Scenes of a Sexual Nature (2006)

Wow! Such a good movie.

Overrated and overhyped

Far from Perfect, Far from Terrible

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Maybe it's the same reason why I don't find Catherine Tate in the least bit funny that I found this movie (by a Catherine Tate writer) so utterly mundane. Seeing the ratings and reviews on here and indeed hearing people speak so highly of the Tate show, it's clear that I'm missing some vital cog in this machine.I mildly respect the 'equity minimum'/profit share approach and that the director re-mortgaged his house to make it happen but that's where my respect for this picture ends. It is spirit crushingly dull, trite, unimaginative, clichéd and in parts offensive.Every movie should contain a lesson and the lesson this film gave me was that life is way too short, fragile and precious to waste an hour and a half of it watching crap.

The British have done it again - successfully shown how talent, ensemble attitude, prudent production values, and esprit de corps can result in a first class thoughtful comedy of life. A first outing for writer Aschlin Ditta and director Ed Blum, this entertaining, intelligent and beautifully wrought film is a veritable showcase of some of Britain's finest actors.The concept is a simple one: one sunny afternoon on Hampstead Heath overlooking London the camera moves among seven couples acting out the sexual overtones of relationships. No, there is no graphic action here: it is absolutely unnecessary, so candid and intelligent is the script. The couples we meet are 1) Eileen Atkins and Benjamin Whitrow, two alone, aging characters whose proclivity for weekly visits to the same bench result in a courtship dance of sorts; 2) Andrew Lincoln and Holly Aird discussing their rather dry state of marriage as Andrew's eyes understandably caress the beautiful Eglantine Rembauville-Nicolle reading Camus nearby, causing a crack in the couple's marriage; 3) Sophie Okenedo distraught at a breakup is consoled then seduced by flippant Tom Hardy; 4) Adrian Lester and Catherine Tate are in the final paper stages of divorce, trying to overcome their feelings for their frolicking little daughter; 5) Ewan McGregor and Douglas Hodge are a gay couple contemplating adoption despite McGregor's character's wandering eye; 6) Hugh Bonneville and Catherine Tate banter the fragility of a first date over lunch and wine and distrust; and Polly Walker 'sells' her time and attentions to willing buyer Mark Strong.The phrase on the cover of the very well made DVD states it well: 'Sex and love. Some seek it, some need it, some spurn it and some pay for it, but we're all involved in it'. In addition to the pleasure of watching these superb actors ply their trade in these small vignettes the cinematography, editing, and musical score underline the spontaneous feeling of Ditta and Blum's concept. It is a pure joy to watch - even the informative dialog in the added features that accompany this delightful DVD. Grady Harp

the acting is good.thats the positives out of the way! SOSN is shallow and superficial.Almost all the characters are middle class and English.The gay men are depicted as fickle sexual predators aiming to use children in their empty lives.This film could only appeal to people who know hampstead heath and would get minor satisfaction from pointing out any landmarks.There is no time to engage with the characters and has a result you really don,t care about them,Catherine Tate at the height of her comedic fame stars as a woman seeking a divorce from her husband and on screen for about the same time as her Nana sketches failed to convince,however if she had said "what a f****** liberty" i would have agreed I'd rather take a walk in the Park;unintelligent rubbish!

There is nothing mean spirited or evil about this movie. It's just terribly dull. Dull is the photography--- the film stock appears old and faded and washed-out. Maybe it was even 16mm blown up to 35mm, dunno. Dull is the script, which is tedious and 'Jules Pfeiffer'-ish. That is, kind of 1960s bossa-nova cocktail party cool. Like our beatnik grandparents might have spoken if they were trying to appear really straight. The 'slice-of-life' characters were mostly annoying. True, they were real to life, but hey, if I wanted to see truly ordinary people doing really mundane and ordinary things, I'd just watch myself. I wouldn't trapse all the way down to a cinema and blow five quid, and an evening, watching someone else do it.I expected a funny, bright rom-com. What I got was more like what two intelligent and moderately talented 19 or 20 year-olds might have produced on their first day with a new video camera.I gave this a 4 out 10, because it appears that someone tried, at least.