Unfaithful

Is this a "great" film? Is this a Oscar-winning masterpiece? I honestly do not know. I was so engrossed in the plot that I didn't have time to judge artistic value. I was glued to my seat from start to finish. This is sassy, sexy thriller that delivers the goods and then some. But the actors make it work. The chemistry between each of the characters is electric.

Though Richard Gere gets star billing, it's the beautiful Diane Lane who has the most screen time. I'm always delighted to see her beautiful face on screen, but this is her most powerful performance up-to-date. Newcomer Olivier Martinez shows great charisma. He is a very talented actor, and if he goes on with his career in American movies, he can become the next Antionio Banderas. I swear, there were moments in the film where even I felt charmed by him. Richard Gere hasn't had a successful movie in years, and hopefully he'll get back on the ball with "Unfaithful." He delivers a fine, subtle performance and though I may be out on a limb, I'll say it's one of his best.

I haven't seen any of Adrian Lyne's past work, but I know he's an acclaimed director and now that I've seen this film, I'm curious to check out "Fatal Attraction" and his other past films. He definitely knows how to set the tone. The scenes have a cohesive rhythm, and I even spotted moments of symbolism.

"Unfaithful" is an intriguing, compelling piece--a real edge-of-your-seat nail-biter!

My score: 8 (out of 10)

There is no such thing as an indifferent movie directed by Adrian Lyne. You'll either love it or hate it.

I liked "Fatal Attraction" though I prefer the original ending, not the revised, way-over-the-top, grade B shock ending. I was not impressed with his other hit "Flashdance". (I've chosen not to see "9 1/2 Weeks" and "Indecent Proposal" for various reasons.)

Many viewers have said that "Unfaithful" is simply a role reversal of Lyne's earlier hit "Fatal Attraction". It might be accurate but I don't think it's totally a fair comparison.

I felt that the affair between Connie Sumner (Diane Lane) and Paul Martel (Olivier Martinez) was just a basic physical attraction. It was a need that, for some reason, was not met with her husband. At the same time, the affair became more of an addiction for Connie. There's no love at all in that relationship. There is love between Connie and Edward (Richard Gere) but from what is presented on the screen, their love is on low tide. They certainly took each other for granted.

What impressed me the most about "Unfaithful" was that director Lyne and screenwriters Alvin Sargent & William Broyles, Jr. (adapted from Claude Chabrol's "La Femme Infidèle") did not shy away from the consequences of having an affair. There was no easy out for Connie and Edward and no tidy endings.

Gere was O.K. That's not to say he was bad. He didn't impress me very much. It was odd but rather interesting to see him play this rather drab, nerdy character. Something to consider: if the movie was remade in the late 70s or early 80s, Gere definitely would've played the other man.

I was angry at Connie for having an affair and betraying her family. I also felt some sympathy toward her: She was not a bad person. She's basically a good person who made some very bad choices.

One sequence that stood out for me (and apparently for many others) was when Connie is on the commuter train heading back home after her second encounter with Paul. Her facial expressions are so subtle but also tells more about what's going on with her with no dialog. The reactions range from excitement to anger to resignation to fear.

(In the Special Features section of the DVD, check out the interview with veteran film editor Anne V. Coates. She brings an interesting perspective on how she was able to edit the sequence.)

Diane Lane has received many well-deserved accolades for her performance. It's perhaps her best adult performance in her career which started in 1979 when she was just 14 in the wonderful comedy/drama "A Little Romance".

"Unfaithful" has a few weaknesses but luckily they are overshadowed by the film's many strengths, especially Diane Lane.

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.

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.

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.