The End of the Affair
December. 03,1999 ROn a rainy London night in 1946, novelist Maurice Bendrix has a chance meeting with Henry Miles, husband of his ex-mistress Sarah, who abruptly ended their affair two years before. Bendrix's obsession with Sarah is rekindled; he succumbs to his own jealousy and arranges to have her followed.
Similar titles
You May Also Like
Reviews
Why so much hype?
When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.
The film may be flawed, but its message is not.
The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful
Well, I just turned off the DVD player and gave up on watching this flick. I saw it for approximately 60 minutes and asked myself what was going on. People will think I'm kinda dumb, but I sincerely didn't understand what was director's point in intercalating past scenes with current ones. Sometimes the story was sooo slow and uninteresting that I was asking myself if the scene was old or current, since director didn't mind doing that all the time. The only things I could appreciate were the good acting and the beautiful photography direction, which delivered some beautiful scenes and dialogs. However, it feels too Shakespearian and too abstruse to make the spectator care about what's happening. Maybe some little less conversation and much more action-- even in a drama film-- would make it far more interesting than that. I still have hope I'll enjoy other Neil Jordan movies anyways.
I never thought the movie would turn out so well.I loved the acting of Juliane Moore and the simple fact that at the end of the movie you are left with a cherished memory of a movie.The way the story is plotted is also amazing. The story kind of unfolds from an ending - kind of keeping with the title.I loved the fact that the movie doesn't end cheesy.The chemistry between the lovers portrayed is absolutely amazing in that you take over the characters and experience their heated romance.Each character is well portrayed and the same for a solid purpose contributing to the story.Its a good inspiration for all who stand for what they believe in and exemplifies it correctly.
Although I did see the original version of this Graham Greene novel on television it was several years ago and nothing has remained with me, possibly because of my aversion to both leads, Van Johnson and Deborah Kerr. Whilst I do admire Julianne Moore - never more so than in Vanya on 42nd Street - I can take or leave Fiennes and consider Neil Jordan little more than a journeyman with a Ken Loach type anti-English chip on his shoulder. So, one out of three going in. Despite the graphic sex scenes I detected no chemistry whatsoever between Fiennes and Moore, not an ideal situation when passion is presented as the driving force. Nor was there any serious attempt to replicate the mid-forties, for all the authenticity they may as well have updated it half a century and substitute an RTA for the German bomb. James Bolam provided an entertaining cameo but then disappeared. All in all not much to write home about.
A surprisingly weak adaptation of fairly strong novel Graham Green. Much of the strength of Green's novel lay in its unsentimental, almost stark prose. This movie, on the other hand, is all violins and histrionic embellishment. (The lovemaking scenes border on the comic by the third or fourth round). I guess the clipped, wooden dialog is supposed to reflect Green's austere style. Unfortunately the film misses the mark on both points.The cast is good with the usual cinematic liberties - Henry (Stephen Rea) is supposed to be somewhat corpulent. Julianne Moore seems like an odd choice for the captivating Sarah, but she does her best. Ralph Fiennes is a good choice for Bendix and Ian Hart almost singe- handedly saves the movie. Almost. Unfortunately, a major character who provides significant influence on the plot is completely absent from the film. As a result, Sarah's path and the eventual outcome stray a fair bit from the novel's intent. I like character driven movies as much or more than the next guy, but this one doesn't seem to have much gas. Please don't judge the novel based on this filmNote: I always check the spoiler box because I'm never sure when discussion of plot is considered "spoiling". Seems to me it's difficult to have a worthwhile discussion of a film without touching on plot at least a little.