Unfaithful [DVD] by Claude Peres

was bought as present - was sealed securley - - it obviously was a good buy as no complaints from receiver.

Very entertaining. Good story and kept you watching till the end

nothing but a very bad porno, and in the dark too nothing but a pure waste of money I will burn the dvd i will not renamed it to anyone for 4.99 i could have got a better film it not what they say the film about it all rubbish no stars for this film plzs don't waste your money on it

At first I was not sure where this was going but after a second viewing watching became quite compelling

I appreciate and respect any director which attempts to embark on a project which by its nature is controversial, where such a project seeks to challenge, stretch and redefine barriers. "Unfaithful" has at its heart an interesting premise, which is not new in content but certainly novel in its approach. A director asks an actor (without contract, direction or script) to have sex with him whilst the camera records the experience. There is no guarantee that sex will result, and if it does the parties are free to stop at any time.What transpires however, is a confusing and at times awkward disconnect between the event, the participants and the purpose itself. The actor (Marcel Schlutt) is not new to on screen nudity and graphic sex, and out of the two participants seems the most fluid and natural. At times one senses that the actor becomes a genuine participant in the event, and the camera an annoyance that interrupts his own unfolding desire. Perhaps this is why the film is called "Unfaithful" in that the attempt to portray sexual intimacy on film, is by its very nature and process unfaithful to that act. You cannot capture such on film, and as experienced as the director may be he can never be faithful to such.Herein lies the irony, in that the director never truly divorces himself from his direction, and thus is not a faithful participant. He naturally gravitates to directing the scene, attempting to provide structure and character. This undermines the films purpose in my opinion, and it would have been much better had he set up a few cameras placed as different locations, and ignored them as his event unfolded. he could have then better edited the final product, without it seeming as if he structured and influence the process as much as he did.Large sections of black screen, with some self-indulgent dialogue to keep the audience, does the film a great disservice. At times you feel as if the film would have been more successful in the absence of dialogue, but for the two characters attempting to learn about each other.A great idea, horribly executed and ultimately disappointing.

I bought this film as I like Marcel Schlutt and I found the idea very intriguing. I love experimental and underground cinema and I felt this could be worth a watch. How wrong I was... What utter junk. My favourite line from the director (if you can call him that) is "This film is not about sex". Oh really, well I wish he'd tell us what it is about because as far as I can see it's a narcissistic exercise in mental masturbation. Don't let the cover fool you, almost half the "film" is shot in pitch blackness; as I said to my friend watching it with me, I'd have been better listening to the Archers on Radio 4. It is an interesting concept, however I lost total interest after 5 minutes. Buy this trite if you like, but remember, in doing so you will only encourage this film maker to produce more awful offerings such as this.

good

A boring movie with to many black screen, the acting was O.K., but the entire movie was so boring about seks! A waste of money! Pitty.