Le mariage d'un couple de banlieusards de New York tourne dangereusement mal lorsque la femme se livre à une aventure adultère.Le mariage d'un couple de banlieusards de New York tourne dangereusement mal lorsque la femme se livre à une aventure adultère.Le mariage d'un couple de banlieusards de New York tourne dangereusement mal lorsque la femme se livre à une aventure adultère.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Nommé pour 1 Oscar
- 3 victoires et 16 nominations au total
Avis à la une
10mppullar
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.
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 long time this movie was in my watchlist and finally have watched it.
Both Richard Gere and Diana Lane's (especially) performances are astonishing.
Story is has taken me quickly because what Connie experienced is quite from the life and all people can do wrong sometimes.
On the other hand there are implausible parts in the story especially after Edward finds out.
Nice continuation of 90's erotic thrillers.
Diane Lane undeniably holds together this film with a magnificent Oscar-nominated performance as the middle-class housewife who has a fling with a charming young Frenchman with tragic consequences.
The first hour or so of this film does play like any stereotypical "housewife fantasy". Adrian Lyne, second only to the Scott brothers for slick visual style, uses symbolism from the outset as what seems to be a desolate and deserted landscape turns out to be a seemingly happy family home. Connie's initial "meet-cute" with Paul is preceded and caused, quite literally by an almighty wind of change...You get the idea. Lane successfully keeps the audiences sympathies despite her devastatingly selfish and irrational actions. Thankfully, she doesn't quite submit to his charms and fall into bed with him immediately - it's only after some painfully awkward meetings and phone calls that the first sizzling, erotic scene occurs.
As the affair continues I found my sympathies strongly transferring to Connie's husband, played by Richard Gere, and son. Her actions become more and more selfish and the web of lies and half-truths begin. In one strong scene the incredibly beautiful Connie, turns down her husbands loving, sexual advances in an atmospheric bathtub, leaving him visibly hurt and aware that something is badly wrong. In contrast Connie has passionless sex with Paul in a restaurant toilet, when a chance encounter with friends prevents her from seeing him at his flat.
Like a couple of other recent dramas such as "In the Bedroom", the film does eventually, and disappointingly veer into conventional thriller territory. It is to Lyne, the script and his cast's credit that the film remains completely involving as both couples secrets become clear, and they are forced to regain and find strength in their relationship in different ways for their families survival.
On the downside, Gere is heavily outclassed in the acting stakes by Lane, though the chemistry is there which is important. Olivier Martinez certainly looks the part, although I did feel the part was underwritten despite his role being, essentially, a mere plot device. As stated earlier, the symbolism is a touch heavy handed, though the visuals are always attractive.
Overall, a surprisingly intelligent and moving look at infidelity and it's consequences on an otherwise stable and comfortable family. Lane's performance is tremendous and the script offers an incisive look at the dynamics of the couples relationship as the affair progresses, and after, as tragic events unfold. Although the film does veer into conventional thriller territory eventually, the film always tends towards reality rather than genre/movie logic, and the ending is wonderfully ambiguous.
The first hour or so of this film does play like any stereotypical "housewife fantasy". Adrian Lyne, second only to the Scott brothers for slick visual style, uses symbolism from the outset as what seems to be a desolate and deserted landscape turns out to be a seemingly happy family home. Connie's initial "meet-cute" with Paul is preceded and caused, quite literally by an almighty wind of change...You get the idea. Lane successfully keeps the audiences sympathies despite her devastatingly selfish and irrational actions. Thankfully, she doesn't quite submit to his charms and fall into bed with him immediately - it's only after some painfully awkward meetings and phone calls that the first sizzling, erotic scene occurs.
As the affair continues I found my sympathies strongly transferring to Connie's husband, played by Richard Gere, and son. Her actions become more and more selfish and the web of lies and half-truths begin. In one strong scene the incredibly beautiful Connie, turns down her husbands loving, sexual advances in an atmospheric bathtub, leaving him visibly hurt and aware that something is badly wrong. In contrast Connie has passionless sex with Paul in a restaurant toilet, when a chance encounter with friends prevents her from seeing him at his flat.
Like a couple of other recent dramas such as "In the Bedroom", the film does eventually, and disappointingly veer into conventional thriller territory. It is to Lyne, the script and his cast's credit that the film remains completely involving as both couples secrets become clear, and they are forced to regain and find strength in their relationship in different ways for their families survival.
On the downside, Gere is heavily outclassed in the acting stakes by Lane, though the chemistry is there which is important. Olivier Martinez certainly looks the part, although I did feel the part was underwritten despite his role being, essentially, a mere plot device. As stated earlier, the symbolism is a touch heavy handed, though the visuals are always attractive.
Overall, a surprisingly intelligent and moving look at infidelity and it's consequences on an otherwise stable and comfortable family. Lane's performance is tremendous and the script offers an incisive look at the dynamics of the couples relationship as the affair progresses, and after, as tragic events unfold. Although the film does veer into conventional thriller territory eventually, the film always tends towards reality rather than genre/movie logic, and the ending is wonderfully ambiguous.
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.
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.
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.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesDiane Lane herniated her neck during a kissing scene with Olivier Martinez. She's quoted in saying, "We must've done like 50 takes."
- GaffesWhen Connie is having coffee at Café Noir with Tracy and Sally she heads to the back of the café (the washroom) without her purse. As she returns her purse is in hand.
- Citations
Connie Sumner: I think this was a mistake.
Paul: There is no such thing as a mistake. There are things you do, and things you don't do.
- Versions alternativesDVD contains 11 deleted scenes including alternate ending. In the alternate ending Richard Gere goes to the police station to confess to everything. The original ending left it for the viewer to decide.
- Bandes originalesAi Du
Written by Ali Farka Touré
Performed by Ali Farka Touré with Ry Cooder
Courtesy of Hannibal Records, a Rykodisc Label
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Unfaithful?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Infidelidad
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 50 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 52 775 765 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 14 065 277 $US
- 12 mai 2002
- Montant brut mondial
- 119 137 784 $US
- Durée2 heures 4 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant