Infidelidade

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.