User reviews

I am on the fence with this one. I could say that it brilliantly exposes deceit and vanity, and wouldn't be that far off. I could call it an honest, if flashy and sometimes arrogant, exploration of failed intimacy on a pedestal, and I think I'd have a point there. I felt at times that it was indeed full of vanity and self-importance. Since, luckily, I didn't see the movie on my own, and saw it without knowing anything about it, I found the experience led to an interesting conversation. In the end, I'd say it was a so-so movie, but a worthwhile experience.

Movie that shocks for the love of shocking. Disappointing and at best few ideeas to keep in mind. Or i don t get contemporany cinema wich is really plausible.

Touch Me Not is a disjointed, postmodern, feminist, exhibitionistic, self-therapeutic attempt by the director of the film. There is really no narrative, but a straightforward portrayal by a frigid, apparently traumatized woman (seemingly by her abusive father, represented by the dying man at the hospital?), intermingled with politically correct "integrative" alternative views of sexuality, probably an intention of naive openness (so european!) -a blatant expression of how developed countries are so far removed from common sense and simpler, healthier ways of human interaction, alienated by their own (un)doing. it is astonishing to me, a denizen of a so-called "third world country" how these kinds of movies get made, how such a person can get funding for her own therapeutic process, which really is so personal it is hard to relate to, from any point of view. And yet, it is evidence, through the glimpses of the interjecting scenes, of how neurotic europeans really are, in many cases by their sheer weakness out of material comfort, but poverty of true intimacy: at the end, even the "film maker" says she thought she knew everything about intimacy, evincing her arrogant naivety. This movie is a reflection of extreme cases, without going to extremes. I give it five stars, nevertheless, from the excellent cinematography and the acting, especially, Laura Benson, who plays the frigid woman excellently. Hopefully, the director will one day mature in order to make better material...and not think she knows everything about film making...at her very young age.

'Touch me not' is the most pretentious and pseudo art intellectual film I've ever seen. Even if you like the work of directors such as Lars von Trier or Gaspar Noe, you will be totally confused and shocked by this one.

My personal feeling is that the director's aim was only to provoke instead of really exploring in depth the subject of intimacy. And here comes the reason why I'm leaving two stars instead of one. The general idea of the movie is a good one and is related to a trending problem in the western world. However, the end result leaves us more distant from the core of the issue than before watching the movie. Furthermore, this misachievment is accompanied by long scenes, boring lines, unpleasant characters and exaggerations.

'Touch me not' leaves the viewer with the feeling of emptiness, despair and disgust. And inevitably comes the question: 'How did this film win the Golden Bear prize?' and the apprehension that the critical success of such films is a symptom of a growing alienation and loss of values in our society.

A brave film that puts things, people, dimensions and perspectives on the table of truth, things that we do not look at easily, we do not look at at all or look with too much judgment and prejudice.

I loved Laura from start to end, she kept the film in her hand in an extremely difficult role, an excellent actress that I would love to see in other productions.

I also liked the music and cinematography, as well as the director's passion for innovation and experiment, her overall curiosity for life and courage to jump in the unknown.

"Touch me not" is not a movie to fall in love with and not for people who live life at its surface, but it is a necessary, human and useful film, a movie that stays with you and raises new questions if you leave yourself open and allow it, if you accept the journey the director proposes to you.

My opinion is that the film deserves its Golden Bear award, and because it's also a debut film for the director, the performance is even more impressive. I expect Adina Pintilie to return in the coming years with surprising productions as there's a lot of potential in her.

I am such a fan an supporter of contemporary Romanian cinema but this is below any expectation. I felt almost asleep countess times during this film and wondered why doctors don't prescribe this movie instead of sleeping pills. It's an artsy, indie wanna be movie, full of long abstract framing and too thought out scenery; feels like everything is not genuine and bad acting is ominous; far-fetched emotions and relations between characters; the story lacks any truthfulness and is not intriguing at all I would put in the bucket of contemporary cinema that implies that shocking issues and nudity would automatically make a movie artsy and festival-ready...

I saw Adina Pintilie's "Touch Me Not" at the world premiere and I saw nobody leaving the sold out Berlinale Palace. There was also a huge applause by the audience at the end. No one was booing or screaming. It was a nice, pleasant evening with a rather unusual audience: A mix of high-profile cultural figures, some transvestites and transsexuals, some disabled people and many ordinary folks like myself, who were just happy they could get a ticket.

There have been a few false reports, where I could read to my surprise, that "masses left the screenings" etc. but in fact this happened ONLY at the very first press screening before the world premiere. Some press people obviously thought they didn't need to watch this, because at the beginning you get to see a little unsimulated sex. I also read, that the part of the press, that decided to stay until the end, applauded the film. So, the few dozens of journalists, who were so 'shocked' by a little tasteful sex and artful nudity, that they had to run away and get therapeutic help, DO NOT REPRESENT the whole audience. They only represent the awful state of film journalism, because - honestly - how do these lazy people want to write now a review of a film they didn't even see ? They should be fired.

I liked the movie, because it was formally different, thematically interesting and in-your-face-radical in a rather entertaining way. It's not a boring experimental film about things you don't care about - on the contrary it makes you think about sexuality, bodies, norms, intimacy, trauma and the possibility of therapy. Last but not least, it's a beautifully made film with striking cinematography, inventive editing, immersive sound design and dissonant music by avant-garde band "Einstürzende Neubauten" - it all looks and sounds very distinct and fascinating, a true art object.

In some of the few 'shocked' reviews I read - f.e. by the shallow snob Peter Bradshaw or the crazy Susanne Ostwald - you really get the feeling, that these so-called critics don't do their work. They don't try hard enough to understand what an artist like Pintilie was trying to do. Especially the ridiculous accusation of 'exploitation of disabled people' can't be taken seriously. Christian Bayerlein and the few other disabled or unusual people appearing in "Touch Me Not" are only limited by their bodies, but have an articulate mind and interesting things to say. It's possible, that you will see so-called 'handicapped people' in a totally new light after watching this film - and that's a good thing.

Critics like the incredibly ignorant Susanne Ostwald scare me, because she appears to feel threatened by a progressive film like this, which tries to include people out-of-the-norm in our popular culture by taking their needs seriously. Why does she feel so disturbed by a fascinating man like Christian Bayerlein, who happens to be disabled, but still loves to enjoy his sex life with his wife Grit? Does it hurt her sense of 'beauty'? Every group has a need to be represented in popular culture, even if Ms. Ostwald doesn't like them in her entertainment. Nobody forced her to see "Touch Me Not": She can rent a copy of the latest Zac Efron rom com or "Bridget Jones" anywhere, if she is in the mood for some 'sexy time' with the 'men of her dreams'. But disabled people don't have their rom coms. Fortunately many of the other critics agree with me, that "Touch Me Not" succeeds at creating more empathy for different and disabled people and they see nothing 'exploitative' about casting them in a film. Christian Bayerlein is now a new hero of mine.

I'm not surprised that President Tom Tykwer and the high-profile jury at the Berlinale decided to give their top award to "Touch Me Not", because it's challenging in ways that only few films are today. Tykwer himself showed in his work, that it is possible to go beyond the norms, even if you work in the mainstream: F.e. in his short "True" (2004) and in his feature "The Princess and the Warrior" (2000) the actor Melchior Derouet - who is blind since birth - was cast as a supporting character. And he was a fine actor. Is that 'exploitation', too?

This is a film best enjoyed with an open mind and curiosity for other people. It's great that the jury could appreciate such an experimental film, because it might inspire more daring cinema. Adina Pintilie's innovative film shows that cinema can still be a truly humanistic experience.

One of the things one of the main characters says during the movie is that good and evil are two categories invented by Christianity in the Middle Ages and that there is no good and evil. Well let me just say, this is very bad movie, and yes, unfortunately for the makers of this film, there is such a thing as a good movie. It s just how things are.

Overcome with nausea I had to leave the cinema. Seems no need to be this explicit to put your view forward on relationships. "Touch" is a divisive film that aims to address more issues than it can persuasively handle.

This is one of the most dull, boring and annoying films I've ever sat through. It's about intimacy and connection ironically. Laura (Laura Benson) has problems with it. It's very cold. Analytical and often uncomfortably so. Large parts of it feel more like a documentary, others so clinical they've had the life strangled out of them. I didn't enjoy it and considering the subject it's trying to tackle, I think it fails miserably. It's exploitative rubbish wrapped up in a pseudo art house construct. Perhaps for that reason it looks quite good in places, well shot in a minimal style and there's some interesting bits of sound. That's not enough to save this though. Laura is the focus as she wades through scene after scene exploring different approaches to sexuality. I'll be fair Benson does rather well. She's believable and seems completely immersed in this. I feel bad for her in that her performance is wasted. In fact I feel for everyone involved, aside director Adina Pintilie for inflicting this. She appears to have a history in documentaries which explains a little. She also stars here, which doesn't really explain anything at all. It's stark and soulless. The longer it goes on, the more annoyed I get. I've nothing really nice to say about it, so I'll just finish by recommending that this is to be avoided.

I really wanted to like this movie. The premise seemed intriguing, and divergent opinions (when clearly thought out, and not basic "genius" or "garbage" labels) usually signal the movies I want to (and should) watch. The framing, lighting and even music (can't go wrong with Einsturzenden Neubauten) are very good, and the movie starts out well enough on its exploration of intimacy and distance. Its a bit predictable that it veers into sex-based themes (a la "Eyes Wide Shut", if that film were really trying), which I suspect may have annoyed some people. Although I thought it was not "earned", That didn't bother me at all, the (excruciatingly) slow pacing, the connection between scenes, the underdeveloped characters that are hard to identify with (with one or two exceptions) and the fragmented editing did. It's hard to reach intimacy without, at the same time, building walls even as they are being torn down, and life can be slow, fragmented, unconnected, hard to identify with and underdeveloped. But its the map vs. territory argument: a film is not life. My main issue is that this is a film that clearly seemed profound to the filmmaker and actors, and I'm almost positive that the experience of making it was enlightening to them. But it seemed like a private, hermetic, enlightenment. As a viewer I would have to have been interested in the characters and situations; somehow invested in what little developments did happen. And, in the end, to me they weren't really all that interesting.

In Touch Me Not the line between art and documentary is barely noticeable. The events that are often presented by the director herself are devoid of any cinematic effects and look all too real on camera. Obviously, professional actors were involved in the creation of Touch Me Not. However, many of the actors play themselves in the movie, which makes you believe them, empathize, understand and accept.

The given film is deservedly scandalous. Adina Pintilie shows us the things we would like to neither notice nor see. The film reveals that sometimes even lying next to each other is a challenge.

The main character of the film, Laura, cannot tolerate it when other people touch her. We do not know if it is inborn or there was something that made her become withdrawn. Gradually, Adina Pintilie pulls back the curtains adding new details that let us guess the reason behind Laura's vulnerability.

It appears to be an old man she visits at the hospital. He is the heart of the problem. Every time Laura meets him, she is reserved. It is only after some time has passed she finds the courage to show her anger and frailty in the face of the bitter hatred she feels towards the man.

All throughout the film, Laura seeks the answer to the question of how to develop intimacy after being abused.

Genuine intimacy is to reconcile with yourself. At the same time, though, we need other people to understand ourselves better. The woman associates herself with those who surround her, with what they do and how they do that. Their bodies become her body.

However, Laura is not always able to achieve what she is striving for. As a rule, everything happens the other way around. There is no closeness, no physical intimacy, let alone mental intimacy.

Watching a gigolo taking a shower, Laura wants to talk to him, to learn more about him. She is willing to find out what it is like to be in a relationship with someone. What she gets instead is the man who shamelessly undresses and leaves the woman alone. The only thing left, though, is the man's smell on the tumbled sheets.

On her way, Laura encounters different partners and mentors. Among them, she is looking for somebody who she could show her true self to. She is in search of her container of warmth, emotions and feelings.

It seems that all the people around Laura might release her from the prison of her own body. Yet, besides being afraid of physical intimacy, she is even more afraid of her reaction to being touched. When someone crosses the line, she shouts reminding the person of WHAT they have done. She screams as if she wants to get rid of her anger, but, in fact, she dives in it deeper and deeper.

In Touch Me Not everybody is brutally honest. You might get the feeling that you have entered the world without lies. All the characters, often in the form of a confession-like interview, say what they feel, how they live and what they suffer from. They honestly claim that you can love yourself despite the flaws. For instance, disability is sometimes viewed by society as a weakness or defect. There is a stereotype that if you live with severe disability, your sexuality is asleep, you cannot give and get sensual pleasure.

Laura accidentally finds the place where sessions of physical contact are conducted for such people, as they lack tactual sensations in their lives. Their eyes are closed and their fingers are touching someone else's face. They do have a craving for intimacy and it is not unexpected.

Things that one might perceive as deviations are the norm for others. After all, we choose what is the norm and what is not, labelling it as 'unacceptable'. There are a lot of things in the film that may seem wrong or absurd - it can be a man who feels like a woman and caresses his breasts or a secret sex club where you can see a real BDSM party (far not like the one in 50 Shades of Gray or paperback romantic books) where there are pure dominance and the rope that tightly clasps around all the bones of a fragile girl.

There are many invisible people in the film. Like shadows, they follow others as well as one another. These people are lost and want to be invisible.

Perhaps, it is the reason why there are so few words in the film. People simply do not want to attract attention by being different, by their far from ideal bodies, unusual behavior, non-trivial problems. They seem to be restrained in their thoughts and actions.

Touch Me Not is a dizzyingly nonuniform film. It does not have a single center of gravity. There is closeness, alienation, escape acceptance of oneself and a great deal of life. In such life, you have nothing left to do but be yourself.

I'm not going to write a flowery review, others have done that much better than I can. I'll admit I watched it because there was full frontal male nudity in it and on that score I wasn't disappointed, hence the two stars. There were various scenes of people desperately trying to look and act profound. It was acutely embarrassing. The main character looked like she had the weight of the world on her shoulders simply because she didn't know how to be intimate. A bloody good shagging and all would have been resolved.

Touch Me Not is (for me,) one of those types of films that grows on you after viewing it, be that good or bad. In my case it was a good thing. It's not a perfect film, there are parts (the over-use of white for one thing) that smacks a bit of pretentiousness (again to me), but this is a beautifully filmed movie, and the central character, I found interesting, and I wanted to journey with her as she lived out her quest to come to terms with demons from her past (I will say no more), and find peace within herself and move forward... her comment about being fifty and understanding her limited time of full health, and her need to live those dwindling totally healthy years, truly healthy (body and mind), really rang true. As a new director, I am interested to see where she can go next. In the year of #metoo and #timesup, it's win at Berlin could be construed as an homage to that, but I feel in many ways it did deserve its wins for showcasing these ideas in a very intelligent manner. There are moments in the film (the "therapists" sessions and one part of the sex club scene...again, no more as to spoil anything), that left me with mixed emotions, but I think it was my own thoughts, comfort levels and preferences that were influencing and projecting onto the scenes. It was these types of instances that drew me to like this film, for a movie that can make me question my ideas and perceptions is all right by me.

Overall, this felt like a spoof of an arthouse film. It's pretentious and tries too hard to be an "intellectual film." Things don't make sense and are disconnected but this kind of film tries to cover up it's shortcomings as "challenging to audience."

This movie was outrageous fun, NOT to be taken too seriously. I was depressed and forced myself to watch this and laughed the whole way through. 7/10

The movie "Touch Me Not" is a big therapy session where you are the therapist for three different patients who struggle with various issues related to intimacy and human connection. The movie is shot in a documentary-like style with non-professional actors, as well as real-life therapists and practitioners, which adds some kind of authenticity and rawness to the movie.

The movie is written and directed by Adina Pintilie and it seems like an experimental film, mainly because of the way the film is edited, with rough cuts and meaningless scenes. The most interesting parts of the movie are concentrated on Christian, a man with spinal muscular atrophy, who explores his sexuality and desires through his disability.

...or perhaps just "Watch Me Not"? In theory this could have made for quite an interesting look at just how different people deal with intimacy - emotional and the more tactile variety. To that end we spend an over-long two hours in the company of "Laura" (Laura Benson) whose proclivities, attitudes and remarkable recoil and roaring abilities are demonstrated, as are those of her subjects."Tómas" (Tómas Lemarquis) and "Christian" (Christian Bayerlein). Much of this is relayed through a series of scenes with a very much more participative analyst than many in "Hanna" (Hanna Hofmann) who is a transexual but that's neither here nor there to this meandering exercise in soft-porn introspection disguised as "insight". What simply doesn't work is the sheer amount of pointless verbosity, from start to finish, that ensures that this takes on more of a lecture (or documentary) for the curiously prurient than an engaging drama. Auteur Adina Pintilie (who also features here) obviously has a message she wished to convey, but she didn't establish enough distance between the reality and the fiction of this production to enable me know just what she's getting at. Everyone has boundaries, and these are not consistent - either personally, emotionally or physically - so what's the point of taking this rather monotonically simplistic approach to human nature and suggesting it's going to induce empathy. Baring the soul isn't always an easy thing to watch, but when you are this detached from the subject matter is just become too observational. I felt like I was sitting in on conversations that were none of my business between people about whom I couldn't really care less. By half way through I was looking at the cinema ceiling wondering if I could ever find myself - or my peccadilloes - interesting enough to put on display in such a contrived and unnatural fashion. Maybe I just wasn't in the mood, but this falls uncomfortably between half an dozen stools and was wasted on me, sorry.

How you were loved reveals how you love. Since guilt and fear often get in the way, Touch Me Not explores the real experiences of some who set out to widen their horizons, break conventions and confront prejudices. "With maybe 15 to 20 years of good health" one asks, "do I want to continue as I am living?" The film explores different perspectives on human relationships and opens new doors and possibilities of body and mind.

Daring, personal and raw, Touch Me Not proceeds in voyeur-like fashion and invites dialogue about intimacy. Winner of golden bear at the Berlin film festival. North American premiere seen at the 2018 Toronto international film festival.

Saw this last night or part of the sydney film festival. This is cinema, this is vulnerability in its purest and finest form. Everyone who worked on this film in my opinion did an outstanding part and job. The cinematography and sound where breathtaking. Thank you so much please don't stop showing this to the world

I understand people's reservations about this film, it is quite challenging, mainly because it addresses issues which haven't been addressed before in cinema. Such as, why are we so scared of talking about intimacy? And how does this work on film? The film addresses both these questions in an interesting way. I can understand that many people are not used to the approach of the director, I would recommend reading a few interviews about the purpose of the film before viewing, Adina Pintilie is really good at articulating her purpose.

Where does one feel at home? What is art? What does it mean to live in ones body and know how someone else may experience connection? The film asks lots of questions. Lacanian in topic Touch Me Not approaches : "The sufferings of neurosis and psychosis are for us a schooling in the passions of the soul, just as the beam of the psychoanalytic scales, when we calculate the tilt of its threat to entire communities, provides us with an indication of the deadening of the passions in society. " The reviews appear to be divided on this film. Yes, a person's comfort zone will be tested yet I'd like to ask, what you will do when then happens?

An admirable debut film from Romanian director Adina Pintilie, who wrote, acted and edited this Golden Bear winner at the Berlin Film Festival. I admit that there were times I felt I should stop watching the film but I did not as the film made me introspect on my own views. The well-researched script, and the elegant and stylish cinematography by Romanian cinematographer George Chiper contribute value to the film that marries documentary and fiction. Kudos to the Jury headed by German director Tom Tykwer for awarding this unusual work that requires a mature mind to appreciate the subtle studies on intimacy. The long journey to complete the film is evident from the time stamp of some included videos that indicate the year 2010--some 8 years before it made it to Berlin.