I read the book and then watched the 1999 film version of the book which stars Ralph Fiennes and Julianne Moore.The book is written in the 'first person', and is based on a Greene's love affair with a married woman that he had during the 2nd world war. I doubt whether this novel would sell many copies today as it contains too many pages devoted to an existential examination of the narrator's feelings and motives; and also of his lover and her husband. At the heart of the book is a philosophical debate over whether God exists and what part, if any, God plays in our everyday lives. Greene himself was an atheist who became a catholic in later life.I found the book a fascinating read, although I confess I was more into the characters and events surrounding the affair than the religious and existential elements. The 'affair' of the title is about a woman (Moore) who, after carrying on an illicit love affair for four years, suddenly breaks it off without any explanation. The man (Fiennes) discovers the truth when a private detective, who he hires to follow her, steals her diary. We learn about the affair and its break-up from two points of views – the man's and his lover's - via her stolen diary.The 1999 film of Greene's book is a bit of a gem and is well worth 102 minutes of your time. It is produced and directed by Neil Jordan, who also wrote the screenplay. For much of the film, Jordan didn't have a lot to do as far as the screenplay was concerned as Greene's original dialogue comes shining through in every scene. (It is said that so many of Greene's book were made into films because they were so 'cinematic' in their construction.)But towards the end of the film, Jordan strays from the original story. He didn't just cut out superfluous events and characters, which is what is usually done in film adaptations, but he actually changed part of the story. In the book, the cheating 'femme fatale' breaks up with the man and meets an atheistic street orator who has a badly pock- marked face. In the film, the atheistic orator becomes a catholic priest and the person with the badly scarred face is the son of the private detective who the narrator hires to follow her. The essential elements of the film remain more or less faithful to the book, but I do wonder why Jordan made these changes. He obviously didn't consider them to be 'fundamental' to the story and must have decided that his version was more cinematic than the book version. I have to say that the dialogue during these cinematic diversions from the book was pretty seamless and could have easily been Greene's own words. It was very cleverly done.Greene died some 8 years before this film version was made. Had he been alive, I doubt very much whether he would have agreed to the changes, as he was always personally involved in the screenplays of earlier films which were based on his books.Nevertheless, it is a fine film and captures the essence of Greene's classic novel for a new generation.

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.

There are plenty of interesting, excellent and introspective cinematic explorations out there. This is *not* one of those movies. Neil Jordan' self-absorbed direction propels the plot into high melodrama, assisted by a score marred by unrelentingly saccharine strings and banal chords. The characters' inner conflicts are so straightforward it becomes ridiculous to watch them wallow in fake turmoil. I couldn't begin to start caring about their pathetic predicaments. Despite all this, the actors' performances are authentic and the love scenes are steamy, but nothing can save this film from being absurd, empty, nauseating drivel. I usually trust Finnes' and Moore's taste in scripts. Lesson learned. I assume the competition was thin on the ground the year this film won a BAFTA and an Oscar nomination.

It's odd as a viewer to be in the position to say that there is nothing technically wrong with a production (This isn't your usual "bad movie"...) but that there is still something deeply wrong with it (...it might as well be). The central plot is about a man who is supposedly bananas for his married mistress, but the screen is filled with bloodless Brits who can't drum up an ounce of energy. Everything is vague and suffocating in disinterest, except the physical details. Keep in mind, Orwell's '1984' was written around the period of Graham Greene's original novel. The numb, post-torture couple in 1984 who confide without emotion, "I betrayed you," and "I betrayed you too" are perfectly matched here by Fiennes who declares mechanically over lunch, "I'm in love with you," which is met with Moore's indifferent "Me too." I watched this movie wondering, "THIS is the world that needed to be protected from political dehumanization? ..the job's already done." Strangely, the movie shows no such reticence in the 4 sex scenes. Beyond that, I really cannot relate to characters who think a dissolved boundary with their soul-mate is the apogee of being alive. I find such characters risible in An Affair to Remember, Damage and Brief Encounter too. How awful are you if you need to flee yourself to some over-esteemed other? There's just no thought in it, and no thought to be had in observing this kind of obsessive relationship.Fiennes especially is at fault for not creating a character of any interest or complexity. Critic Mick La Salle had it right when he said, the movie was "...guaranteed to be mistaken for a first-rate picture."