the teenage daughter. Through the film, she silently develops and loses a relationship with a boy. It is almost a parody of the seriousness of the two older men's relationship with Anna. We see Sally and her new boyfriend several times together, but he always has headphones on and they never talk to each other (the adults never seem to talk to their lovers, either).

Surely, if some more tension had been injected into the mix, or just anything else to get the audience to think about something, it could have been good. As it is, it's a dud. Instead, see some of its precursors: especially Last Tango in Paris, which is the kind of movie that can draw you in. I'd even suggest these two exploitation flicks as alternatives: In the Realm of the Senses (Japanese: Ai no corrida) and The Night Porter (which I think is either a French or Italian film, but I happened to have seen it dubbed into English). Those films have the ability to entertain you a little, unlike Damage.