didiermustntdie guess the things in the film aren't too bad, because they happen everywhere in the world,FROM east TO west,south north.but something bad is someone tries to verify it. and not surprisingly it was made by a French Canadianit's really a pain to see so many fat people in one movie, especially the males, completely unattractive. it reminds me of some porn, they hire the dumbest males to "anger" the male viewerswell guess the title"he Decline of the American Empire" implies the Americans who are not like are declining. the Quebec ones are good, the Americans or anyone who don't do that are decaying.well, don't worry, Americans and most people in the world are like that without even having seen this movie or even without viewing any movie.. BECAUSE IT'S REALLY EASY! the director apparently overestimated the difficulty of his agenda..not a very intelligent guy IMO.

thesar-2 I'm rating 'The Decline of the American Empire' just about below average since it wasn't terrible, but also not great. I liked the very open conversations from people so incredibly selfish and ugly inside and out. That was probably the most original aspect – a dialogue-laced sexual small film with people who are extremely far from models. That aside, it seems ironic that these French-speaking Canadians have a movie about a neighboring society that, well, is in 'Decline' when their own actions are their own demise. A group of women friends and male friends spend half the movie laughing it up on their infidelities and acceptance of such behavior and the other half "intellectually" speaking of how powerful they are for their speech and actions. These are the normal targets in typical sitcoms the main characters make fun of at parties occupied mainly by college professors. Sadly, it's not their "intelligence" or mastery of "history" that disturbs me. It's their pedestal made of ego and mightier-than-thou attitude that pushes me away and not one character could I relate to, nor like. When one cries, I couldn't care less – it's your bed. When one complains, I barely flinched. What made me skirmish was one character, uh, peeing red. (Another example of playing with fire.) Sure, I understand it happens to some people, but it was hard to watch. And I sincerely hoped the he washed his hands as he had no problem going right back to cooking for everyone. On the complete opposite end of the noses-up educators, they introduce a stereotypical nomad. This made me cringe as no one seemed real; everyone was as shallow as their laughter on society. Unfortunately, with no one left to root for, you're left as empty as these character's souls.

Brigid O Sullivan (wisewebwoman) And also on having seen the Barbarian Invasions. I loved it the first time around, startled by its depiction of the dialogue on sex and realizing it was also reaching for something deeper. Men bragging to each other, the macho-ness of it all. The over-intellectualizing analysis of the battle of the sexes. The vulnerability underlying all the scenes, the false bravado. The acceptance of homosexuality. The jarring introduction of the brute biker primitive to the sophistication of the academics' table. The tangible hurt of Louise at the offhanded way Remy admits to affairs with her best friends. The devastating betrayal she feels and her seeking comfort from the only safe person - Claude, someone who cannot hurt her. Diane, wounded, angry acting out with her brutal lover. So much richness and depth. And the Barbarian Invasions, 18 years later in the lives of all, only enhances it. Bravo, Denys and everyone. 8 out of 10.

writers_reign This movie seems to be dividing commenters which can only be a positive sign. In the first negative comment I read the writer chose to remind us that film is a Visual medium and whilst that is true if we take it to its logical conclusion we will, by definition, look forward to a return of the Silent film. I find it difficult to believe that anyone who is sufficiently interested in movies to post comments is not going to wander into a movie theatre with no idea of what is playing. Okay, if you pay the going rate at the box office hoping to see a mindless popcorn movie/slasher/techno and after a couple of minutes you realise you're gonna hafta THINK about this one, then, sure, you got a beef, but by the same token aren't you kinda foolish in not checking SOMETHING about the movie currently playing and ideally reading at least one review that will mention the topic. I, for example, have never seen 'My Dinner With Andre', simply because it has never played in a theatre near me when I have been able to get there. BUT, I DO know that it is about two guys having dinner and talking so if I do eventually go and see it I can't really complain that it's not Eddie Murphy fodder. I MAY take exception to the KIND of conversation on offer but that's about it. No one goes to a Chekhov play in a live theatre hoping to see an Elton John concert. Chekhov plays are about groups of people kvetching about how sad they are period. The fact that it is GREAT theatre and Chekhov sets and sustains a great MOOD is neither here nor there. That may be why 'Vanya On 42nd Street' is such a great movie. Anyhow, back to this one. The night before I saw this I caught The Barbarian Invasions and was blown away so I made a point of seeing this. Apart from the strangeness of seeing mostly the same characters 18 years earlier - which was not unlike seeing Priestley's 'Time And The Conways' but leaving out Act #1 - the same sure directorial hand was easily discernible. If we do need talk movies, and, yes, there IS a place for them, then this one is as good as any and better than most. 8/10