That was an excellent one.

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Blistering performances.

Roman Polanski has it still. He has caught the intensity of emotions in David Ives play. He chose well his two protagonists: the beautiful Emanuelle Seigner as Vanda and Mathieu Amalric as Thomas. In 'Venus in Fur, Polanski palpably infuses his film with moral climate that Sade knew best to serve up, or better still Genet. The cat-and-mouse game that Vanda and Thomas engage in has a tension keeps you on the edge of your seat, as roles are reversed. In a way, Amalric reprises an obsessiveness that he brought in 'The Blue Room'. The equally talented Seigner breathes full life to Vanda in all the complexity of a dominatrix who abandons Thomas, tarted up as a streetwalker, captivated by her Delilah-like charms and wiliness.

With his last two films, ""Carnage" and now, "Venus in Fur", Roman Polanski proves that he is a master of the intimate, the theatrical and a terrific director of actors. Of course, on both occasions he's had really good source material from which to work; both plays won the Tony. "Venus in Fur", of which we are concerned here, is a two-character piece based on the play by David Ives, who co-wrote the script with Polanski. It's set in a deserted theatre where Thomas. (Polanski lookalike Matheiu Amalric), is trying to find an actress to play the heroine in his adaptation of Leopold von Sacher-Masoch's novel "Venus in Fur". He's had a fruitless day when in walks Vanda who just happens to know his play inside out and has the same name as the character she aims to play.What follows is a case of art imitating life as director and star move effortlessly into their roles with devastating and devastatingly funny results. Here we have a film about a sado-masochistic relationship as well as a film about putting on a play, though fundamentally this is a film about role-play and the art of acting and both Amalric and especially Emmanuelle Seigner as Vanda are superb and not in the least in a theatrical way; they play not to an audience but to the camera and I luxuriated in their company. Here, too, is a movie that is sharp, smart and very funny and one which will rank with the very best of this director's work.

It is truly incredible what you can create with nothing but a stage, 2 actors and a little bit of music for the big screen. There is no doubt about that, it's a masterpiece of directing, but even more so it is an absolute ode to Emmanuelle Seigner's excellent acting. I felt like she was a goddess through and through. Maybe she truly is, depending on how much of Polanski's adaptation he can relate to. The male part did have some familiar characteristics. Almost felt like the famous tenant wanted to depict himself. Back to Emma, I loved her in Bitter Moon (and others) but this is just on a different level. The whole movie is based on her acting and she makes it work, she really makes it work. A most excellent performance that all aspiring actors should watch and take note.I didn't think for a second I would be watching a great new film by Mr. Polanski but here it is. 8/10, only because of some problems with the male lead. Honestly, would have preferred to see someone else on that role. I guess it was the closest Polanski could find to his younger self, but sadly it's just not the same.

"She taught me the most valuable thing in the world." Thomas (Matthew Amalric)"And what did she teach you?" Vanda (Emmanuelle Seigner)" That nothing is more sensual than pain. That nothing is more exciting than degradation." ThomasRoman Polanski's Venus in Fur, adapted from Leopold Van Sacher-Masoch's novel, Venus in Furs, is a two hander with a first-time stage director and adapter, Thomas (Polanski), and an actress (Seigner, Polanski's wife) trying out for a part in his play at an old Parisian theater. It's as raw a film as it is delicate. He's at the end of a long audition day with women who don't fit the part, and she straggles in when he's ready to go, in no mood for her tardiness or her lack of sophistication, much less her bondage outfit with dog collar. This time pain hardly seems sensual, until Vanda pulls out all the personality stops by eventually auditioning him.As in the play of life itself, nothing is as it seems; as in Polanski's other worlds, identity is a matter of power. She challenges him about his misconception of her talent (she's made for the part—even has the character's name) and proceeds to take a dominant role in acting and interpreting. In other words, the tables turn while woman takes the traditionally male aggressive role and he becomes her slave and even takes her part. When she ties him to a gigantic phallic cactus, the absurdity is painless, a testimony to imaginative stagecraft and pleasant Freud.Polanski, never afraid to deal with strong women in his films (Tess and Carnage come to mind immediately), as well as the real-life tragedy of his wife's murder, places Vanda prominently in each of her frames; his surrogate, Thomas, even looks like Polanski's younger self. Thus, the film becomes a convoluted feminist tome while it also comments on the relationship between actors and their directors. Whatever it all may mean about Roman Polanski's personal relationships with women, it is a witty 96 minutes of repartee and gamesmanship, where roles are fluid, both with characters and actors.The pain of his self revelations, which she forces him to see, turns out to be a pleasure for a playwright directing for the first time and facing an actress gifted and formidable. Both actors, by the way, are exemplary."It's 'a little love' you suggest? No, it's the power that interests you." Thomas