You know those movies where a group of friends get together and the film consists of a series of conversations between them regarding their lives, loves and many interminglings? Well, take one of those and make the characters completely unlikeable, thin and not remotely interesting and you've got The Decline of the American Empire. An endless tirade of insignificant conversations between overly sexual imbeciles, occasionally relieved by an unnecessary flashback that is supposed to mix comedy and drama but succeeds in neither.There's a disturbing irony to it all because the film glazes over these dark, significant themes like infidelity but Arcand's approach is so flat and vanilla that none of it gets explored with even the slightest bit of depth or intelligence. I have no idea how these this film received such high praise from critics foreign and domestic. You can't live in a world where a true auteur such as Arnaud Desplechin is crafting ensemble character dramas that are so vivid and fascinating, and then look at this garbage and think it's anything worth watching.

This French Canadian talkfest will be a feast for intellectuals, but a test of endurance for anyone else, showing a group of University professors and their spouses discussing, explicitly and at great length, their relationships and sex lives, at first separately and later together over dinner. The men brag, the women ridicule, and there isn't a sympathetic character in the bunch. It's certainly a handsome film, but obviously not for all tastes; except for a single apt metaphor equating men with insects and women with reptiles the whole charade is too cold and uninvolving. All the highbrow philosophical cud chewing can't disguise the fact that writer director Denys Arcand is simply peddling the same, standard ammunition that has always fueled the battle between the sexes.

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.

History and experience over the past couple of decades has shown us that intellectuals talking about sex is about the unsexiest and unintellectual thing anyone can do, but this wasn't quite as obvious back in 1986. Basically, the idea in this film is that these characters insatiable drive to find comfort, security, and pleasure in sexual acts is actually the unhealthy motive that makes them so unbearable to themselves--which they hide from themselves with more sex. This drive is linked to "the decline of the American Empire", as expressed in an early interview within the movie.So the idea is that relatively detestable people talk about sex, and that that talk is supposed to reveal how detestable they are as people. Arcand at least keeps giving it drive and momentum by doing interesting things with the camera such as isolating most of the characters in single frames, revealing their ultimate loneliness, and cutting rapidly between them, showing how they are more at war with each other than they are at agreement. And to give Arcand credit, this is pretty much what intellectual life is, a constant struggle with other intellectuals to stand out, even when everyone knows that standing out means standing alone.But yeah, the characters and action are unsexy and kind of pathetic. I think this film is much more an aspect of its time than it is something meant to last, which makes it kind of dated. It's also the exact type of mental buffing in dialog and references to people like Susan Sontag that makes art-house films so unpopular around the populist entertainment moviegoers. In all, I'll take it anyway--it has its place basically among the exact type of people the characters are--it's just that it's not really interesting or important to anyone who isn't those characters.--PolarisDiB