Unfaithful

Every now and then, I read a review of a film which is so drastically different to my own reaction to it that I wonder if we have watched the same film. This is the case for almost EVERY review of "Unfaithful". Aside from the occasional positive comment that I have read by other IMDB users, and the glowing review given by Margaret Pommeranz on the (Australian) "Movie Show" (four and a half stars, if I remember correctly), this film seems to have met with either negative or ambivalent reactions from everyone. And this surprises me immensely, because I was overwhelmed by it. I expected quite a good, slightly arty film with good performances (particularly from Diane Lane, who really impressed me in Coppola's "The Cotton Club"). What I got was a film which I think will be one of my favourites for many years to come.

The criticisms that I have read of "Unfaithful" don't confuse me because they disagree with me. I can accept that - no really, I can, although I don't see how anyone could miss the brilliant acting (one user comment said that any Hollywood actress could have done Diane Lane's performance - well, I DO look forward to the J.Lo remake in a few years), or the amazing photography, this being one of the most lush and seductive films I have seen in a long time. It's the way in which the reviewers have seemingly missed the entire point of the film, or fell asleep half-way through it.

Firstly, I will concede that Connie's motivations were unclear (although I'd call it subtlety, rather than poor scripting), but they weren't as unclear as many people would have you believe. Nor did Lyne simplify the relationship between Connie and Paul (someone called him Marcel - perhaps they DID watch another movie, or just couldn't spell his surname) - in fact, I would suggest that anyone who thought Connie was willing to sleep with the first guy she met would do well to rewatch this film and see the way that her mind works (or do you need a voice-over narration in addition to Lane's phenomenal performance?). In addition to this, I have read complaints about nudity (because apparently has no place in an erotic drama/thriller), technical problems (the reviewer who mentioned this loved the movie, but had issues with constant shots of the entire microphone, shots which he/she found very hard to ignore, but which I managed to miss completely) and the apparently "cliched" narrative. In response to the latter, I don't want to give anything away, but this film, although addressing a common topic (ie. adultery), is by no means a traditional Hollywood film, and certainly doesn't treat the topic in the same way that every other film has. Many may find the ending unfulfilling, but I can't comprehend the idea of it being cloying and unoriginal. And even if the narrative itself is conventional, the way in which it is handled by cast, director and technical crew (if you can forgive the microphone shots, I suppose) puts it so far above any of its counterparts as to warrant a much warmer reception than it seems to have been given.

Diane Lane deserved the Oscar for this, without question. Unfortunately, her film came in a year when every single Best Actress nominee was of nearly equal quality. As you can see, I liked it - and wish that more people felt the same way about it. The only suggestion I can offer is that, if you have yet to see it, then don't go into it expecting a standard thriller - in fact, it can be quite slow-moving at times. But let it be what it is, because it does a damn good job at that.

I have read alot of reviews here that expressed displeasure for this film based on the notion that this was basically "softcore porn for housewives" and had nothing new to offer it's audience. Ok, granted; this is not the most original film/script ever written, but I think that many reviews (both Professional and Ametuer alike) have missed the point of this film. Behind the obvious guise of a morality tale showing what can happen if you stray from your marital vows, there is a rather amazing piece of art to be seen. This film is not about marital infedelity, but, rather, about DRAMA. This is what we in the Theater refer to as Drama As Art, meaning that the plot is less important than the impact that the various plot points have on the characters, creating more and more and more drama as the story unfolds. As is the great ballets or stage plays ('Giselle', 'Whose Afraid of Virginia Wolf', 'Swan Lake' 'A Streetcar Name Desire'), the DRAMA is the star of the production, not the actors or the plot lines.

And in this respect, 'Unfaithful' excells! Watch carfully as the world slowly turns itself upside down and rips itself to shreds around these two people based on a SINGLE MOMENT IN TIME (the first scene outside of his apartment: Should she go in? Should she go home? One choice, one mopment in time, a world of difference). Based on her choice(s), the drama begins to build to a point when, at the end of the film, the DRAMA is the star, not Geer and Lane. And Drama does a fine job holding this otherwise middle-of-the-road film above the frey.

First off, I was quite surprised to see the cinema so full for this movie, even on opening weekend. I guess not that many movies for women in their 30's plus exist these days!

I expected this movie, as I'm sure many people did, to be a Fatal Attraction but with the genders switched around.

I was pleasantly surprised and shocked by it NOT being what I expected, and I definitely enjoyed it alot more than Fatal Attraction.

The summary of this movie is that Diane Lane's character starts cheating on her husband (Richard Gere) with a beautiful French man(Olivier Martinez). Everything else should be left for surprise.

The pacing of this movie is perfect. We got a sense of Connie and Edward's home life before she met the dashing Paul. They have a darling son, Charlie, who adds alot of humour to the movie, but in a non precocious way. After the affair starts we see Connie's feelings range from excitement to complete disgust with herself. And of course Edward inevitably finds out. His reaction is interesting, to say the least, and perhaps very honest.

The acting is great, especially from Diane Lane. The sex scenes are pretty raunchy, and made me uncomfortable at certain points, but it's interesting to see how different sex with the lover and sex with the husband were.

At the end of this movie I didn't feel cheated or robbed with some contrived ending (although others may argue differently). This film dealt with how being in an affair must feel, and how finding out you're being cheated on could make your react in uncharacteristic ways.

As a movie critic said, this movie will indeed make you never have an affair!

This is a movie about being unfaithful. you probably guessed that. The unfaithful person is one Connie Sumner (Diane Lane), wife to Edward (Richard Gere). Edward is actually a nice guy, and a loving father to their child Frank (`Malcolm in the Middle' star Erik Par Sullivan). Nonetheless Connie is not content with her somewhat staid home life. One day - caught in a Storm of Foreshadowing! - she is thrown into the life of a Frenchman Paul Martel (Olivier Martinez). He is much younger than her and gradually tempts her into getting with them. Connie must decide whether she can live with this secret affair, or will her misdeeds strike back!! Dum dum DA!

The first half of the movie is interesting. It's principally played from Connie's point-of-view. Diane Lane is quite excellent here - she's neither the selfish wife and yet she does not overplay the guilt role. She's never quite comfortable in her extra-marital affair but this is conveyed in nice subtle ways - Paul and her are ever only about sex for example (there's no real conversation between them). The whole thing is just a means of escapism - there's no real love there and Lane lets us clearly see this. She portrays passion well, but also the other emotions such as love and, on some level, sadness at being where she is. The minutiae of her performance are what make this movie worth seeing.

Unfortunately the acting abilities of the rest of the cast are nothing special. Martinez gets by on merely looking good and saying suggestive things in silky tones. His character - mostly just a catalyst for Connie and Edward - is incredibly one dimensional, not helped by the forgettable performance. Gere is OK, even when he does get centre stage in the movie. His performances tend to fairly sedate - whether this is him purposely playing a (mostly) controlled character, or a lack of acting ability is not for me to say here. He's a nice guy, who has his suspicions about his wife's change, and reacts in a bog-standard movie way (quite disappointing in some senses). Their kid is just cute and while his lines do actually sound like that of an eight year olds, he's still just blandly `cute kid #1035'.

Adrian Lyne, the director here, is back at his usual forte of adult relationship thrillers. It's all pretty good - some nice symbolic touches (ohh look a shot of a kettle on a hot stove as Connie wincingly dabs her cut!), and an ending that's agreeably ambiguous (and well shot). The pacing here is generally pretty good (the use of two main characters helping), although that can't help the disappointing nature of the second half of the movie. Still `Unfaithful' is above average for it's type, mostly due to Lane. Catch it on TV sometime as it does not requite a big screen. 6.3/10.

For much of his career,director Adrian Lyne has clearly had sex on the brain,or thoughts of eroticial porno,turning out huff and puff features both good(the Oscar winning Fatal Attraction and the controversial Lolita)and bad(9 1/2 Weeks and Indecent Proposal,the latter firmly cemented as one of the worst films of its decade). Happily,Unfaithful rests more toward the upper end of the spectrum;based on a 1969 French film by Claude Chabrol(La Femme Infidele),the movie sports a continental demeanor that seems wholly appreciate,but as a whole we have seen this kind of adulterated behavior several times before. Diane Lane's standout performance is what elevates the first half,which could be easily dismissed as a straight-to-cable soaper or straight-to-video softcore porno assembly. A well to do housewife seemingly content with her husband(Richard Gere,is one of his best works here and one of his finest performances since the latter part of the 80's and early 90's),her son (Erik Per Sullivan),and her home in a quaint New York(upscale Manhattan) suburb,unexpectedly enters into a torrid affair with a French book dealer(Oliver Martinez-who looks like something out of grocery store paperback novel and one of those daytime TV soap hunks). Lane's complex portrayal of a woman caught between the borders of reason and risk is simply smashing,yet eventually she's not required to carry the picture by herself,as the second half heads off in some interesting and unexpected directions that ultimately lead to the wonderful amibiguous final shot. Unfaithful works for viewers willing to put some thought into it that only works for those who want cheap thrills will probably be disappointed,but in all its a illusion of eternal bliss that will find this easily a satisfying picture.