In 'Betrayal' the narrative is presented backwards, a gimmick employed later by Christopher Nolan in his breakthrough film Memento (2001). Here, we have the breakup of a relationship presented at the beginning and we come to learn later (unfortunately much later) what it was that got the couple together in the first place. (Please don't ask me what that was, because I've already forgotten.) To me, this bizarre form of narration is as pointless as it is exasperating. As 'Betrayal' unfolded, I felt bereft of any kind of causational narrative to cling to. The question being: why should the audience be making notes when it's only a movie and not a university lecture in semantics. The plot becomes so incomprehensible, that the point of the film is totally lost and the entire exercise becomes a pointless waste of time. I sit there in my living room and wonder: will an Edward Van Sloan character stroll on-stage as the proscenium arch is revealed and ask me questions about what I've just seen? And, worse still, expect me to have the answers? I think this is a relevant objection on behalf of the audience who are within their rights to question the methodology which 'Betrayal' employs to tell its so-called 'story': to me there is no story. Instead the film is a collection of fragments cobbled together. It just pretends to be a story, and this does not bode well as the correct method on which to present an entire movie.Written by Harold Pinter, 'Betrayal' stars Patricia Hodges as the woman whom Jeremy Irons is having a secret affair with over a number of years. Naturally they are best friends with the spouse of the other, both who seem to be (at least initially), blissfully unaware of the situation. Hodges and Irons continue their affair secretly in a very sad and dingy-looking apartment. The conversation between them is terribly tedious as we get to hear about the children and the jobs and the cloth-eared spouses who are foolish enough to keep on living with this pair's adulterous behaviour instead of throwing them both out on the street where they belong. Both Hodges and Irons come across as too grasping and selfish for the audience to have any connection with and the entire enterprise has at its core a very dead heart. The only thing in this film that makes any sense is that over a period of time their relationship is finally, if not found out, then at least suspected. I disliked the pair of them so much, I was almost glad. Ben Kingsley has a featured role as Hodge's creepy husband who correctly suspects the worst about what is going on, but it is left to the audience's imagination as to what he is may, or may not, do about it.Personally I sat there in my living room, wondering why 'Betrayal' got made in the first place as it is scarcely entertaining and not nearly as deep as it would like us to think it is. Instead it's nasty, incoherent and an extreme example of movie making at its worst. When a group of ambitious artistes like David Jones and Harold Pinter attempt to make false claims about the medium being a form of high art and attempting to hijack it from the mass audience, this to me is a warning sign of redundant intentions and questionable outcomes. As you may be aware by this review, I was extremely disappointed by 'Betrayal' and the effort fell on deaf ears since I was disengaged, disturbed by its portrayal of men as hypocritical misogynists, (which they probably are, but I don't want to watch it) and turned off by its loopy narrative that honestly, drove me completely up the wall. Not recommended.

Emma (Patricia Hodges) is married with Robert (Ben Kingsley), who is the best friend of Jerry (Jeremy Irons), who is the lover of Emma. The originality of this romance is the way it is told to the viewer, backwards, from the present to the past. Although being theatrical, it is supported by an outstanding cast and is a good entertainment. Basically there is no soundtrack along this drama. My vote is seven.

This was a horrible movie. It seemed to have nothing but head shots of two people talking about their relationship, which I found incredibly boring. The bizarre moving backwards in time made it incomprehensible as well - Memento made moving backwards a key part of the movie, whereas here it seemed to be something purely aimed at giving the art house crowd something to talk about. I saw it in the theater, and was so bored and confused that I walked out (with my date) half an hour in.

I watched this movie because I heard that the screen-writer had used a unique structure--the story is told backwards in time. Every succeeding scene occurs chronologically before the previous one. I wanted to see if the screen-writer was just using a gimmick, or if the structure actually added to the telling of the story. I was overjoyed to find out it was the latter! The magic of this movie is that Pinter makes the time sequence seem natural. By the end of the movie, the viewer is convinced this is the only way the story could have been told effectively. I highly recommend this movie to all who love cinema.