I don't see why this movie was nominated for an Oscar because I felt Binoche or Richardson ever suited the roles they play. Bionche looked more of the wife part than the lover part and Richardson didn't really act well as the wife at all. She might as well have been a supporting character or not bother being involved in this film at all. She just doesn't suit the lead part in my opinion. Jermery Irons was the only one to watch in this movie but, I think its better if other actors were good as well. Its a pity that it didn't make me feel entertained or curious. I've watched better romantic movies than this and I'm afraid it wasn't the right film for me to watch......

I watched this movie several times and gradually developing obsession on its own. It probably sounded more terrified than it should. However, I would say I was obsessive to figure out how the obsession started.There are carnal desires embedded in our instincts which somehow hard to detect not even be recognized with. How we are drawn into someone without even knowing the person it's beyond our comprehension. This movie is a good presentation for that. Obsession cannot be categorized as love. Love is reciprocal. Obsession is forceful without mutual interaction which may cause harms even cost the ultimate price. I think the origin of obsession might come from past traumatic experiences which is so well explained in the movie. There are several movies well laying out the obsession but not the reasons. This one is different. It showed how it started and developed which I was not aware in the beginning until later. I am not a big fan of dark subjects. This one has more substances than others.There is only one thing I felt short of is it did not explain Stephen's process of desiring an affair. As a prominent figure, his struggles seemed not well explained beyond he just ditching out here and there. I felt it should be more than that. It's a good movie just not everybody's cup of tea.

One of the most unpleasantly realistic but also brilliant films ever made, and the most poisoned spike is the possibility of equal damage being visited on families from every background, exactly as happened to the affluent Flemings.Their position can't help them, indeed it helps destroy them; arguably the feckless and damaged are attracted towards their bright lights, and Stephen Fleming's government rising star's lifestyle must surely make him believe, like many successful men, that anything is possible.Including indeed, pairing off with their son's girlfriend. It comes to no good and if you think the film is bad, try Josephine Hart's book!! The acting by all the main players is outstanding, but special special mention for Juliette Binoche, who sets the bar for butter-would-never-melt prospective friends/lovers/bringers-of-havoc. Nice understated use also of central London's mews terraces and stucco frontages as a rich man's playground, and painfully well-observed marks of true all-enveloping obsession in love.A treat. Horrific in subject matter, but an amazing piece of work.

Some movies are like a train wreck. Others are like waves on a beach: pretty, predictable, and about just as boring. And then there are some those that leave you wondering what you would've done in that situation. Damage is one such. A powerful British politician has an affair with his son's fiancée, culminating in the son's accidental death (after catching the two in the act, no less). The cold, selfish manner in which the minister and the son's fiancée indulge each others' sexual desires with no thought whatsoever to the lives of the family they destroy is at once compelling and disgusting. It doesn't hurt that casting director Patsy Pollock picked just about the best possible actors for this project. Louis Malle directs, and everything else—the music, the cinematography, the sets—helped create a brilliant piece of art. Now this is what a romance should be like—powerful enough to destroy empty if socially successful lives… not the kind of insipid mush Hollywood loves to churn out season after season.