I rented this because I think Stephen Poliakoff is one of Britain's best story tellers. Clive Owen and Alan Rickman are good actors for which Rickman gets acclaim and Owen doesn't. Considering that the talent here was massive, this film is crap.Those who enjoyed it might like to think of the rest of us as prudes. I've appreciated films which I found distressingly unpleasant (i.e. Dans ma peau/In My Skin). Yet I don't find incest distressing. It's something with which I've no personal or second-hand experience. I'm not convinced that it's inherently harmful, when consensual, so I'm not going to judge it.The truth is that Poliakoff fell flat on his bum with this one. Some of the dialogue is worse than I'd expect from a second-rate Lifetime movie. I didn't understand (or feel as though I gained an understanding of) any of the characters or their motivations. Owen and Rickman gave good performances. Reeves was uneven, perhaps due to her having the most idiotic lines of the film, a la Harlequin. The direction and editing weren't very good either. I wonder if Mr Poliakoff was working with severe time limitations and was actually more concerned about the (now complete) development of the docklands (into something that resembles suburban American concentrations of office buildings with, arguably, no character, like Southfield and Troy here in SE Michigan) than telling a story about such uninteresting people.Unless you're wanting to spend money to see every last inch of Clive Owen, surely available somewhere on the internet, there isn't anything here that isn't done much better elsewhere.

This involves two people Richard and Natalie embarking on an illicit affair . Bad enough that Natalie has just got married but the relationship goes beyond adultery since Richard is Natalie's brother . Yup you read that right . If you thought the incest plot from BROOKSIDE was bad you ain't seen nothing yet Stephen Poliakoff judging by his previous work isn't a bad writer but he's written a very poor script here . It's been pointed out that there's no motive / explanation as to why Richard and Natalie have embarked on their incestuous relationship which is a mistake by the writer and is there a poorer subject for an audience than incest ? Alan Rickman is an actor who I can take or leave , he's certainly best cast as cartoonish villains and as Sinclair the husband of Natalie he seems unable to do anything with the role . I also had a serious problem understanding how anyone could fall in love with Sinclair , he's one of those bores you find at every golf club propping up the bar as he tells everyone what a success he's made of his life , but even so I doubt if that would have been enough to drive Natalie into the arms of her loving brother - YUCK . If anyone gives an outstanding performance then it's Clive Owen as Richard , you almost feel sorry for him as he realises the relationship is over but seeing as the relationship is with a blood relative you may as well feel sorry for Adolph Hitler in that case

I expect this movie was made simply to shock or something, and perhaps it did in 1991 but now it's simply an interminable yawner. A primal no-no of screen writing is the over-use of time jumps, you know, when there is 1 minute of action then a flash on the screen telling is "two years later" etc. Too often this trick is used in this movie to cover awkwardness in the basic story and to cover gashes in the fabric of the script. This flick starts with several such devices. Time jumps can work if the script is top-drawer, which this one is not. It's basically a simple story of a cuckolded, self-absorbed imbecile and his neurotic, self-absorbed wife who is having it off with her rudderless, self-absorbed brother.All I can conclude after drifting through this mess is that it is a story of arrested development in a trio of unbelievably childish adults leading fantasy lives in chic settings.Worthwhile only for the photography and beautiful settings, houses, flats and parks along the Thames, not to mention the very attractive bodies of Saskia Reeves and Clive Owen, talented actors who are completely wasted as the two maddeningly inane and vapid leads. Alan Rickman can do little more than look befuddled and helpless as the wronged husband.It's all rather sick, but not because of the incest issue, which isn't really very shocking due to the ineptness of the script, but more so because of the abominable selfishness and stupidity of the characters. The motivation for the characters' behavior is highly confusing, besides, who cares anyway.Rubbish.

This film is an expanded and improved rewrite of Poliakoff's early play Hitting Town. I have always found Poliakoff's plays filmic; this reworking on film is more interesting than the play, although the starkness of the incest in Hitting Town was probably more shocking, and the 1970's UK audience was probably more susceptible to shock.Three great performances in this film - Saskia Reeves, Clive Owens and Alan Rickman. Poliakoff has a great knack of mixing the profound, the profane and the mundane. One telling scene in Richard's flat has Richard and Natalie agonising over their tryst, then making love, while in the background a rain-affected test match (cricket) fails to happen and then starts to happen again. Unforgettable symbolism - Bergman would have used it if only the Swedes played cricket.This film is well worth seeing.