Unfaithful (Widescreen Edition)

Rating:
Summary: Don't bother
Review: A suburban housewife(who is dressed as plain jane but wears hooker shoes) meets French book dealer(who sounds like he just came from Mexico). She is bored with her nice but dull Richard Gere and I guess the other guy is much more irresistible because he is "French" and wears a scarf. They start a steamy sexual affair and carry on without a care in the world. Nice husband eventually gets suspicious about why his wife doesn't want to get it on anymore and hires a private investigator. In the meantime, our little wifey obviously thinks that the "French" stud is faithful to her and is shocked to find out that he is definitely a gigolo.
Husband, upon finding out that his darling is having an affair, goes to her lover's apartment and brazenly declares "I'm her husband". To which the lover boy says"Oh, ok, you want a drink?" After having a drink, Richard Gere gets enraged(which I thought was the most pathetic acting I've seen in a long time) and kills the other guy. Then, he does a few other stupid things -like tries to drag the dead body out the apartment, apparently not worrying if anybody sees him and rides around with it for a while before dumping it . Eventually, he has to tell his lying cheating wife that he killed her lover and I guess he has to turn himself in. Movie ends on this note, where the wife is begging him not to do it and they could just disappear to Mexico(visit the boyfriend's relatives perhaps?). This was supposed to be a drama but I was laughing through the whole time.

Rating:
Summary: Tale of Infidelity Succeeds Through Restraint
Review: Adrian Lyne's "Unfaithful" is, in many respects, a spin through familiar waters for the director -- the crushing impact of infidelity on a marriage. After all, this is the man who directed two other notorious films on the subject -- "Fatal Attraction" and "Indecent Proposal." While there are similarities between all three films, "Unfaithful" is the strongest of the three because it is the most intelligent.

In an Oscar-nominated performance, Diane Lane plays Constance Sumner, beloved-and-somewhat-bored wife and mother. That her husband is Edward, played by Richard Gere (very sexy as always, but in a mainstream way), seems to be small consolation to her as she rattles around her waterfront Westchester County neo-mansion and cares for her lovely-yet-slightly-troubled son, Charlie (Erik Per Sullivan, unfortunately denied any of the zaniness he exhibits as the youngest son on TV's "Malcom in the Middle"). Constance is one of those "housewives" who has a maid to keep the house in order, freeing her up to take trips into Manhattan to organize charity events.

Lyne subtly creates a sense of tension from the very first scenes in the Sumner household. This is one heck of a beautiful house on a beautiful lake filled with beautiful people, but the colors have been leeched out of everything. From the wondrous foliage to the handsome clothes, everything is a muted shade of brown or gray . . . even the reds and blues. This is not the bright, joyous household it should be. A gift of a strikingly blue sweater introduces a jarring note into this marriage.

Thus we are not surprised when, on a trip into SoHo on perhaps the windiest day of the year, Constance bumps into Paul Martel (Olivier Martinez), a Frenchman who looks like a cover model but is in fact a Bohemian book dealer living in one of those wonderful industrio-residential New York flats. Constance tries vainly to hail a cab, but is unsuccessful and is "forced" to go up to Paul's apartment . . . although it appears that she kinda-sorta lets one last cab go by unhailed before heading upstairs.

Paul, convinced of his Gallic charm and good looks, instantly sets out seducing Constance, but in a restrained way. He offers her a book from his mammoth collection, tells her exactly which book to pick up, which page to turn to, and which passage to read -- lines which are classic "carpe diem" sentiments for those about to cast aside virtue. As Paul says later, in an exercise of Euro-trash philosophy, "There are no mistakes. Only things you do and things you do not do."

While Constance initially refuses his advances, it is no spoiler that in a movie titled "Unfaithful" that she ultimately succumbs and engages in a tumultuous affair. (This, by the way, is an affair that allows Lyne to cover the near-pornographic ground he failed to cover in his earlier film, "9 1/2 Weeks," as Constance and Paul have encounters in theaters, bathrooms, hallways, and even occasionally the bed.)

Lane, who almost always plays a likeable character, plays a real rhymes-with-witch in "Unfaithful." Why? Because she is not driven into this affair -- she chooses to engage in it. Why? Because Paul excites her, and Edward doesn't. Sure, Edward is a bit of a workaholic, and their marriage (11 years in) is in a bit of a rut. But just like you screamed at Michael Douglas for cheating on Anne Archer in "Fatal Attraction" (as in, "What the hell are you thinking, you schmuck?"), you want to scream at Constance for dismissing her marriage so casually.

Sure, Constance is conflicted. She even introduces herself to Paul as "Constance," as if the implication of morality ("Constance" = "constancy") will help her fend of this Lothario. In a delightful, subtle jab at her, Edward keeps referring to her as "Connie," with its implications of immorality ("Connie" = "con" = "con-job"). But even when she tries to break it off "before anyone gets hurt," she relents when Paul says, "I'd get hurt." Well, too darn bad, bub, we want to say, but Constance wouldn't hear us, anyway.

Ultimately, Edward discovers the affair, and he tracks down Paul. This is where the movie comes to life -- Edward, Constance, and even Paul each attempt to resolve this unresolvable situation as best they can -- we thankfully do not undergo a reprise of Glenn Close's meltdown in "Fatal Attraction."

Solid performances by Gere and Martinez anchor the film, while Lane reaches new heights as she runs the gamut of boredom to anticipation to regret to delight to anguish. This is a film to be discussed, where the characters are human, and can occasionally be moved to inhuman heights and depths. Check it out.

The DVD has the standard extras, including deleted scenes and an alternate ending. The director's commentary is helpful, except for his dissertation on why he likes to live in Provence, France, while reading and writing screenplays -- it added nothing to my understanding of the film, and made me insanely jealous. Other than that, a good DVD for a very good film.

Rating:
Summary: Glad I didn't rent it (SPOILER)
Review: I had wanted to see this movie when it came out on DVD a year or two ago but never had the chance to rent it. This weekend it was on the TNT channel so I tuned in. First let me say that the previews were much better than the movie itself. I don't know if it's because it was the t.v. version, but I found this movie to be totally lacking.

First of all, I have no idea what job the wife in the movie had that let her get all dressed up and go into the city every single day. Her husband kept mentioning something about "fund raising" but I never quite got what she actually did. Secondly, the day she met the book-guy I have never, ever seen wind like that except in a hurricane. Thirdly, any woman who finds herself in a strange neighborhood (which obviously she was in by the way she kept looking around confused), would most definitely NOT go up to some strangers apartment for a band-aid even when he said that he was "not an axe murderer".

Now for the spoiler. . .I can understand why the husband was upset when he met the "other man", and why he would have gone to see him. What I don't get is this: Why did he suddenly get all sweaty and feel sick? He kept saying "I don't feel well. I'm sick" and you can see the sweat pouring down his face and meanwhile his vision was all blurry and tilty. Was his drink drugged or were we supposed to assume that he was in a "red rage" after finding the snow globe he gave his wife, who turned around and gave to this guy? Also, killing him with the snow globe? COME ON!!!

The bitter irony after the bludgeoning is the wife calling book-guy and leaving a message that it's over.

And now we get into the desposing of the body. . . Richard Gere wraps the guy in a sheet, then in a rug and duct tapes in together. He then has to drag the body-shaped shroud down the stairs to the car because the elevator is broken. A guy out there sees him struggling and asks "Can I help you with that" never once questioning the body-shaped, duct-taped wrapped shroud. HELLO?!? And then, later that night he gets rear-ended in a parking lot -- in a parking space for that matter which I can't quite figure out how that happens -- and he can't quite shut the trunk and gets snippy with the guy who hit him when he asks if he could help him close it. Okay, raise your hand if you'd be suspicious about this. That's what I thought!

Finally, we come to the incompetent police people. This is where I think the movie probably could have gone on and maybe gotten better, but it didn't. The police come and talk to the wife and husband because they found her name on a piece of paper in the book-guys apartment. She lies and he dove-tails off that lie (very poorly I might add) to make it seem like they met him at some event. You don't have to be in law enforcement to be able to spot the lies they spewed. Then after they found the body (which was deposited in a land fill -- how cliched), they come back and talk to the wife and husband again, finding very obvious errors in their stories -- asking when the wife was in that neighborhood and she said never but they point out the parking ticket she had gotten -- but they never charge them or tell them that they're suspects.

Then later on that night (I belive but it doesn't really matter) wife sees the snow globe that she had given to the book guy back on her shelf. She then confronts the husband and an extremely weak "argument" ensues.

At the end, they try very hard to make you think "Did he turn himself in? Didn't he? What's going to happen?" But to be honest, at that point I didn't really care what happened, and I couldn't belive I had watched the whole thing.

I am so glad that I caught this one one television and didn't waste my money renting it.

Rating:
Summary: Careful what you wish for , it might come true.
Review: This film was well directed with good location shots , very good editing , and decent character development. Richard Gere did a very good job in the film and he was more likeable than his rather annoying wife. The wife was memorable in some scenes and quite over dramatic in others. I think she over acted in some scenes and the best acting accomplished by her was towards the end when she is being questioned by the cops. The sex scenes are uninspiring and hardly erotic, unless seeing two immature and neurotic adults having sex like rabid dogs is your idea of " sexy sex ". I thought the sex scene in the empty movie house was funny and dumb all at the same time. The French guy is utterly annoying with his contrived cheesy lines. I was so anoyed by the French man that when he died I actually felt relieved knowing i wouldn't have to listen him talk again, plus he needed a new hairstyle. Overall this movie was in the toilet and why nobody flushed it is beyond me. Thanks.

Rating:
Summary: Let it be a lesson to all those who dare to...
Review: If I recall correctly, poor Mr. Adrian Lyne always gets criticized for something.
I guess if I was some technical expert in the movie industry, I might have a lot more criticism than praise. However, I am just your average audience who will appreciate movies that somehow touch my emotions. In other words, most of Adrian Lyne movies always kept me thinking and feeling at the same time - which unfortunatly is not always the case with many "forgettable" movies out there.

What I liked about Unfaithful, along with the beautiful Diane Lane and her brilliant performance, I just loved the story. Although living that "perfect life" may fool many people into thinking that there is such thing as "happily ever after", I personally think maintaining such perfection is an ongoing challenge that unfortunately not everyone is good at.

As the good old saying goes,
"It's not losing the weight - but keeping it off."

What Adrian Lyne portrayed perfectly of Connie - the bored, emotional, but incredibly sexy housewife- was completely believable how anyone can get tempted by deliciously falling into one of the most sinful act. As you watch this movie, it's hard to really point fingers at anyone for being the antagonist. All you can do is feel sorry for those who ended up in the regretful situation.

This movie will always be a lesson to me.
Why?
Because after watching it, I throughly understand when one of the characters said, "Things like that - it ALWAYS ends bad."

I suppose one can still sit there and criticize Adrian Lyne for being "this, that, too sappy, whatever" but I will give him a perfect score for his insightful ability to bring out some of the most darkest desires of women on to the screen - which can surely be a lesson to all those who find the wisdom to see it.



Rating:
Summary: FATAL DISTRACTION
Review: If it wasn't for the knockout performance of Diane Lane, Adrian Lyne's UNFAITHFUL wouldn't have turned out as well as it did. Lane is incredible as the suburban housewife who decides for some reason never explained to have an affair with a handsome Frenchman she bumps into during a windstorm. Although to her credit, she does at first fight the temptation, she gives in and has a passionate, almost kinky sexual relationship with the dashing book dealer. There are some incredibly powerful scenes where no words are spoken, especially when Lane after her first encounter with Paul, shows us the conflicting emotions of joy, humor, rage, and frustration, and she cries and laughs at the same time. Lane's performance deservedly got her an Oscar nomination. She is truly brilliant in this role.
Richard Gere as her husband, Ed, is very good also, although his controlled performance stifled his rage; Olivier Martinez as Paul, the lover, is appropriately shallow and self-focused; he doesn't even tell Lane he's married (separated), and she finds him with another young lovely who he claims is a friend. Eventually, the affair leads to a tragic ending, and one which only reinforces Lane's foolishness. She even gives Paul a snowglobe that Gere had given her! Talk about bad taste!
But Lane and Gere see it through to the end, an ending that is ambiguous, and explained more in detail in the deleted scenes.
A good romantic and erotic thriller.

Rating:
Summary: Good movie but doesn't tie the strings together well.
Review: Plot Summary: Happily married woman cheats on her husband with some young French guy. Well shot. Well acted. Well set. The movie itself was just "okay". A few things bothered me... but you should see the movie before I go on my rant which will be coming up, so if you haven't seen "Unfaithful" yet, stop reading.
Okay, now this broad was talking to French boy on the phone in like 4 scenes. The police would be checking phone records and would see the phone calls being made back and forth between the two, and realize she was lying about not knowing the French kid. They could also check the back of the Mercedes for carpet fibers - as the victim was found wrapped in a blanket. The ending was kind of open ended. Beyond that, great flick.

Rating:
Summary: Remake offers solid cinematic experience...
Review: Claude Chabrol is regarded as a virtuoso on criminal enigmas in the cinema and he is also considered to be the birthfather to the French New Wave in cinema, which introduced aggressive jump cuts and a new way of portraying cinema. Chabrol has made forty some films such as Le Beau Serge (1958), Les Biches (1968), Le Boucher (1970), and recently Flower of Evil (2003). In 1969 Chabrol wrote and directed Le Femme Infidèle, which is the root for the remake Unfaithful by Adrian Lyne. It was just a question of time until someone would remake one of Chabrol's films. Lyne seems to be the perfect match for this as he also has a past of mysterious and suspenseful films such as Fatal Attraction (1987) and Jacobs Ladder (1990).

Unfaithful begins with displaying the chaotic life of the housewife Connie (Diane Lane) as her job is to provide a good home for her husband, Ed (Richard Gere), and their son. Amidst the daily chores Connie is also heavily involved in fundraising and antiquities while the son is at school and the Ed is at his security firm. This chaotic lifestyle which seems to be in a rut as everyday occurs in a similar fashion. However, a fresh wind blows Connie's way when she bumps into the young book dealer Martel (Olivier Martinez). Martel lives in an old apartment that is overcrowded with books, and Connie is devoured by Martel's charismatic and well-read mind.

Ed is a loving and faithful husband with a mountain of trust for his wife. However, Connie begins to act strange in minute manners and the small things that she does bewilder Ed. This perplexed mental state of Ed leads him to further express his love for Connie as he believes that he is wrong, but to his shocking revelation she does not return it. The unanswered love leads Ed to hire a good friend and private detective to find out the truth. The truth leads Ed to a strong internal pain. A pain that is so strong that it hinders clear thoughts and actions, which leads to a bloody event.

Lyne does a marvelous job directing the film as it provides similar suspense that the audience will receive from Chabrol's films. Diane Lane performs brilliantly; a performance that nominated her for several cinematic awards for her part. The tense atmosphere is enhanced through Diane Lane's performance as small visual details reveal minute change in emotions and these changes lead the audience to experience a good cinematic remake.


Rating:
Summary: Compelling and frustrating!
Review: Unfaithful is very absorbing and fun to watch; it careens from a sexy drama to a murder drama, and doesn't skip a beat. Diane Lane is excellent, and Richard Gere (in a much more subtle performance) is outstanding. Olivier Martinez doesn't get a chance to do all that much acting-wise, but he's quite handsome to look at.

What is frustrating are the things that make no sense. Why in the world did Connie cheat on her husband? When Edward finally confronts her and she starts to explain, he tells her he doesn't want to hear it. Fine for him -- but I sure did!! It's also frustrating that Connie could be such an UNBELIEVABLY rotten liar, and get away with stuff so easily. She tells the cops she's never been in her lover's apartment, and doesn't know when she last saw him. Uh, Connie, there are these little things nowadays called fingerprints and dna... perhaps you've heard of them? Not to mention that she attacked her lover's girl friend in a library, where probably a hundred people saw her being pulled out. What was taking so long for her to be taken downtown? It's also frustrating that her son can't ask what they're having for breakfast without Connie flashing her husband a "isn't he just the cutest kid?" look that becomes nauseating after a while.

Still, the music is lovely, the movie is very well made, the acting is quite good, and there are some wonderfully silent and subtle scenes that speak volumes with their poignancy (a rarity in film lately). So grab the popcorn, turn out the lights, and enjoy -- but don't look for too many answers, because you'll be left with even more questions.

Oh, one more thing... do you want to avoid Connie's pitfalls and her resulting downfalls (literal and not?) Then follow one simple rule:

Never shop for your kid's party favors in stiletto heels.
That's just asking for trouble.

Rating:
Summary: Having an affair . . . nothing like taking a pottery class.
Review: There is nothing more deadly that you can do in your marriage then have an affair. Kate Burton's (Tracy) haunting lines to her girlfriends that it is/was the one thing in her life that she wishes she had never done, is delivered in chilling sentences and with a prescience only born of painful experience.

Diane Lane, lovely as always, reaches the rare "best scene I ever saw" in the movie reserved for Thomas More's post sentencing speech, Henry at Agincourt and Rocky's 1st round left hook. It is the scene where she returns from her first sexual dalliance with Oliver Martinez (Paul Martel) and in 60 seconds on the rocking train out of Grand Central without uttering a word she conveys self loathing, joy, rage at herself, sexual arousal, tears of shame, and humor. Not a word is spoken. It is what separates Lane (Connie) from the rest of the pack and makes her a true artist, so much more than a pretty face, an actor about which you would say "I want to see THAT movie just because she's in it."

Richard Gere (Edward) is an actor who knows his place. He is not the center of attention and seemingly is willing to be a supporting actor, and do everything within his consumate skill to make her role even better.

This movie is not terribly distant from Adrian Lynne's "Fatal Attraction," with the exception of the marvelous photography and the juxtapostioning of scenes with (if there can be) powerful subtlety. There is one scene in the last third of the movie in a lonely site with the wind blowing the trash of human detritus around, and the camera tilts at a familiar angle to remind us of the trash blowing around Connie's head moments before she meets Paul Martel (Martinez) in the beginning of the movie. The positioning is brilliant.

The love affair is creepy, scary and erotic; Edward's suspicion, disbelief, confusion and rage well played; Connie's addiction to the relationship perfect; photography superb. Here's what I felt were the parts that I as the viewer did not find credible.

You have to believe in your characters. It's not that they won't do something unpredictable. It's when they do something unpredictable, in the larger context of the film it makes sense. Connie is a happy "I have everything" housewife. Her husband worships her, loves her physically as well as emotionally, dotes on her, comes home and asks her about her. The boy is a good son, seems to have all the accessories of young sonmanship with no problems. She is beautiful and full of joie vivre!. So in seedy Soho, carrying bags of party favors on a windy morning, sober, she agrees to walk into an apartment owned by a ruffian, slimy, sexy looking man, all with his caveat "I am not a serial killer."

Connie. Are you insane? Forget about the affair. IT'S NEW YORK CITY! Mark Chapman. David Berkowitz. Are you nuts?

OK. I found that to be ridiculous. Ditto, the affair. Most of us are aware . . . especially those that have worked hard to be where they end up, in Riverdale, beautiful cars, beautiful partners, that we don't do certain things. Drugs. Driving intoxicated. Bungee jumping in Tanzania. So why is she having an affair? At least Dan (Michael Douglas in Fatal Atraction) was a little bit over the top with Alex (Glenn Close), and in fact seemed kind of slimy himself. But Connie is so nice that other women like her! She shows no sign of any problem on the homefront. Sure people have affairs for a variety of reasons but that's just it. There are reasons. There are none here. It was/is incredible.

Diane Lane is great; Gere is extremely good; photography is brilliant; great, provocative, ambiguous ending. Really should be 4 1/2 stars. Larry Scantlebury