Overrated and overhyped

Fantastic!

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

Technically a great comedy... if it weren't for the insistent promotion of the crime of Male Genital Mutilation.Technically, the movie could be too quickly evaluated as a great fresh humorist comedy about the couple Yvan and his actress wife Charlotte, who as a star is exposed to the temptation of matrimonial infidelity. This main plot evolves as a state of the art comedy with a happy ending.However, the subplot about Male Genital Mutilation (circumcision) is insistent and forceful. The story of the baby expected throughout the movie by Yvan's sister is an important element of this insidious propaganda. In effect, the film pretends to have a happy ending; however we learn at the very end, at a time when everything else seems to happy end, that this baby will not be spared this heinous crime. This unfortunate turn of event for the baby is actually presented as a positive resolution of the conflict between Yvan's Jewish sister and her French 'goy' (non-Jewish) husband, who have been quarreling about it since the beginning. The father has been resisting too softly to effectively guaranty the success of his paternal protective duty, so it really should not come as a surprise to the audience that we learn at the very end that he has surrendered.The promotion of this crime against male children Human Rights is reinforced by an important group nude scene supposed to be very funny. This scene involves many adults (the crew of a film being shot within the main plot of the movie), all naked while shooting a love scene involving the heroin star actress Charlotte (she had stated in a mood swing that she could not shoot that scene if everyone else wasn't naked too (ha ha, funny from her director to take her on her word, really, funny!). However, it is interesting to note that the only genitalia we actually get to see are the male ones, and they seem to all (or most) be missing their foreskin, as in to say that such is the reality of the French male anatomy, as in to make a statement: 'mutilated male pride'. Fortunately, it is not true that all French males are so emasculated. Considering how sensitive children can be with their body image, I am saddened that many boys, who may be blessed with a normal intact anatomy (and responsible human parents), may feel traumatized by the view of such a distorted reality, feeling that they may be abnormal, when they are the ones that should feel normal.The main characters of Charlotte and Yvan are interpreted by the real life couple of actress Charlotte Gainsbourg and actor/film maker Yvan Attal. At the time of the movie, their baby boy must have been around 2-3 years old. Considering the importance of the sub-theme of Male Genital Mutilation in the movie, and the somewhat autobiographic style of the film, I felt forced to imagine that the movie was perhaps an attempt by the two protagonists and Yvan Attal in particular, to seek some redeeming moral support by the mirror of the audience who is skillfully tricked into considering the crime against their baby boy as a happy event, to be associated with all the other happy ending elements of the movie, while making a statement of emasculated male pride through the group nude scene. This exhibitionism of their private life is a feeling I would have rather avoided, but the real life facts easily findable online and the insistence on the subplot on Male Genital Mutilation naturally got my imagination going.Most importantly, it seems rather careless to propose a film apparently for a wide audience so frankly on the wrong side of the Human Rights, and so frankly trying to justify a crime of child physical and psychological abuse, child genital mutilation, child torture, while promoting a multi-ethnic and religious married couple's conflict resolution in favor of barbaric ritual practices versus common sense and universal Human Rights.This film is in my mind, well intentioned or not, a de-facto criminal piece of work which participates in the massive conspiracy against defenseless non-consenting underage males' physical integrity, with the full weight of the state of the art of modern comedy making. Such piece of work should be severely censored and participants seriously sentenced, as a deterrent for others who would otherwise dare plotting against children's health and security. 'In a perfect world', far beyond reasonable freedom of expression contingencies, such a crime against a child's Human Rights could not possibly be presented as a happy ending without legal sanctions.

The readers' reactions to this film were not what I expected-- most seem to be*spoilers*, but I think they, for the most part, have missed the point. This is a multi-lingual farce that shows the director/writer Yvan Attal to have wit and wonder. Those who do not like it are taking it too much at face value and have not tuned in to the very underhanded sense of humor that propels the rhythm of this comedy. Every romance between two talented people is bound to experience this kind of mutual jealousy and mistrust, as part of the growth in a relationship. If they don't, they are kidding themselves. In order to make the film, Attal obviously had to have the "consent" of all the adults in it, and he had to discuss the danger factors as he pried open his more naive characters, himself included. Some of the viewers saw him as a lout. I think Attal must have gone through a kind of "self-analysis" as he made the film, and for a director to present himself as a lout is, after all, rather rare. Loutishness is just one side of a personality that the love relationship brings out. All of these ups and downs are presented on a plate, as in a delicious "tasting meal" one can savor at a chef-driven restaurant. Not everyone will like all the little morsels, but all of them represent the chef's (Attal's) inner and outer struggle with himself (and his wife's) as part of the acting and film industry and being a "talent." A couple of my favorite scenes: 1) his parody of the acting studio as he demonstrates a flower opening; 2) his seeing himself in multiple after he finds out that Charlotte is pregnant (in this age of cloning, how wittier can you get with this image!?);3) his demonstration of "l'amour fou" as he races back and forth on the train through the Chunnel to be with his beloved only to be squelched at the other end.I also was not at all offended by the secondary plot of his sister and her baby. Many young couples constantly grouse at each other as part of their communicating style -- he and his sister as siblings demonstrate their familiarity by biting at each other like cubs. It may not be very pleasant for bystanders, but, in fact, it is very real human behavior, just not part of the iced-cake sibling relationships depicted by Hollywood. I started to watch this film with no expectations, and came away totally delighted, having thought that romantic comedies could no longer be found in film.Of five stars, I would give it **** four and look forward to more of his films. I wouldn't worry about their marriage!

"My Wife is an Actress" is all about a man who becomes jealous of his wife's handsome costar when she's required to do boudoir scenes. A so-so romantic comedy with precious little romance, this flick fails to focus on the central question which asks: How do you know if your wife is cheating de facto, in heart or mind, while she performs in bed with another man for the cameras? Instead, the film ruminates about the jealous husband and the tentative wife with occasional excursions into a whole side matter about circumcision which contributes nothing while managing to conjure up a few delightfully clever scenes. With good art, excellent camera work, and solid performances, this half English, half French flick makes for a nominal subtitled watch best saved for broadcast. (B-)

This movie is disappointing. The film has a great cast and starts with a good premise (and very stylish opening credits), but then fizzles. The husband's jealousy of his wife's profession and fame quickly becomes tiresome. His character doesn't develop. He even gets involved in an acting group, but seems to learn nothing about what is make-believe and what is real. By the end of the story I was hoping that Charlotte would realize what a close-minded schmuck she had married. There's a patched-together ending that doesn't solve the basic problem between these two. Also, a circumcision subplot seems to belong in another movie. The best feature of this movie is Terence Stamp, who is terrific as a slightly windy yet seductive old English actor.