User Reviews

Warning! This review is unabashedly sentimental.

I first saw this film in the midst of the strongest love affair of my life and thought it was a beautiful love story, with beautiful actors and beautiful music. I loved it because I was in love and it reinforced all those wonderful feelings.

Then, almost masochistically, I rented it after the break-up of that same four year long romance and I loved it then as well for entirely opposing reasons. I could feel the bitterness of how cruel love can be when it's been taken away. Maurice Bendrix (sp?) became my sympathetic friend. I could feel why he pulled his hand away at the table -- too painful and too dangerous. Whereas when I saw it the first time, I just thought, "That cold b*stard! Why does he want to hurt her?" I felt his frustration at trying to slay a beast without a face. He didn't hate anyone or anything except his own awareness of the realities of love.

The book and this successful cinematic adaptation paint the whole picture... 360 degrees. And I think it works from all the different perspectives. Love is the most wonderful emotion but it can also carry as much danger along with it as hate can. And there's no way to completely be in love, your guard let completely down, without risking your neck. If Bendrix could do it all again, would he do anything differently? Would he have stopped himself from falling in love with Sarah? Could he have stopped himself?

I still appreciated many of the same things as I did the first time -- the acting of the leads and the strong supporting cast, the warm beautiful interior shots, the way the plot untwists ... but other things came to forefront on second viewing that slipped by the first time -- Maurice's little flashbacks on the stairway (god, that's just how it is) and the music! It seemed so benignly beautiful the first time I saw it, but it became almost too painfully intrusive the second time.

Maybe I'll watch it again when I get a more neutral perspective on the whole matter. I wonder if we ever have that when it comes to love.

As so often, I haven't yet read the novel this movie was based on. So again, you can't expect from me that I make a comparison between the two. But even if I had read the book I don't think I would have talked about it, because this doesn't honor the many work and inspiration that the director has put in it. It's not because he uses an existing story, that what he does with it, has to be completely the same...

Even though the largest part of the story is situated during the Second World War, it doesn't start there. We first meet the novelist Maurice Bendrix and Henry Miles, the husband of his ex-mistress Sarah, on a rainy night in London in 1946. For a reason we don't know yet, the affair between Bendrix and Sarah was abruptly ended by her, two years before, and since then they hadn't seen each other. Now Bendrix's obsession with Sarah immediately gets a new spark and out of jealousy he arranges to have her followed. That's when we learn the reason for their separation. During a bombing raid, Sarah made a bargain with God. She would sacrifice their relationship in exchange for Bendrix's life. He survived and that's why she didn't want to see him anymore. But when he reappears, she soon realizes that it will be very difficult to keep her promise to God...

When you hear in the trailer that Ralph Fiennes and Julianne Moore are magic together, you might believe that this is just some nice promo talk, only intended for making you buy the DVD. But for once they really didn't exaggerate. Together they lifted this movie to a higher level, although it must be said that Stephen Rea did a very fine job too. The fact that they had a very good and well-written script to work with, must have helped them too of course. Some were not pleased with what they called a couple of 'soft-porn scenes' but personally I didn't have a problem with that at all. In my opinion this only added to the rawness of the emotions.

Some will also say that this is an incredibly boring movie. Well, if you don't like or are not used to watching a movie without big action scenes, than this is absolutely true. If you are such a person, than you better leave it alone and choose something else. But when you like to see a quality product (and no I'm not going to use the title 'art'-movie because I hate that name and this certainly isn't such a movie), with believable emotions, a great story and some excellent acting performances, than this might be a movie that you definitely should give a try. I really liked what I saw and that's why I give it a 7.5/10 at least, maybe even an 8/10.

This film tells the story of a wartime love affair between Maurice, a successful, cynical and rather callous novelist, and Sarah, the beautiful but neglected wife of a dull senior civil servant. She tends to believe in the supernatural, he does not, but both are spurred on by the danger of both discovery and the bombs raining down on London. Perversely, when her husband confides to Maurice his suspicion that Sarah is having an affair, Maurice hires a private detective to investigate, in effect, himself. In the end, it is God who decrees the finale, not the characters, who accommodate as best they can to their destinies.

Do we really care? This is not easy to answer. Maurice, the narrator, is a prize prick, unfeeling of others, concentrated on his misery and his work, yet obsessively jealous. Sarah provides a focus for his substantial sex drive but he does develop an affection for her. Sarah, on the other hand, clearly likes a good bonk as well, but she needs the relationship to full the void left by her husband's emotional absence, and Maurice is too self-centred to be a real soulmate. She is also quite a nice person in comparison with nasty bitter old Maurice. So yes, we are sorry for her. We have to admire Maurice for being honest enough to tell the story but there is an air of self-flagellation about it.

As a film, this is a terrific piece of work, directed by the Irish director Neil Jordan who was responsible for "The Crying Game". Greene is a very cinematic novelist - at last count there were at least 40 screen versions of his works - and Jordan has very cleverly used a present - flashback - present and then forward technique to tell the story from both Maurice's and Sarah's viewpoint. The gloom and danger of wartime London is effectively invoked but there was a bit of overkill in having it rain almost continuously from 1939 to 1945 (London has less rain days than Sydney!) It struck me early on that Ralph Fiennes was by no means inevitable in the part - I was reminded of the early Sam Neill. His character is really rather empty - a man whose only real commitments are to his work and sex. Julianne Moore, delightfully bad as Mrs Cheveley in "An Ideal Husband", and delightfully slapstick as the childish Cora in "Cookie's" Fortune", is much more sympathetic here. Stephen Rea (a Jordan favourite) as the cuckold is the most sympathetic of the lot or at least the most self-aware. He gives us a wonderful portrayal of stitched up dismay and yet it does not seem beyond the bounds of credibility that, knowing of the affair, he should invite Maurice to come and live with them towards the end.

Greeneland is a pretty bleak place, but a couple of apparent miracles brighten things up. Greene clearly thought God had a sense of humour. The novel is said to be semi-autobiographical, but the real affair Greene had with the wife of a wealthy businessman, while no doubt equally painful, did not end so melodramatically as the novel. Looking at a biography of Greene by Michael Shelden I note that Catherine Walston, whose relationship with Greene was the chief inspiration for "The End of the Affair," died in 1978, aged 62, 13 years before Greene. According to Shelden, Catherine refused to see Greene on her deathbed because she didn't want him to see how sick she was. The affair itself petered out in the early fifties, though they remained in touch. Henry Walston, it seemed, asserted himself and demanded that Catherine cut down on her contact with Greene. Greene went overseas to find danger and forget, to Vietnam and elsewhere, and these trips produced at least one more major novel, "The Quiet American." However Greene's career as a writer peaked with "The End of the Affair." His later work is interesting and readable, but never again did he reach the same emotional depths and heights.

Greene is often said to be a Catholic novelist but on the basis of this work at least he wasn't a great pitchman for the Almighty. Greene was, however, an eloquent portrayer of spiritual suffering and this aspect has been effectively brought to the screen by Neil Jordan. Perhaps it takes an Irishman to understand an English Catholic.

One of the great joys in movie watching lies in stumbling across films that, by their very nature, should be nothing more than clichéd, hackneyed versions of stories we have seen a thousand times before yet, somehow, through the insightfulness of their creators, manage to illuminate those tales in ways that are wholly new and unexpected. Such is the case with Neil Jordan's `The End of the Affair,' a film that in its bare boned outlining would promise to be nothing more than a conventional, three-handkerchief weepie centered around the hoary issue of romantic infidelity, but which emerges, instead, as a beautiful and moving meditation on the overwhelming force jealousy, love, commitment and passion can exert on our lives.

Ralph Fiennes stars as Maurice Bendrix, a British writer living in 1940's London, who has an affair with Sarah Miles (Julianne Moore), the wife of Maurice's friend, Henry (Stephen Rea). Based on a Graham Greene novel, the film achieves far greater intellectual and emotional depth than this skeletal outline would indicate. Part of the success rests in the fact that both the original author and the adapter, writer/director Neil Jordan, have devised a multi-level scenario that utilizes a number of narrative techniques as the means of revealing crucial information to the audience regarding both the plot and the characters. For instance, the film travels fluidly back and forth in time, spanning the decade of the 1940's, from the initial meeting between Bendrix and Sarah in 1939, through the horrendous bombings of London during World War II to the `present' time of the post-war British world. This allows the authors to reveal the details of the affair slowly, enhanced by the even more striking technique of having the events viewed from the entirely different viewpoints of the two main characters involved. `Rashomon' – like, we first see the affair through the prism of Bendrix's limited perspective, only to discover, after he has confiscated Sarah's diary, that he (and consequently we) have been utterly mistaken as to the personal attributes and moral quality of Sarah all along. Thus, as an added irony, Bendrix discovers that he has been obsessing over a woman he `loves' but, in reality, knows little about.

The authors also enhance the depth of the story through their examination of TWO men struggling with their overwhelming jealousy for the same woman and the complex inter-relationships that are set up as a result. In fact, the chief distinction of this film is the way it manages to lay bare the souls of all three of these fascinating characters, making them complex, enigmatic and three-dimensional human beings with which, in their universality, we can all identify. Bendrix struggles with his raging romantic passions, his obsessive jealousy for the woman he can't possess and his lack of belief in God, the last of which faces its ultimate challenge at the end. Sarah struggles with the lack of passion she finds in the man she has married but cannot love as more than a friend, juxtaposed to the intense love she feels for this man she knows she can never fully have. In addition, she finds herself strangely faithful, if not to the two men in her life, at least to two crucial commitments (one to her wedding vows and one to God) yet unable to fully understand why. Henry struggles with his inadequacies as a lover and the strange possessiveness that nevertheless holds sway over him. Even the minor characters are fascinating. Particularly intriguing is the private investigator who becomes strangely enmeshed in the entire business as both Bendrix and Henry set him out to record Sarah's activities and whereabouts, a man full of compassion for the people whom he is, by the nature of his profession, supposed to view from a position of coldhearted objectivity. (One plot flaw does, however, show up here: why would this man, whose job it is to spy on unsuspecting people for his clients, employ a boy to help him who sports a very distinctive birthmark on one side of his face?).

`The End of the Affair' would not be the noteworthy triumph it is without the stellar, subtly nuanced performances of its three main stars. In addition, as director, Jordan, especially in the second half, achieves a lyricism rare in modern filmmaking. Through a fluidly gliding camera and a mesmerizing musical score, Jordan lifts the film almost to the level of cinematic poetry as we sit transfixed by the emotional richness and romantic purity of the experience. `The End of the Affair' takes its place alongside `Brief Encounter' and `Two For the Road' as one of the very best studies of a romantic relationship ever put on film.

"This is a diary of hate," is the opening line of this film, said by the main character and narrator, novelist Maurice Bendrix(Ralph Fiennes). That opening line tells you this is, or should be, a tale of passion. The novel by Graham Greene the film is based on is certainly a novel of passion, though much of it is within, and hard to dramatize in a film. But if any director could do it, surely it could be Neil Jordan, who makes films which overflow with passion(with the exception of MICHAEL COLLINS, but that was a different kind of film); even his disaster IN DREAMS was a failure of excess. And yet this film doesn't really come to life until maybe at the end.

Contrary to what one comment said, it isn't because Greene isn't relevant. Adultery will always be with us, and therefore always ripe for stories of any kind, and Greene told it in a way which is still fresh today. And Jordan makes the interesting decision to shoot the film in mostly medium shots or close-ups, rather than in panoramic wide shots, perhaps to fit the setting(London) or make you feel events are crowding the characters. But if you're going to take a microscope to your characters, you better show something, and Jordan really doesn't. Instead, he relies too much on narration and conventional storytelling(contrast this with how he adapted THE BUTCHER BOY), and until we get to hear the story from Sarah's point of view, we don't get a sense of what drives these people.

Fiennes is one of my favorite actors, but he doesn't do anything distinctive here. Only at the end does he truly come alive. Moore is also a favorite, but she too has little to work with until the story shifts to her point of view. And even when we find out about Sarah's fate, it wasn't moving enough. The ones who really come through are Rea, who not only has a note-perfect British accent, but is terrific as someone who, as he puts it, is not a lover. And Ian Hart brings some comic relief as the detective hired to follow Sarah. But this is definitely a disappointment; IN DREAMS I hated as well, but that could be dismissed as an experiment which went wrong, while this film should be the type of film Jordan excels at, but doesn't here.

The End of the Affair is one of those old fashioned romantic type British films along the lines of Brief Encounter. Julianne Moore got an Oscar nomination for Best Actress, but no one in that year was going to beat out Hillary Swank.

Ralph Fiennes has a chance meeting with Julianne Moore and her husband Stephen Rea and the passion gets going almost immediately. The apparently indifferent Rea almost makes the affair too easy for both Fiennes and Moore. Eventually though she breaks it off abruptly with Fiennes and he's obsessed to find out why.

He hires a private detective played by Ian Hart and his report leads to some surprising developments for all concerned.

The film is based on a Graham Greene novel though you can bet that the very Catholic Mr. Greene would not have approved of what Fiennes tells to a Catholic priest played by Jason Isaacs.

Actually I liked the rather droll performance of Ian Hart as the detective who winds up working for two of three sides of the triangle and has no scruples about getting his 10 year old son involved to achieve results. Hart did very good work also in Backbeat, playing a young John Lennon.

This is a remake of a 1955 film that starred Van Johnson and Deborah Kerr though you can bet it was not as graphic as this version is.

For those who love old fashioned romances, you'll like The End of the Affair.

Although not always explicitely, generically so, Neil Jordan's films are often framed as detective stories, and his latest film is no different. Here, there is a puzzle to be worked out, enlightenment to be sought, perception to be questioned. Graham Greene had a similar interest in the genre, and he used the thriller format as a means of exposing, if not always unravelling, the confused, the murky, be it personal or political. Both artists are literary men involved in film, and both have an interest in combustible relationships, historico-political investigation, and a Catholic background. So it seems strange that two artists so eminently suited to one another, both aesthetically and personally, should produce a film that, while never less than entertaining, seems, if I may say this under the IMDb guidelines, oddly pointless.

There are a variety of reasons for this. The first is the lack of real conflict. Nominally a story about an adulterous couple and a cuckolded husband, the latter is too passive, too gentle and kind (despite Sarah's protestations of coldness), too understanding, too ENGLISH to object, and any brief, ominous actions of his are quickly, bathetically explained away. The battle between a human being and God might interest some of a theological bent, but the Deity is insufficiently dramatised here (as is appropriate: Bendrix spends much of the movie refusing his existence; when he finally does, it's only to lock him out) to make this compelling. And the interior conflict within a person himself works better on page than on screen, as the failure of FIGHT CLUB demonstrated.

As an author, one would expect Jordan to be faithful to Greene's analysis of the act of writing itself, and this is the most satisfactory element of the film. It begins with a pan of manuscript, and Bendrix narrating the creation of his novel. The relationship with Sarah begins with reference to his writing, his 'stealing' Henry's wife being part of his project of studying Henry for a character.

One of the film's main structural devices is the visualising the same incident from different points of view, revealing the blinkered perception of protagonists who make decisive judgements without learning the full story. The problem with these scenes, it seemed to me, was that they weren't a Cubist device offering different perspectives on the same scene.

In each of these, there was an objective reality that each narrator agreed upon, which was later fleshed out by the provision of missing information - there was no essential unreliability, each character was inherently trusted as far as their limited knowledge went. This had seemed problematic - none of us see objective reality - until I realised that there was something that could absorb both Bendrix's and Sarah's confessional subjectivity - God.

Because it is unenlightened subjectivity that destroys everything in the film. Unfortunately, for this to work, there should have seeped into the film a sense of the unknown unavailable to even Greene or Jordan. The closing miracle is lovely, but this could simply be a typical Jordan moment, an example of the unsolicited kindness of strangers brightening the darkness.

So a film with three detectives (Bendrix, Parkis, and us) cannot contribute a plot, because there is an easily won, ungraspable solution. What else is there? Character study? I have always found Ralph Fiennes an unyielding actor, although there isn't much he can do with such an unpleasant, selfish, jealous, mean-minded, inward character, one very close to being a lunatic.

Julianne Moore, who can do so much with so little, has the opposite problem. Jordan has often been accused of an inability to portray women; Greene was often charged with sacrificing characterisation to schema. Moore's character suffers on both counts here, a rather odd throwback to Victorian values. The first, Bendrix-clouded, half of the film sees her cast as a duplicitous, sex-mad whore; the second, diary-aided, defence, white-washes her as a near-saint.

At no point does she come across as a real, vibrant, playful, complex woman like her real-life model, with whom Greene stayed for a good few years after writing the novel. She is even punished like a 19th century heroine (e.g. Violetta in LA TRAVIATA), killed for her carnality, ascending into heaven, conveniently out of the way, for her remorse. The sex scenes are shot with rare maturity and knowledge, even if Jordan frequently lights Moore like a Botticellian goddess, and the air-raid as sexual explosion was more convincing in THE CRANES ARE FLYING.

Stephen Rea is Stephen Rea, wonderful but, you know, the usual, untaxed, although there is humour in having an active republican playing the paralysingly archetypal Englishman. Ian Hart as the detective Parkis is a lovely creation, inept, understanding, resigned, desperate for friendship, bringing his beloved 'boy' in tow, but he seems somewhat sentimentalised for a Greene character.

Not even the historical recreation affords much pleasure. While it is entirely believable that an obsessional couple might block out the Second World War as a minor inconvenience, the lack of contextualisation makes their opting out seem like flailing in a vacuum. Jordan seems unable, whether through low-budget of ill-judged scale, to transform his materials into a vision of the past - too often we just see actors in period suits in what passes for period locales, not lived-in people trapped in a living environment.

Most curious of all, though, is how the mere act of recreating history and paying attention to detail makes shabby, dank, dusty, deceptive, murky, seedy Greeneland seem quaint and nostalgically pleasurable, thereby betraying it - because it was as much a state of mind as an actuality. Jordan's greet skill with the seaside and the carnivalesque does achieve a shimmering epiphany in Brighton of all places, making you wish this frustrating film had more oomph.

Love and the spiritual (i.e. inner) life have rarely been better portrayed! Graham Greene's novel has been translated to cinematic imagery with an almost religious devotion. It isn't easy to make profound and meaningful experience so immediate and felt as this film does. Watching it on video...a second viewing...I was even more deeply moved than the first time around.

Julianne Moore, very much on the big screen these days (and for good reason), gives another of her splendid performances, this time as Sarah Miles, a middle-class English woman, married to a good, but dull man who takes her for granted. Her encounter with Maurice Bendrix (played to a T by the consummate actor, Ralph Fiennes) is electric and sets in motion an affair of deep consequence...for all three people involved. Stephan Rea as Henry Miles, Sarah's husband, trapped in his desire, but inability to fulfill the emotional and sexual needs of his much-loved wife, is another convincing and touching portrayal.

The spiritual aspects expressed in the film, reflect the life-long struggle of Grahame between his Catholicism and his doubts. The deep pulls of each character toward both personal and impersonal love give the film a dimension and an honesty that reward the "participant" (for that's how potent the film is) with an indelible human experience.

To Neil Jordan, the director, my wholehearted gratitude for his sensitive, nuanced presentation of this beautiful film.

Flawed but wonderfully acted wartime Graham Greene drama of a secret affair. Ralph Fiennes, unlike the wonderful Julianne Moore, is somewhere between a stuffed shirt and his usual impression of Olivier reading the bard. The atmosphere of wartime England seems beautifully re-created.

This is an engrossing tale of love, passion and betrayal invloving three star-crossed lovers. Maurice Bendrix (Ralph Fiennes) is a man haunted by jealousy and pain over an affair he had with the wife of one of his friends, Henry Miles (Stephen Rea). The affair has been over for two years when a chance encounter with Miles takes Bendrix to his house where he once again encounters Sarah (Julianne Moore). The obsession for her returns when Henry tells him that he suspects that Sarah is having an affair. At hearing this Maurice gets jealous, thinking that he has been replaced as her paramour. What follows is a complex and tangled web of suspicion, jealousy and dolor.

This is a wonderfully complicated story that opens slowly like a flower. It is a first person narrative delivered by Bendrix and it gets more intriguing as the film progresses. The use of flashbacks is subtlety effective, where the realizations about misinterpretations come not from the dialogue, but from seeing the same scene from two perspectives. The love scenes are sensuously done and the general tone of the film is poignant and sensitive.

The film was nicely photographed with various filters to give it an old feel without losing the richness. Director Neil Jordan did a fine job of giving the film a genuine look of the period with proper English costumes from the 1940's.

Ralph Fiennes was excellent as the jealous lover. He played the character as civilized and staid with molten lava just beneath the surface. He was masterful at conveying strong emotion with a sideways glance or hand gesture without losing his composure.

Julianne Moore has added another fabulous dramatic performance to her resume as Sarah. She played the part with fatalistic passion, victimized by vortex of events she felt powerless to control.

Stephen Rea also shined as the impassive cuckold. Rea tends to be very understated in his portrayals, often too much so. But he was the perfect choice for the hapless Miles; so intellectual, withdrawn and defenseless. His phlegmatic response upon being confronted by Bendrix about their affair, showed a resigned helplessness that was both pathetic and believable.

I enjoyed this film immensely and gave it a 9/10. It is finespun yet powerful. It takes its time unfolding, so if you like pace this film might test your patience. But if you enjoy a good old fashioned steamy love triangle, this film will do nicely.

Neil Jordan has a diverse manner in his direction of motion pictures, and as evident in The End of The Affair, it is a rather clumsy one. Sure enough this a high quality motion picture, particluarly in the acting of the three leads, as well as most of what there is of a supporting cast. The problem is the depth of the movie and story with which we are presented. Graham Greenes novel is a classic and has epical qualities as did The vampire Chronicles (Interview), but in Jordan's transition from paper to screen, certain things are lost. The movie comes across less of an event and more of a story, he seems to have spent a lot of time condensing the written material into pastiches of the novels content. He rather chops away at certain parts. I am not saying that if he had made a longer movie out of it then it would solve things but as evident in most of Anthony Minghella's and Frank Darabont's work, modern epics do need to have the sweeping quality of the Lawrence of Arabia and other David Lean pictures.

Perhaps he is uncomfortable with padding what he would feel to be a 'nice' love story. With added sub-plotting the movie would have naturally looked more comfortable with being lengthy. The only possible areas for this happening would have been in the character of Parkiss. There is certainly more to be explored there. Mainly thanks to the out-standing performance of Ian Hart, who has a very underrated role in british cinema. His scenes are all with Fiennes and maybe this would put him in the market for more mainstream roles. Fiennes himself is excellent and the love scenes with Moore have a definite chemistry. Stephen rea is always capable of giving a character an emotional twist and he does so again with a lumbered drool. Jordan's direction is by no means bad and he proves once again that he can cross genres with ease. Overall a very good movie which gives a difficult message about love which the majority may not understand.

Look at the comments on this site. There's pretty much a perfect split between people who think the film is unrelentingly dull with no redeeming features, and people who think the film is an amazing achievement. I fall into the latter category, and can't for the life of me figure out the former.

This is not an action film. There is no violence. There are no thrills, chills, spills, or anything along those lines. There are three terrific characters, there is an amazingly romantic relationship, and there are superb performances. There is a wonderful director who keeps everything tightly reigned in. There is nothing superfluous in this film. It is perfect.

Maurice Bendrix (Ralph Fiennes) is a novelist who meets beautiful Sarah Miles (Julianne Moore) at a party hosted by her husband Henry (Stephen Rea), whom Bendrix is researching for a book. In no time at all, Sarah and Maurice begin a tempestuous and passionate affair which continues through World War II, until Sarah breaks it off suddenly after an air raid which nearly took Bendrix's life. A chance encounter with Henry two years later brings Bendrix and Sarah together again, and they rekindle their affair as the truth about that air raid is revealed.

A nice enough story on its own. But what makes this film great is the approach that Jordan takes (or perhaps it's not his approach... I'm not familiar with either the novel by Graham Greene or the 1955 film). The opening line of the film is typed by Bendrix onto a clean sheet of paper: "This is a diary of hate." It is only at the end of the film that the viewer understands who it is that Bendrix hates, and why. The story is a dramatization of what Bendrix is writing.

First, he tells us about 1946, when he just happened to see Henry walking in the rain. It's this moment that opens the door for Bendrix, and for us, into his own past. Then Bendrix proceeds to interweave his recent experiences of 1946 with events that transpired during the War. That gives us three distinct time frames for the film, which are introduced to the viewer in reverse chronological order.

Also, it is useful to remember that everything we see on screen (with the exception of several scenes of Bendrix typing away) is a depiction of what Bendrix writes. The entire film is told from Bendrix's point-of -view. This allows us two things: 1) more intimate access to the inner workings of such a fascinating character, and 2) it allows us to enjoy the mystery element of the story much more. If you'll notice, all of the best mysteries tend to have single-character POVs. Look at Chinatown, or The Maltese Falcon. Splitting the POV tends to give audiences information which they should not get before the main character does.

Not that this film is a mystery. There is a mystery in it, which is central to the plot and to Bendrix's situation, but I wouldn't call the film itself a mystery.

What makes this film great is its understatement. It is a very English film, and the characters and performances are all very English. Emotions are fiercely felt but subtly expressed. That makes it highly demanding of its audience, but even more rewarding. It also explains why so many call the film boring. Sarah was described as an ice queen in one review here, and Bendrix was called shallow. Like most reviews (including this one), those comments say a lot more about the people who wrote them then they do about their purported subject. Sarah is intensely passionate, Bendrix is a layered and complex character.

So, not for all tastes, but a brilliant film. Better than any and all of the Best Picture noms of 1999.

"The End of the Affair" is saved by the wonderful performances of its talented cast and by Graham Greene's brilliant writing. It is a "chick flick" that succeeds. The always excellent Julianne Moore makes credible an incredible character. Moore's mixture of sweet vagueness and inner strength work perfectly here in her portrayal of a woman who leaves her lover. She does so because, in a prayer offered when she thought her lover was dead or dying, she promised to leave her lover if God would spare his life. I know it sounds a little silly but Moore's acting and Greene's writing combine to make it work. Ralph Finnes as the writer who loves Moore but is jealous of her husband and Stephen Rea as the husband could hardly be better. About three-fourths of the way through "The End of the Affair" I was thinking that it was obvious and largely a waste of time. But by the end, Graham Greene's patented twists and turns and his unique view of Catholicism had saved this movie, which was based on his book. I should add that the entire production is elegantly mounted and beautifully photographed. Recommended. 7 out of 10.

Adultery in and of itself does not necessarily make good drama. Sometimes, it can make good farce, I suppose, but as far as drama is concerned, the best way to handle a love triangle is to tell the story backwards. Neil Jordan's adaptation of The End of the Affair does, in some sense, attempt to tell the story sideways, and is occasionally interesting as a question of, `Where am I now – in their idyllic past or the grim future?'

The opening credits of the film are quite reassuring. Neil Jordan has always been a superb craftsman, and very often a strong storyteller.

For the first ten minutes, I thought I was in for a treat. The camera drifts over the belongings of the protagonist, Bendix (Ralph Fiennes) and then settles in on him typing his novel. `This is a diary of hate,' he begins, and I smiled, knowing that he was going to be the laconic, smart but silly everyman akin to Joseph Cotton in `The Third Man', the Graham Greene protagonist, tough yet brittle, with a wise acre mouth but deep wells of insecurity underneath.

Fiennes and Moore flirt at a party, and talk about the characters in the book he is going to write. This seems to be the most interesting part of their relationship – the attraction stage. Once they get into the affair, which is steamy and highly charged sexually, I promptly lost interest in the movie.

See, there's really not much interest in watching people who are having an affair on film. Perhaps the Graham Greene novel handled this in a poetic way (and the dialogue sounds very much like prose), but onscreen it plays itself out as a somewhat predictable romance which comes to its end. See, it turns into a love triangle between Fiennes, Moore and – well – the Holy Ghost. An incident which caused The End of the Affair brought about Moore's complex relationship with God.

This leads to the movie's major problem, which is that I never felt the "Presence of God" in this film as a character. `Breaking the Waves' had me convinced that God was a guiding force in Beth's life, and was always there. In this film, the miracles feel like plot points.

Perhaps God is underdeveloped as a character because Moore (though excellent) is really given a somewhat limited role. She remains in the background, in a way – a mystery. Fiennes and Rea come through clearer as three dimensional characters. We are never really given insight into what Moore feels – she's always being observed by someone else, be it Fiennes, the private detective he hires, or Jordan's camera. She seems to be a product of the Male Gaze. (Emily Watson was, too, but that was part of the point in `Breaking the Waves' and never flinched from the disturbing aspects of that.)

I spent a good deal of time squirming in my seat, fairly bored by the romance and the ramifications of this affair. However, there was a subplot which really worked. Ian Hart plays the befuddled and lovable detective who is trailing Moore, who strikes up a friendship with Fiennes. He's very by the books, but not a particularly good judge of character.He's smart enough to get it done though, and to realize that his son (who follows him everywhere in training) will be an even better detective than he is.

First of all, the father and son (a little kid) detective team is simply adorable and comic – a welcome change from the heaviness of the rest of the story. The little kid gets our sympathy not for being a cute tyke but because he's a clever sot and a likable joe, like his old man. He has a huge purple birthmark on his face which he's sensitive about, but otherwise seems happy-go-lucky. He becomes perhaps the best, most moving thing about the movie, even though he disappears from most of the second half.

Interesting that the subplot manages to have more heart and soul than the central story, and even more winning is that this is where the movie finds its real miracle.

Two years after the sudden end of his affair with Sarah, Maurice bumps into her husband, Henry, who confides in him about his wife's possible infidelity. Driven by the same jealousy that plagued him during their affair, Maurice poses as Sarah's husband and hires a private detective to follow her and find out what she's doing. As his investigators probe Sarah's personal life, Maurice remembers back to his affair.

Having seen the 1950's version of this book, I was interested to see a version that didn't have to worry about the heavy censorship of that period. Funnily though, it is not the nudity, passion or sex that adds to this version of the story; rather it is the ability of the film to show the strong feeling and emotion between the characters. The plot is pretty true to the book and follows the same turns that are ultimately quite touching (even if their reliance on honour and promises to god seem out dated today). The film manages to evoke sympathy, pity and dislike for each of the three main characters - each is a victim here and the film allows us to see that and feel for each of them regardless of the rights and wrongs of their respective situations.

It is difficult to describe but the film is very much of the period; it is very reserved and honourable considering the material, but yet it is deeply emotional and involving. The only sticking point is the plot's reliance on Sarah's prayer; as I said, it seems difficult to accept in this age that this would have been held to - ironically the 50's version was more acceptable for some reason; maybe because I saw them having sex in this film, maybe then I found it harder to accept a `sinner's prayer' as it were. Besides this, it still does work well and is quite tragic as a love story - this is not a romantic date movie sort of thing!

The main reason I was able to buy into the heart of the emotion was the performances. Fiennes is so perfectly English in the role; he is restrained yet bursting with emotion. He does a wonderful job of having his character eat away at himself with jealousy without ever seeming pathetic. Conversely Rea does a good job of making his character pathetic but still very much keeping the sympathy of the audience. The fact that I get to see Moore in the buff (again!) is not a boost to this film, however her performance is. She is good in the role (better and freer than the 50's actress) even if I didn't feel she was as good as Rea and Fiennes - maybe because her character is less expressive and, simply, a `good' person: I can only assume Greene was unable to look down on his lover even after the end of the affair.

Overall this film has a few sticking points but it is a wonderful version of Greene's book of the same name. Much was made of the nudity and such, but it is the rawer emotion of this telling that makes it work well. The script puts them on the screen and the cast do well to bring them out as complex as they are in real life.

When Ralph Fiennes is almost killed by a buzz bomb, lover Julianne Moore promises G*d to give him up if Fiennes is spared. For the rest of the movie, Fiennes' hatred toward G*d grows.

Neil Jordan's remake of the 1955 movie is full of Graham Greene's "tortured Catholic" theology. Visually it is a throwback to those lush British romances of the 1940s, in green-tinged Technicolor; clearly it is meant to replicate the amazing plays of color and shadow of that era, but the process has changed over the decades, and it simply looks foggy; half of the scenes are shot in rain.

The performances, given the leads, Jordan regular Stephen Rea, and Jason Isaacs giving a bang-up Ralph Richardson imitation, are excellent, but Michael Nyman's score is so romantic that the movie occasionally seems to verge on burlesque.

"The End of the Affair", Neil Jordan's impeccably rendered and finely acted version of Graham Greene's classic novel. Plus points as these may be, it's mostly well intentioned but dull up until what I would describe as the narrative turning point (see if you can work out when it is for yourself.) I could never feel the burning passion that INSISTED these two people had to be together 'til then. I am unaware if Greene's novel suffers from a similar lack of urgency. Previously it had been acts of frenetic copulation on and against various props. Perhaps that's what translates as 'ultimate passion' to most people, I dunno...

Don't go seeing this for titillation, either. It should never in a million years have been classed as '18' in the UK. Yes, there are people having sex, but its all pretty decorus under the circumstances, suiting the piece's overall stately feel perfectly.

The picture is crafted in the usual consumate way by Jordan, so there are very few obvious flaws, I just wish it had moved a bit quicker. Once it gets into gear, it duly earns the 'for romantics only' tag it was given by my flatmate before I borrowed it from her. Of course, such a development is hardly surprising when you have performers of the calibre of Fiennes and Moore in attendance.

It obviously conformed to Jordan's vision, so it deserves to be seen on its own merits. Some may even find the deliberate pace appropriate. I couldn't help wanting a little more gut-wrenching emotion in my experience, and it was only in the last 20 minutes that I was rewarded. Don't let me put you off though, because people's idea of romance is different; and if nothing else, if you appreciate the 'art' in film more than the 'action', you will find much to admire here.

*spoliers*

Why oh WHY does the romance genre do this to us?!?

Either we are subjected to sugary cute Meg Ryan-esque romantic comedies with little or nothing of the true complex emotional range of human interaction, or we get films like _The End of the Affair_. Up until its last twenty minutes or so, this movie had me convinced that it could very well be the best romantic drama of all time. However, then I was operating under the assumption gleaned from a hideously misinformed source that Jordan's film ended happily.

The emotional and spiritual aspects of the film are intricate and wonderfully refreshing. They are matched only by the superb performances of the three leads. WHY, though, must EVERY serious romance end with a death? Is there some rule I don't know about?

"Don't be so dense," you say. "Love lasts forever, even beyond death." Blah, blah, blah, yadda yadda yadda and all that rubbish. I'm not an idiot. Hollywood's been drilling THAT little doozy into my head for over 20 years now. Wouldn't it be nice for a change just to see a romance end happily? Isn't that, in the end, more realistic anyway? Or is the truth maybe that we are all bitter old farts who want to think that true love can only exist in some sort of existential vacuum?

ENOUGH ALREADY. This is depressing. Do it again.

This was very good, I've seen it a couple of times now. An adaption of Graham Green's semi autobiographical 1951 novel about a novelist (Ralph Fiennes) who falls in love with his friend (Stephen Rea's) wife during WW2 in London and is subsequently haunted by the abrupt end of their relationship. Eventually his jealousy and obsession get the better of him and he hires a detective to have her (Julianne Moore) followed to find out why.

Excellent period piece with brilliant performances from all three actors in this love triangle. A twist of a story in regards to why she left him -I didn't see that coming and it made sense. The affair is shown exclusively in flashbacks. Clever use of dialogue and I also liked how they showed the same scene, repeating it from a different perspective. Very good.

If he knew what he had, compared with what he indignantly demanded, would his desperate, tortured life have been different? The story is told from both points-of-view giving a clear and heart-achingly dramatic twist in a tale of love and loss. Religion and war play a part too. The spurned lover, always bitter. Dramatic and beautifully acted. Excellent.

Novelist Maurice Bendrix (Ralph Fiennes) is writing about a rainy night in 1946 London. He runs into Henry Miles (Stephen Rea) who is married to Maurice's former lover Sarah (Julianne Moore).

Filmmaker Neil Jordan adapts a Graham Greene novel. While it doesn't have the exotic locations, the visuals have the brooding sad romanticism of a rainy London. That's the movie. It's a lot of longing looks, passionate loving, hidden jealousy, and powerfully suppressed emotions. It's not my cup of tea. Also they keep showing the same explosion to the point that I couldn't figure out what's happening. I'm not sure that I like this love triangle. I'm not sure that I care about this love triangle. There is no denying that the three leads are acting the heck out of the love triangle to their best abilities.

i thought that a lot was left unsaid in this movie. The acting was great (actually Ralph Fiennes is great by default i think), costumes and settings almost tugged you in their world, the chemistry was extremely believable. The only thing that was a considerable minus was the screenplay, which jumped from a tangible romance story, with heated emotions (and i don't just mean sex by this, but love, hate, and foremost jealousy), to a drag about fate and God, and hate for God... It felt like a great movie just took a wrong turn down a road of many possibilities of endings... and let me tell you that was a baaaaaaaaaaaad ending. Mr.Graham might have had something to do with this unfortunate outcome:)

"The End of the Affair" is an excellent example of a curious sort of film adaptation, shall we say a fourth category of adaptations. First, there are the great majority of adaptations which fall far short of the source material; they completely re-write characters for dubious purposes; they trivialize the author's concerns; they end of a falsely upbeat note, etc. Examples of this type of film are legion.

Second, there are films which measure up to the original material, and in so doing remind one of what was good about the original work. See, for instance "The World According to Garp"; "Deliverance"; "Tess"; "Doctor Zhivago."

Third, there are the rare films which manage to transcend the material on which they are based. The Godfather by Puzo, lest we forget, is really a potboiler; hardly a classic piece of literature. Somehow, Coppola is able to infuse Puzo's book with a spirit and mood all his own; the text is transformed into something truly great. Other films which are superior to the source material might include "All the President's Men"; "The Ice Storm"; "The Day of the Jackal." I'm sure you can think of a few more.

Finally, there are films like "The End of the Affair," faithful and intelligent adaptations which nonetheless leave so much to be desired that one is forced to question one's opinions about the novel in question. I liked Greene's novel; I thought it did a good job of balancing sexual and spiritual issues and of conjuring up the atmosphere of wartime London. The characters were a bit slight (almost as if they had been sketched for the screen, actually), but well drawn nonetheless. For me, the novel fell somewhere in the middle of Green's canon, but until I viewed Neil Jordan's film, I would have hardly been liable to cast aspersions on the book.

Jordan's film, however, though reasonably faithful to the book, decently cast (although the choices are not inspired), admirable photographed, etc. is dreary almost to the point of being unwatchable. Very few directors can film unremitting dreariness to good effect. Bergman is the only example that comes to mind. Downbeat, depressing, pessimistic, cynical, yes. But even superior directors like Tarkovsky (Nostalgia), Allen (Interiors), and Malle (Vanya) are tripped-up by dreary. Jordan's "End of the Affair" just wears one down with its persistent ponderous dreariness. Fiennes projects misery and loathing; Moore, with a marginally passable British accent, is exhausting to behold; Rea is rain-sodden and crumpled. Among such a cast of characters, Ian Hart's performance as the private detective Parkis, apt to be overlooked in a different film, stands out. Hart is able to convey a wealth of emotions and attitudes (other than hate and guilt) with which we can identify, pride in his job, longing for companionship, love for his son, professionalism, and as a result brings much needed life and light to the film.

But I digress. The point is, this film is at once so dreadfully unpleasant yet so skillfully done in a technical sense that I began to wonder, what did I like about the book in the first place? If this is the result of a good adaptation, either the book itself is not very good, or the book is more or less unfilmable.

Incidentally, the other film that caused me to question the value of a novel I had enjoyed was Keith Gordon's "Mother Night." Two films do not quite a category make, do they? I wonder if other film fans have had a parallel experience?