Scenes of a Sexual Nature (2006) User Reviews

Could have been great

[itamarscomix · 6/10 · 23 July 2012]

Scenes of a Sexual Nature has the makings of a lovely British drama - a more subtle and less schmaltzy version of Love Actually, maybe. Indeed, it has a cast as strong as that of Love Actually - even if less filled with stars - and a wittier, more intelligent script. The terrific writing and wonderful chemistry between the actors (who include Ewan McGregor alongside slightly-lesser-known character actors like Mark Strong, Tom Hardy, Catherine Tate, Eileen Atkins, Andrew Lincoln, Gina McKee and Benjamin Whitrow) make almost every scene a pleasure; whatever the movie has, works.

Unfortunately, it just has too little. There's some hint of a connection between the various stories once or twice, but it feels forced, and there's no real thematic connection either; and because stylistically it's completely plain and simple, there's no stylistic connection either (the kind that works well in Jim Jarmusch films). Which makes the whole movie little more than a series of short skits, most of which don't have any satisfying ending or real message or theme, leaving the viewer unsatisfied and a little bit hollow. There's just no real movie here. It's a decent watch and has some good scenes, but in the end it's more frustrating than it is enjoyable.

Sometimes perhaps one scene too many, Scenes of a Sexual Nature will entertain and engage the majority of those that see it.

[johnnyboyz · 6/10 · 5 December 2007]

Scenes of a Sexual Nature; a film that breaks away from your more typical story telling processes and yet remains a film that you oddly feel as if you've already seen. True, the idea that you place a load of different characters of different age, ethnic background, gender and sexuality in one massive boiling pot of conversation and intrigue certainly sounds like an interesting one and yet the whole experience left me feeling a little short-changed. Here is a film that doesn't rely on heroes and villains; that doesn't rely on any gimmicks or special effects but then again doesn't rely on anything new or spectacular. The camera remains static for most of the film; the location of Hampstead Heath which a large open park isn't utilised or made to look glamorous suggesting this could've taken place in a town, city or even on public transport and the film suffers from its amount of characters.

Credit where credit is due to filmmakers Ed Blum and writer Aschlin Ditta for attempting to make this film. We hear about major Hollywood projects going through 'development hell' due to one thing or another and yet Blum and Ditta have knuckled under and raised the money and time needed to shoot this quirky little independent film that has a touch of the 'guerrilla' about it. Scenes of a Sexual Nature is a film that covers a lot of ground in the sense it deals with issues such as: marriage; love; homosexuality; break-ups; divorce and even gay adoption with plenty of characters varying between young couples; elder would-be couples and single people of the young and middle aged variety so there is certainly something for everyone to map onto depending on any audience members current situation when dealing with the issue of love, something the film hints at when it says: ".....but we're all involved in it." at the very end of its tagline.

The main problem I had with Scenes of a Sexual Nature was not its pacing or its script or its situations but its number of characters and its overall tone. The film starts off in a very innocent if somewhat comic fashion what with a male and his partner having a picnic before she catches him staring at another girl's underwear that has accidentally become visible. What follows is an embarrassing situation where he is exploited and the couple storm off home. Compare this to the next scene in which a very tearful and edgy girl breaks up with her partner; the film changes tone very quickly and we are to feel sorry for the girl but wait; comic relief is just around the corner as Noel (Hardy) (park local anti-sociable) tries to cheer her up. This scene feels like is was supposed to be played out for laughs but it felt very disturbing in the sense Noel (like most people he is trying to portray) is really just after easy sex so there is a disturbing undercurrent to the whole scene. This is the point: the film cuts from the funny to the tragic to the heart-warming to the mere straightforward displacing a consistent feeling or a consistent mood.

The characters also play a large role in the film but often for the worse. The couple I mentioned at the very beginning are, unfortunately, never seen again which is a shame because their situation and overall short narrative was interesting, unpredictable and amusing. The elderly couple have an interesting and thought provoking meeting and their scenes work well but everyone else's are flat and un-involving since there is just nothing there in terms of depth: hearing two people talk about certain ways they'd hate to die or what have you were typical and routine that did nothing for me. This is linked to the other flaw I had with the characters: what they say. Often (especially evident in the 'first date' scene) the character will be on hand to say just the right thing at just the right time with other times, characters almost deliberately saying dumb things just to spark a reaction – the racism debate the first daters have is an example when she assumes the shop clerk would be 'Asian'. I'm all for characters in films to have clever and smart conversations breaking away from the films main goal but only when its established exactly who they are and how clever they actually are – getting two people to sit down and say exactly what's required when it's required isn't particularly convincing; the answer is cut the number of other characters.

I mentioned the film as a 'guerrilla' piece of film-making since it uses actors who are relatively unknown with some quite possibly possessing little or no acting experience. This suggests a neo-realistic approach and the low budget supports that theory but I was a little aware of the way the film would have the homosexuals cordoned off in a separate area of the park: away from everyone else as they inhabit they're own private 'ghetto' near the lake – is there a reason they're not allowed to be in the main park? Also, the representation of the French girl in the opening scene as she allows the male one more glimpse of her underwear was a little out of place. However, with debates about gay adoption which actually takes up an entire scene in this film as well as issues of divorce and break up worming their way into the 'narrative', Scenes of a Sexual Nature will come across as smarter than normal to some viewers – not to be mistaken as pornography given its title, Scenes of a Sexual Nature is often engaging and entertaining with whatever flaws it has easily erasable.

I was waiting for something to happen, or a moral or something... never came

[Filip_Pruncu · 5/10 · 1 September 2022]

For an hour and a half I watched some very innocent couples, doing what couples do and... that's about it. Doesn't lead anywhere, there are no real funny moments, just plain British humor that reminds me of my grandmother's humor.

Indeed, a sunny day, people in love, all are different: Some are old, some are young, some are black, some are white, some are gay, some are straight, some are rich, some are poor, some are elevated and some are dumb.

All the dialogue is dull, the action slow, there's no moral of the movie, no event that gathers everything that happened in all that time.

I honestly don't know what I've seen. I'm blank.

Significantly less than the sum of its parts

[bob the moo · 1 December 2007]

A sunny afternoon on Hamstead Heath in London sees couples everywhere. Some of them are breaking up with arguments others are breaking up with affection. Some see ogling others as a betrayal, others see it as part of life. Strangers are thrown together in a temporary moment while others come together for the first time in many years. Love and sex play a part in all of it as the sun warms the day in the background.

It was the ensemble nature of the film that drew my attention to it despite the fact that it got mixed reviews. I didn't get round to it in the cinemas but when it came on television recently I managed to check it out. The mixed reviews I mentioned are perhaps understandable because the film itself is the same way in terms of content, quality and success. The "plot" doesn't really flow together because the only tangible connection between the couples is the location however as a device it has potential. The lack of a traditional narrative means that the film really relies heavily on the creation of characters and snapshots to paint a bigger picture of relationships and interactions that will come together thematically in the way that the specific characters do not. Here and there it does sort of do it but too often the scenes are just distracting as stand alone scenes, which is all well and good to some degree but it doesn't work as it needs to.

I could forgive many of the specific scenes lacking meaning but, unlike some reviews, I do see the absence of a wider truth to be a bit of an issue and without this the individual scenes have a lot more weight put on them. Sadly few if any of them can really stand up to the pressure and mostly the film just comes across as fragmented and disjointed with the strongest scenes being amusing or mildly engaging while at worst they are so-so but just seem pointless and far too underdeveloped. It is a shame because the cast is impressive and they have the talent to do as much as the material could have asked of them and it is a shame that the material asks little of the majority. McGregor, Okonedo, Tate, Lester, Strong, McKee and Bonneville are the main people you will recognise but the rest of the cast are just as good (or rather, just as OK) although it is Rembauville-Nicolle that sticks in the mind for obvious reasons – which is depressing when you think of the acting talent involved. It isn't their fault and I can understand why so many of them worked on the film for little money but the idea doesn't come through and mostly they are left to try and carry scenes with their performances but little else.

Overall then this is a distracting film that offers intermittent pleasures and interest but mostly fails to offer much in the way of honesty and cohesion. Despite the material the cast do try hard to make it more than it is but with little time on screen and seemingly nobody pulling everyone together in the editing suite I'm afraid it is significantly less than the sum of its many parts.

Scenes of an Uplifting Nature

[featherstone-758-470869 · 6/10 · 1 May 2011]

I'm going to start by being honest with you. This film leapt at me from the shelves due to its title, as it would to most adolescent males. However if you're reading this expecting this to be some kind of vulgar comedy porno, then don't worry because its not, its far from it.

The concept of this film is beautiful, focusing on seven different couples engaged in seven contrasting forms of relationships. The setting is Hampstead Heath park in North London, with the whole story being focused on one day in this location. The storyline is not complex, nor is it particularly special. Don't expect any gargantuan revelations, but rather wait for some pleasant twists to make you smile. What this film may lack in depth, it certainly makes up for in charm.

I think its important to remember that this film is more of a short, quirky study of relationships, to be taken seriously and not so seriously simultaneously. It contains a star- studded cast containing Ewan McGregor (Trainspotting), Andrew Lincoln (Love Actually) and Eilleen Atkins (Cranford) amongst others. The performances range in quality, although none of the cast members really get enough time to really develop their characters (which is what makes this film so interesting).

My main criticism of this film is that I think seven couples is arguably too many, with me thinking that only 5 of the couples are really significant to the plot. This would've given the film makers a few extra minutes per couple to develop their characters a little more. Overall however, this film impresses. It couldn't really score higher due its lack of depth, but its quirky charm and heart- warming glow is its redeeming factor.

74/100

Delightfully humorous quirky little film made in beautiful Hampstead Heath on a nice pleasant sunny day.

[jaybob · 7/10 · 12 September 2008]

My summary just about says it all.

Aschlin Ditta wrote a screenplay about various different people having conversation as they walk about or sit in this beautiful park in London UK.

Many large cities have parks like this, Imagine yourself an eavesdropper listening in on there talks. Like most all of us the talking is of a sexual nature, BUT it never gets perverse or goes beyond proper behaviour (aside from some kissing).

Ed Blum directed this large cast (most are stars of UK TV, stage & film),

The most well known name for US audiences is Ewen Macgregor,he of course is a delight, the entire cast is delightful.

There is no real plot or story, just nice people talking, some just met, some getting to know each other better, etc.

This is a good film to rent & enjoy, I doubt if it had a major theatrical run even in London.

There is no violence,no nudity, no sex. Just conversations, no conclusions. its just a good film.

Ratings *** (out of 4) 82 points (out of 100) IMDb 7 (out of 10)

Dull. More like a sketch from the middle of a TV show than a movie

[bopdog · 4/10 · 12 November 2006]

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.

Heathcliffhangers

[writers_reign · 7/10 · 4 November 2006]

Q. How do you confuse a Multiplex Moppet. A. Put Ewan McGregor on the marquee and then have him kiss Douglas Hodge. They're gonna love this in the UGCs but the rest of us can bask in a strangely old-fashioned portmanteau entry with no fancy angles - in fact hardly Any Angles at all to speak of; Long Shot, Medium Shot, Close Shot and ...er.. that's about it. Made for a stick of gum and looking like it was made for at least a pack it offers a sort of clear CCTV footage of an afternoon on Hampstead Heath in which seven couples muse on the nature of love and/or perhaps more accurately, relationships. Whilst it's unlikely that you'd encounter quite so many variants in a single afternoon you would almost certainly come across three or four including the obligatory gay duo, McGregor and Hodge, not so long after they co-starred on stage in Guys and Dolls and now, after a fifteen year relationship addressing the question of adopting a child. Elsewhere Eileen Atkins and Benjamin Whitrow stretch credulity by meeting again after half a century and marriage to other people, Sophie Okenado is dumped, Hugh Bonneville undergoes an uneasy blind date, Catherine Tate and Adrien Lester meet up in the wake of their divorce and so on. It's a gentle, nonthreatening afternoon, well acted, competently written and shot but it may not be enough though I hope it is.

Clichéd and disappointing

[alan-m-hughes · 3/10 · 16 May 2021]

I watched this after reading the reviews here and having noted the stellar cast list. This was a mistake. This is dull, plodding and devoid of humour. There are 2 dimensional caricatures who follow a dire script which creates utterly unbelievable dialogue. In essence this is middle-class London smuggly patting itself on the back. I'd avoid this unless you want to test your credulity that this was ever made.

Charming, but ultimately pointless

[spookdagook85 · 2/10 · 2 October 2021]

The film doesn't seem to follow any sort of plot and the conversations don't seem to lead anywhere before cutting to the next 'couple'. It's charming in parts, but just seems like a waste of a fantastic cast.

Uplifting!

[subzero_icequeen · 9/10 · 9 April 2007]

This is a beautifully made film, the style is original, simple, and very easy to watch. It's a short film about life and love set on Hampstead Heath, and is without a doubt one of the sweetest films made in a number of years. It has no complex plot, but is interesting and filled with many amusing anecdotes, and will make you laugh out loud at times. Filled with a very talented cast, and many familiar faces (Andrew Lincoln, and Hugh Bonneville being a few of my favourites) this movie is far from dull, and particularly easy to relate to. I have watched it numerous times, with numerous people, and have yet to find someone (male or female) who does not share my high opinion of this film. I highly recommend it to anyone.

Scenes of a Sexual Nature

[jboothmillard · 4/10 · 18 July 2021]

The title was memorable enough, and I did remember one of the big actors in the cast, I didn't remember it was an all-star cast film, and I had no idea what it was about, but I gave it a go. Basically, in north London, a number of couples are enjoying the sunshine and gathered looking for love and sex in various ways on Hampstead Heath. Husband, Jamie (Andrew Lincoln) and wife, Molly (Holly Aird) lie on the grass and talk about football and multiple orgasms. Molly notices Jamie staring at a pretty girl nearby, Sophie (Eglantine Rembauville). He pretends that he was looking at her book, L'Etranger by Albert Camus, and describes the plot, claiming it is a western about a man who eventually becomes sheriff. To embarrass Jamie and expose him as a liar, Molly approaches Sophie to question her about the book as well. Iris (Eileen Atkins) and Eddie (Benjamin Whitrow), an older couple, meet on a park bench, and talk about London's skyline and wonder who the bench sign is dedicated to. They discover that they both come to the same bench on different days of the week and that they are both widowed. In talking about their past, they also discover that, nearly fifty years before, they had met romantically at that spot and that is why they both kept coming back. They are bemused by the irony of meeting again and have mixed feelings. They talk about seeing each other again, but Iris also decides to visit her former husband's grave, now appreciating more their time together. Anna (Sophie Okonedo), a disturbed young woman with extreme mood swings, is crying and arguing with her boyfriend Ludo (Nick Sidi). After Ludo leaves him, she is then approached by a young man, Noel (Tom Hardy). She asks to be left alone, but he sits next to her and appears to meditate. His weird behaviour interests her, and they strike up a conversation, but she becomes annoyed with him making terrible compliments and trying to make her laugh. She suddenly orders him to have sex with her, but subsequently leaves him with his pants around his knees. Gay life-partners Billy (Ewan McGregor) and Brian (Douglas Hodge) are also lying on the grass, discussing other gay men and The Good Life. Billy has trouble giving up casual sex with other men, while Brian wants him to be faithful to him. Billy suddenly mentions his desire to have children by adoption, but Brian doesn't want them yet. Billy promises to give up casual sex when the two adopt children, which convinces Brian to think about it. However, moments later Billy runs off in pursuit of an attractive man he sees passing them. Peter Brian Maxwell (Adrian Lester) and Sara Louise Williams (Catherine Tate) meet on a bench. It is revealed that they are married and have a seven-year-old daughter, Eve (Elle Mckenzie), but they are divorcing each other. However, they have mixed feelings about this because they still care for each other. Louis (Mark Strong) meets Esther (Polly Walker) who is an escort. After discussing his father's funeral, Louis presents Esther with tickets for a holiday to Barbados which she is happy with. They discuss a variety of issues like a traditional couple, it is unclear if she genuinely cares as she is paid for her time with Louis. Gerry (Hugh Bonneville) and Julia (Gina McKee) are on a blind date and sit on a rug for some red wine and cheese. They discuss modern terminology for ethnic minorities that may or may not be racist. They talk about former relationships and children and, as they are both in their early forties, Julia worries that she will no longer be able. They seem to be getting along well until Julia's attention is briefly drawn towards Louis, who passes them. Insulted by this, Gerry decides to leave abruptly. McGregor is alright as a gay man wanting kids, Okonedo is odd as an erratic woman, Hardy is interesting as a cockney Casanova, and Bonneville, Lester, Tate and all the other recognisable stars do fine. It tries its best to funny, but it is often overtaken by the feeling of melancholy, one or two of the tales in amongst the many do keep you interested, the location in the bright sunlight looks nice, and the script is reasonable, it's not a bad comedy-drama. Okay!

Spirit Crushingly Dull

[chriscarney36 · 1/10 · 28 October 2012]

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.

A poor man's Love Actuallyl

[mike-5087 · 2/10 · 27 February 2008]

This film attempts to cash in on the success of Richard Curtis movies, particularly "Love Actually" (which I loved) - a series of disparate scenes following the love lives of various couples.

It's a great idea poorly executed. The script tries to be a little too clever and simply doesn't resonate. Most of the acting is stilted which is more a reflection on the director than the actors.

The version I saw (on a plane) was called "Scenes from a Park", which is a more appropriate title as not all the scenes were of a 'sexual nature'.

I was so looking forward to this movie, but ultimately it is disappointing. Don't bother.

Boring and purposeless

[Gordon-11 · 27 May 2007]

This film is about the encounters of 7 couples on Hampstead heath in one sunny Wednesday afternoon.

It shows 7 different types of couples: married, divorced, breaking up a relationship, homosexual, elderly, blind date and escort service. They are not connected to each other apart from the geographical location, so that is a disappointment. The film is a collage of conversations, without any discernible plot. The film jumps from a pair to another without any logic. I find this film boring and purposeless. The only redeeming feature is the great weather throughout the film. It is sad that talents like Ewan McGregor and Sophie Okonedo get wasted by this film.

very mediocre, despite the sunshine

[Jodro2 · 3/10 · 23 November 2011]

I watched this movie recently, spurred on by the positive reviews here, that seemed to be written by folk who, like me, don't like the cynical ways of the world, and with that of many modern movies. Sadly I was hugely disappointed. The by-numbers script appeared to be written by a movie school student, with endless, grating smart-alec dialogue. The characters appeared to be continuously trying to outsmart each other with the next clever quip, and not only do people not talk like that in real life, it also made a dearth of likable characters. This could work if the characters or dialogue are genuinely interesting, but both are rather boring. The only flicker of interest could be found in the dialogue of the elderly couple, but even that was set up with a rather far-fetched back story. Plus there were a few other cheap plot twists that left me feeling cheated. The movie is reasonably well-acted, despite the shortcomings of the script, and the scenery is very nice, but in the end it comes across as pointless and vacuous yuppie-fare.

A very intelligent and subtle film - all who took part are to be commended

[williamsonkwr · 9/10 · 11 April 2007]

Scenes of a Sexual Nature is a very intelligent and subtle film. It is skilfully crafted, beautifully shot and with superb acting. Only the most jaded and cynical could fail to appreciate this film – the best film I have seen so far this year.

It is film that has many twists and turns, some more obvious than others, but even the obvious twists are still enjoyable. Not a lot happens in the film, the pace is slow and meandering but not so slow that ones interest is lost and it never becomes dull. The film examines the minutia of various relationships with great tenderness and wit and like they say the Devil is in the detail. It is the small things that give meaning – relationships are more often damned or celebrated because of the minutia rather than the big gestures. It is the day-to-day content that either holds relationships together or tares them apart.

This film, which in turn is offers us charm, humour, sadness and pathos, offers no great thrills, shocks or drama (one can't help wondering how many people did not see this film at the cinema because of the title or in deed how many went because of the title and were disappointed not to find what they thought they would) nor any great love story, it is not a film that paints large – more like a small water colour but like some water colours it is non-the-less beautifully painted.

All who took part are to be commended.

Scenes of emblematic natures

[paul2001sw-1 · 5/10 · 27 October 2012]

Hampsted Heath, one of London's greenest lungs, is well known as a place for illicit sexual encounters (mostly featuring gay men); and becomes the setting for this series of vignettes about interacting couples. It's a nice idea, with the diversity of pairings reflecting the diversity of the modern city; but unfortunately, every couple seems to have been chosen to be explicitly emblematic, no-one feels truly individual and the dialogue has the feel of a first script, written by someone who understands what the words must do, but isn't yet quite capable of writing them. There's the odd amusing moment here but that's all; the leads are played by a gallery of familiar British character actors, all of whom have had meatier roles elsewhere.

not structured like film-just snippets of boring people stories

[allanmichael30 · 2/10 · 24 July 2021]

Quite a collective cast but no direction and just can't believe who they got to star in this film. It should have been called " A day in Hampstead heath ", really.

shallow.

[nickjames · 4/10 · 19 May 2007]

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!

Good lighthearted movie : 3 stars at "illustris Star Scale"

[illustris · 5/10 · 23 May 2007]

I give it THREE strong STARS* at my scale.

Additional comments:

I will not comment on budget nor on likes and dislikes. Leaving the house after the movie I felt lighthearted with aftertaste of human nature irony.

* ---

I suggest an independent approach to rating a movie that I use myself and as it proved to be helpful to my friends. This approach does not reflect any specific quality, like playing of actors or camera work or director or script or even budget. Instead, it ranges the work as a whole indicating its consumer value and time-provedness. The rating can be easily applied to other entertainment articles like music CDs, books or performances thus making the method universal and simple for both using and understanding. It ranges from one to ten stars according to the statements:

1*......... - I started watching but quit before the end. (I left the house)

2**........ - I could hardly sit out till the end.

3***....... - I saw it once. (It's worth watching once)

4****...... - I saw it and would recommend it to my friends. (It's a discovery!)

5*****..... - I would watch it again and could join a company. (Next time I can invite my friends).

6******.... - I can go and watch it many times. (I must check if they sell it?)

7*******... - I saw it and am about to buy a copy. (Happy to have it on my shelf)

8********.. - I saw it and bought it, I enjoy re-watching selected episodes.

9*********. - I saw and bought it - it comes as a source of citations.

10********** - I saw and bought it, the source of all time enjoyment, my favorite. (Next generation will appreciate it like in 10 or 20 years as well)

If you'd like to use the method please mention it as "illustris Star Scale"

A day in the park

[jotix100 · 8/10 · 19 December 2007]

Hampstead Heath, that wonderful expanse in London is the setting for this delightful comedy. Directed with style by Ed Blum, the comedy brings some of England's most interesting actors together in a film that is as easy to take like a summer in the park with a nice breeze in the air.

We are taken to meet several people that seem to be enjoying their day, totally unconnected to one another. We meet Iris, a widow, whose reaction to Eddy, the older man that asks her if she would mind sharing her bench, is not exactly a happy one. Yet, they seem to have more in common than one could have suspected. They have met because of they have gone to the park on the wrong day.

Then, there is the young gay couple who are seen in the "Men Only" section of the park, talking about their life together and how one would stop cruising other men if they could agree in adopting a child. That proves to be wishful thinking, because when all it's said and done, the same proponent is seen trailing after a hot number to a secluded area to engage in sex, no doubt. One wonders about how realistic his expectations can be.

One of the best vignettes involves a blind date. The two people one sees seem to hit it off well, although they seem to have different opinions on what they expect from one another. There is also a funny sequence involving a couple that meets to what appear to be a happy reunion for a nice stroll, and suddenly a shock comes when she asks him for money for her fee, which has gone up in price.

All the actors in the film contribute tremendously to the enjoyment of it by acting effortlessly in this comedy that seems to be about nothing, yet it reveals a lot of inner tensions in many of the characters.

Best of all, Ewan McGregor and Douglas Hodge as the gay lovers. Eileen Atkins and Benjamin Whitrow make a perfect old couple. Gina McKee and Hugh Bonneville are effective as the couple on the blind date. Contributions by Adrian Lester, Sophie Onokedo, Polly Aird, and Polly Walker enhance the film.

Ed Blum shows a talent for creating people so different that happen to be one day in Hampstead Heath truly believable.

Not quite funny

[yvolpe-97559 · 5/10 · 22 August 2023]

I thought this comedy was a collection of skits short quick and final as opposed to the characters connecting in a dramatic fashion. Oh well, the actors at times looked like actors acting as one would see in a play rather a movie. All the actors were fine and some of the more popular British actors. Scenarios that add a spotlight to different types of relationships. The title is a misnomer since sex is not what this drama is about. I'm not sure this form works. The vignettes do not connect and some characters are more interesting than the others. It's cerebral and sometimes abstract but perhaps that's modern theater. It's an enjoyable play/movie the characters could feel more empathic somehow.

Everybody needs love

[Ksasj · 8/10 · 10 January 2007]

I've seen this movie recently in the Prince Charles Cinema in London when I was visiting the place during a City Trip. I didn't know which movie was playing and the I never heard of this movie. So without any idea what the movie was about, I sit back and enjoyed the movie.

The first thing I noticed was the high amount of 'feel good movie'. Everything is sunny, the grass is always very green and everybody is smiling.

The plot isn't very spectacular, just some people who fell in love, are in love or needs love. But it's the humor what makes it special. Every character is interesting and never bores. Everyone can recognize himself in some sort of way in one of the characters.

When the movie ends, you leave with a smile. That's for sure!

I don't understand

[reddragon211981 · 10/10 · 11 March 2007]

I read a lot of the reviews and comments that people here typed about this movie, i can't understand how they say it was awful etc... But that is why they say we all have different taste, i just got done watching this movie and i loved it, the movie is very touching, beautiful scenery, funny, entertaining, i read some guy in here made fun of the camera on how it was filmed etc.. ?? I have no clue why he would say that, because the camera the view all of it was perfect, this is why people should watch a movie and judge it by themselves and not always go by what people say, because you might enjoy it as much as me and my family did, the actors and actresses did an outstanding job on this film, so my advice is give it a try you will be impress

Loved it!!