I really did not like this movie. It was pretentious and quite tedious. I don't think I liked one single character in the entire movie. The story involves a bunch of academics who hand around a holiday house (the men) and gym (the women) talking about sex. The two groups end up coming together at the holiday house and talking more about sex. As you can imagine nobody has anything particularly uplifting to say about the topic of sex, focusing more on serial infidelity.I guess one could argue that the whole point of the movie was to ridicule the main characters to demonstrate the decline of the American empire, but I don't think the director achieved that.Also watching a movie like this with subtitles is hard work because the movie is very wordy. I found it hard to keep up with the constant rush of words at the bottom of the screen.

Then get ready for a dialogue heavy, intellectually stimulating (among other things) film about 4 men, 4 women, sex, and sociology.I enjoyed the conversations and how the director enhanced them with flashbacks. These were the evidence to the theses that the characters were proving. You could tell that there was as much physical humor as there was dialogue-based humor! When Diane (played by Louise Portal) described what sexual positions this 'real man' would put her in, she lied on the field and literally stretched them out! Another scene took place back at the vacation home with the 4 men. They got into a convo about how silly and mundane it was to pick up girls while dancing at a disco. They all got up and started dancing! While chatting up academics as small talk! The climax of the movie was particularly moving and heart-breaking. Can you see how I'm talking mostly about the plot? This is a great film that has a lot of movement in it, and it doesn't take a lot of walking and changes of scenery to keep it going!

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