I strongly disagree with this film’s low rating. Really interesting and strong detective thriller with an admixture of psychological drama. Of course, there is nothing great about this film, but I definitely liked it.
Before this film, I was not familiar with the work of a director like Brian De Palma. I originally wanted to start with Scarface in 1983, but today I suddenly wanted to see this movie. Namely because of the wonderful acting duo Numi Rapace and Rachel McAdams. They played their characters really well. You can also mention Paul Anderson and his character. But back to the acting duo. Respect, fear, hatred and passion – all this is read on the faces of the main characters in the film. The film, not only keeps in suspense for its detective and psychological lines, but also scenes with sexual overtones. Seriously, so many scenes are staged and filmed so that sexuality literally pours from the screen. This is despite the fact that the film is absolutely not vulgar, and there are almost no explicit sexual scenes in it. Sexuality was more in their movements, looks, facial expressions and, of course, clothes. Do not forget about the character of Caroline Herfurt, who also tried to play at the level of Roupas and McAdams, but she lacked charisma and talent, and maybe experience, since I have never seen her in any other films in the first roles. At first, it seemed to me that this character was introduced simply as a friend of the heroine Numi Rapace, who, perhaps, will help her a couple of times during the film, but in general, will not affect the plot. I was so wrong. There are no spoilers.
I won’t write much about the story. I'll just say that the abstract is written obliquely and clumsy. From it we can conclude that one of the heroines will chase the other like a rabbit hound. In fact, in the film we see the confrontation of two lioness, dangerous, strong and graceful. Well, the story itself is interesting and a little confusing. There are a few unexpected twists, as befits a thriller. In general, it is interesting to see.
It’s actually a good movie, though not a masterpiece. I’ll probably revisit it sometime because Noomi Rapace and Rachel McAdams clearly deserve it. As this movie deserves:
After the release of the film “Uncensored” (2007), Brian de Palma hid for a long five years and returned to the world of cinema with the thriller “Passion”, where the main roles were played by Rachel McAdams and Noomi Rapace. To be honest, I expected this movie to be more intriguing. Moreover, the description of such thoughts in my head: two girls loving the same man, dangerous sexual games, betrayal and revenge.
It's a great soup set, isn't it?! From such a solyak you can prepare a delicious dish, which, with proper approach, will stand out from the mass of similar paintings in genre and plot. Arthouse presentation with the use of Hitchcock techniques, unusual setting of scenes and the choice of angle, muted and dark tones in the rooms, contrasted with the screaming pallor of the heroine McAdams and her juicy brightly painted lips - all this was to turn "Passion" into a passionate thriller with elements of detective noir, but...
But Brynau de Palma failed to reach the desired atmosphere. In the first place, he somehow failed to achieve the very passion mentioned in the title, for neither McAdams nor Rapace could properly portray it. It seems that the actresses were simply shy not only to touch each other (not to mention kissing), but even to look each other in the eyes. A vivid contrast can be called the episode “Explosive Blonde”, where there is a very frank scene with Charlize Theron and Sofia Butella. There, the actresses showed a real lesbian passion, not embarrassed by the nakedness of their bodies, nor the presence at this moment of a number of members of the film crew.
If the detective component of Passion is to some extent evident in the last half hour of the film, then the first two-thirds of that element is devoid. The viewer does not see the famously twisted plot, content only with a superficial display of events, from which further consequences follow. Thus, the relationship within the love triangle is not sufficiently disclosed, the love and hatred of the two heroines to each other is not properly manifested. It is clear that they are partly rivals to each other, but this could be reflected in brighter and more emotional tones!
The disadvantages of the script appear not only in this regard, but also in how the investigation of the crime is promoted, where the police act as inexperienced cadets who do not understand how to conduct a search or what nuances of the case should be paid attention to.
The presence in films of this genre of disturbing music, in theory, should escalate tensions and make the viewer stay in a state of uncertainty, but here the music rather interferes and hits the ears, which is clearly heard in one of the final scenes, when the phone rings loudly and the violin melody plays at the same time.
And of course, acting. If Rachel McAdams overplays, trying to show his surprise / disappointment / anger / arrogance, then Noomi Rapace, on the contrary, is not playing, believing, apparently, that pretending to be a poor sheep with wide-bulging eyes, you can pull my role to a high level.
But look at you. I do not impose my opinion on anyone.
Five long years after the crime drama Uncensored, fans have been waiting for their maestro to return. Someone pinned hopes on the fresh looks of the director, and someone did not lay down and did not lose anything.
A kind of pompous thriller was in the plans of Brian De Palma. But in 2012, a prosaic kitsch called Passion appeared on the screens. The film tells us about two top managers of a large company Christine (Rachel McAdams) and Isabel (Noomi Rapace). The problem is that they seem to like each other, and respect the colleague, but quietly hate. At every convenient moment, barbs slip towards one of the girls. Everything comes to public humiliation, and then they take out a dish that is usually served cold - revenge in all its glory. And by the way, it’s quite banal, but it’s worth mentioning that they both sleep with the same man. – Paul Anderson
That's actually the story from which De Palma pulled a string, made leads and twisted the coils to make the picture more confusing, mysterious and unpredictable. And to my great regret, everything came out, but exactly the opposite. Having placed the characters in the circumstances characteristic of the thriller, the director gives out instead of tension and questions “who? what? why and how?”, a tabloid decorated in glossy and fueled by a couple of noir frames. There is no point in arguing about who stole the idea of shooting (thanks Grandpa Hitchcock), but the plot itself is a remake of the French film Alain Cornault “Crime for Love” with Christine Scott Thomas.
As for the actors, of course, Rachel McAdams eclipsed everyone who stood and didn't stand by. This actress gives the game its full power. And if you want her to be nice - she will be, if a bitch - blame yourself. Only Noomi Rapace was upset. She is certainly much better off without all that iron on her face, but her emotions, when they bothered to slip on her amorphous face (and maybe they were?), were believed with great difficulty. Although the scene with the crashing of the car was entertaining, this performance looked so comical (maybe it plays in the wrong genre?). . ) .
If you look only at the image, you get a very elegant picture of postmodern times. For this, a bow to Almodóvar's permanent cameraman José Luis Alcaine, who was lucky enough to intercept De Palme. It was he who in his usual manner helped the director to show the heroines in the guise of dangerous, but without a doubt chic women.
Well. As a conclusion, we can summarize that we have a tasteless stamping with a set of proven tricks of the 80s, accompanied by music from there. The only bright spot in this sloppy dirty blob was McAdams, favorably highlighted by Alkaine's camera. There is nothing to look at...
When I found out that de Palma was working on this project with such a plot and stars, I couldn’t wait to appreciate it. It often happens that high hopes after watching turn into great disappointment, but here, I felt, this could not happen. It couldn't have happened. It didn't happen.
I must confess that the original “Crime for Love” did not leave many feelings, seemed weak and uninteresting, in which the most pleasant moment was Christine Scott Thomas.
De Palma made a lot of changes to the original source, and generally differently approached this plot, making a really amazing movie – emotional, meaningful, intriguing and technically, I believe, perfect.
McAdams created the image of a charming, cunning and calculating beauty, always getting what she wants, the antagonist is the heroine Rapace - rational, gifted, restrained, while with her own mysteries. In the end, things don’t go as you expect. It should be noted that after watching it, I sat in thoughtfulness for some time, after which, of course, I realized that the film is magnificent.
I would like to especially note some technical moments, such as: charming, with a slight touch of mysticism, somnambulistic atmosphere of the middle of the film with excellent camera work; the presence of Debussy’s ballet, which is very symbolic, the penetration of his atmosphere and music into the film; the theme of the relationship between the main characters, its development and finale.
Finally, about Pino Donagio. Without his music, the picture would be incomplete. He is a master of lyrical themes - Italian school yet (take at least a very strong theme of Jack and Sally from the same depalmosevsky "Puncture"). It is difficult to choose epithets to such music, which conveys all the shades and subtleties of what is happening on the screen, it is easier to listen and enjoy, especially the music in the final scenes and final credits.
Verdict: a rare, beautiful, thoughtful film that delivers aesthetic pleasure - a very rare now feeling.
10 out of 10
I don’t know which one of them is D... Phrase of the hero Pankratoy-Black from the film "Tram-Tararam"
Let me throw all possible arguments, but no matter how strange, wild it sounds, the film ' Passion', a remake of the French film Alain Cornault ' Crimes due to love', I liked more. But I had seen the original before, and I knew all the underwater currents and rocks, so I looked just for the sake of comparison. And despite the high praise of the French film, and it is certainly worthy of it, the Hollywood version, again, I liked it better. A little more. Why? Probably because they ate a dog on this and know office life much more accurately and truthfully. Probably because the entourage of the painting by Brian De Palma is higher and cooler. Probably because the scenery is bigger and more powerful. And the most important thing: if you take actors, Rachel McAdams I love more than Christine Scott Thomas, and Noomi Rupas and a ton of talent is not inferior to Ludivine Senier, and maybe even more talented than the Frenchwoman. In any case, in terms of dedication, certainly Noomi is good!
This happened in an American office. Kristin Stanford (Rachel McAdams) is a businesswoman, businesswoman and other epithets. But she's not just a businesswoman, she's a company boss. And the boss is allowed, if not everything, then much. How office careers are made, telling a lesson is not grateful, and not necessary, many understand. But in order to feel all this greedy situation, just look at Christine. Dressed exquisitely and sophisticatedly. There's a nice smile on my face. Well-groomed and friendly. And at first glance, she's just sweet. But when it comes to business, that is, to a purely professional idea, Christine passes, but her assistant Isabel, on the contrary, sparkles with creativity and inspiration. Take it, fly to London and give the representatives of the company a fresh idea about the production of a new smartphone. The representatives are delighted, everyone is pleased, especially Isabelle. Not everyone. Upon arriving home, Isabel gets a knife in the back, figuratively. Christine, don't be stupid, takes her idea for his own. This is the business world. More. A man appears who is sympathetic to our creative personality, but who is in Christine's power and captivity. Why not? Because he's not clean in the hand. That's why. But that's not all. Christine's used to being in control, and there's a little bit of a slob, a little bit of a slob, and it's gonna take her. It is necessary to eliminate unwanted potential competitors. How do you do that? Very easy. Show a scene with a car in the parking lot, ridicule, lie and deprive a man you like. But soon the fairy tale affects, but not soon the film ends.
It's time for a detective to come like dough on a spar. You have murder, motives, causes, and effects. The tangle of events consisting of lies and deception must be unraveled. And here, in this place, De Palma, unlike Corno, backed down a little or directed, if you will. He introduced a kind of symbol of mysticism, something that Corno did not have, and this move certainly deserves respect. In general, perfect movie, by all indicators. Once again, knowing the plot, I watched this remake with great interest, which I wish you.
10 out of 10
That was quite recent. 2011. High-tech interpretation of Sherlock Holmes named after Guy Ritchie. In his investigation, the great detective, among others, encounters a charming fraudster, a mysterious gypsy and a former military, and now a killer N1. As if at the stroke of a conductor's wand, this not holy trinity moves into a completely different reality, spawned by Brian de Palma's eccentric fantasy. The reputation of one of the most eminent directors of Hollywood in recent years has received a lot of blows, almost on every corner it happens to hear that De Palma, they say, has already “stopped”. The question is naturally debatable, but the fact that Brian lost his former scale is beyond doubt. "Passion" was met by the public, to put it mildly, without enthusiasm. Despite the bright cast, the author’s thoughts remained unclear. Why did it happen this way and not otherwise? Let's try to figure it out.
From Berlin to London
They say that female friendship does not exist, but the mutual benefit of communication between two ambitious people does not cancel. Rachel McAdams tried on many images, each of which did not cancel the common features of this actress. But such as in “Passion”, the Canadian has not yet been seen. Christine Stanford is the owner of a large advertising agency, very bright, expansive and calculating. This enterprising person reasonably considers himself an experienced manipulator. She learned to combine career activities with carnal pleasures. Christine finds life too boring and she always has a bunch of ways to give herself fun. But she does not forget about work in vain, and for this she has a faithful Isabel.
The almost complete (even outwardly) opposite of her lady boss Isabel James is assembled and not frivolous at all. She treats Christine with moderate respect, although the extraordinary behavior of the boss is not always clear to her. In secret, Isabel is certainly envious of Christine’s financial situation and her relationship with the true stallion. Dirkom. Many geniuses had brilliant insights at night, and so did Isabel. She came up with an incendiary clip for a smartphone commercial, which overnight turned her into an agency star. Yesterday's modest woman gets a chance of a lifetime - to present her idea in London, and even with Dirk!
From Berlin to New York
There are wolf laws in business. They are difficult to accept, living them is even more difficult. Christine has long been in the stream, she understands the hypocritical nature of people in her circle. Personal responsibility does not play a role here, only personal benefit is important. The boss easily and shamelessly appropriates the idea of the clip, leaving the stunned Isabelle with nothing. In front of a glamorous blonde shining lights New York, future contracts promise her many millions that she is offended by some employee? Quiet people are often seen as weak, but not in Isabelle's case. She is much more suitable for the definition - "in a quiet pool of devils are found." It does not work out to swallow a resentment, and a public insult is even more so. Isabel strikes back, profiting in the face of the boss of an irreconcilable enemy. The girl wants to become the mistress of the situation, but it was good for her to first assess the balance of forces.
From reality to the realm of illusions
The fact that the first part of “Passion” is much better than the second one is indisputable. De Palma got lost in his own labyrinths. The strong female characters he created did not receive a worthy platform for demonstration. McAdams is incredibly good, the mask of a rare bitch suits her very well, the blood-red lipstick literally dares to call her “Lady Dracula”. Noomi Rapace had a much more responsible role. Isabelle's motives seem clear, but the methods of their implementation raise questions. For example, the figure of Dirk. Is Isabel so blinded by love that she did not understand his male and, worse, adaptive nature? And if the affair with this type was a kind of revenge for Christine, then it is all the more strange that Isabel underestimated the awareness of her quasi-girlfriend. De Palma’s talent as a visualizer has not been lost over the years, but a frank parsley came out with the script. And, worst of all, the honored filmmaker unabashedly copies the methods of some of his less successful colleagues. There was a strong feeling that at a certain point Brian himself and confused who should become the executioner.
From drama to absurdity
"Passion" wouldn't have drawn as much criticism as a more coherent murder. De Palma did not change his manner with the split screen, but Isabel's soulful throws are so clearly paranoid that a bright actress becomes simply uncomfortable. Well, does not pull Noomi Rapace on an intriguer, secret or explicit! Unsystematic, chaotic, and uncertainties haunt Isabelle at every turn. The director made the unforgivable mistake of turning McAdams off too early. She saturated her role much more convincingly, giving the audience a bright and unforgettable image. Rapace is more likely to be a pawn than a queen. The short dialogue between the two rock beauties in the back seat of the car best illustrates the difference between them. Maybe it's just the outward effect of two women. Isabel tries on, even through strength, someone else's image, and Christine is the image itself.
From eroticism to hints
It’s funny to hear the definition of “erotic thriller” in reference to “Passion.” All the eroticism is about Christine's sexy peñoir and a couple of burning lesbian kisses. Sensuality to the picture could give the admirer Isabel – her assistant Dani, but alas, it has too much cardboard. It is more appropriate to talk about the lack of skill of Caroline Herfurt than about another blunder of De Palma. Paul Anderson, so impressed with the role of Colonel Moran, simply disappeared into the passionate women’s company. His efforts proved to be pathetic. It might make sense to bring Dirk and Isabel's London escapades into a full-blown bed scene. De Palma deliberately did not go for it, alluding to the lesbian undertones of many of the actions of the heroines. Sensual caresses of charming women, few men can leave indifferent. Especially exciting is the fact that one of the mistresses is forced to play by someone else’s rules. But the way women obsessed with animal languor look is much better shown in the Wachowski brothers’ “Connection”. De Palma, on the other hand, hinted, hinted, and did not really get to the point.
From perspective to obscurity
Sadly, Passion remains Brian de Palma’s last film to date. Maybe the master is really tired, maybe he's saving up for comeback, who knows? Absolute defeat this unerotic thriller, I believe, does not deserve. For Rachel McAdams, the role of Christine is definitely one of the best, and at least for this reason Passion is worth watching. But against the background of other paintings by de Palma, it looks inappropriate. When a person does not know what he wants, outsiders will notice it. It is better to bend your own, but one line, let you not be accepted, but at least understand. “Passion” is doomed to remain misunderstood. And that's pretty sad.
American remake of a French film. Doubtful idea... Are there any good examples? Available. For example, "In the last breath." What did McBride do? He Americanized Godard's tape. Americanized to the limit, to the point of failure, almost to the point of insanity. But Godard himself, filming the original with Belmondo, deliberately imitated Americans - and Nouvelle Vague was born. Had Godard not based the film on this “Americanness,” McBride’s Americanization would have failed, as most attempts to adapt European films to overseas film traditions have failed. The original should initially be inclined to Americanization, be american friendly.
"In the last breath" Godar / McBride.
Alain Corno’s “Crime for Love” is not at all american and far from friendly – it is a restrained, dry, monotonous movie. It has no visual stylizations, no twists or emotional storms. All plot intrigues are absolutely not intriguing and do not even try. Korno is completely focused on the psychological warfare of the two main characters - but this is a cold war, without explosions, tanks and heroic landings in Normandy. The same Cold War was waged by Sylvie Testu in Fear and Awe. It's Corno style. But it's not DePalma's style - so "Love Crime" was just necessary to Americanize. Think of Lonely White Woman with Jennifer Lee and Bridget Fonda. Or corporate 'Business Woman' with Melanie Griffith (young worker) and Sigourney Weaver (cool boss). Or Procedural Sexual Exposure with Demi Moore and Michael Douglas. And if you dig very deeply, then the “Devils” with Sharon Stone and Isabel Ajani will ominously come out of the bathtub with rolled-up eyes, which will inevitably return us to the Old World – to the eponymous film & #39; French Hitchcock' Henri Georges-Clouzot, brazenly ahead of the “master of suspense” in buying the rights to the film adaptation of the novel by Bualo and Narserzhak, who in turn soon made amends before the overseas director, writing a personal script for him. Oh, how! In short, DePalma easily felt the American heartbeat in the seemingly through European “Crimes for Love”, exchanged a murky and alien “love” for an understandable and native “passion” and removed another Hitchcock homage.
"Devils"Clouzo/Checchik
Old frigid-asexual brunette boss (Christine Scott Thomas) Brian DePalma waved without looking at a young sexy vamp blonde (Rachel McAdams). But the character of the quasi-ordinary Ludwig Senier underwent surprisingly not so dramatic alterations - Numi Rapace the whole film reminded me of one familiar specialist of the section "Water supply and sewage" - Zulu from Uzbekistan. But subtle psychological "cats and mice" Alain Corno with a light hand of DePalma turned into role-playing bitchy nymphomaniacs. After this, the hastily redrawn ending, cracking at the seams of absurdity and WTF?!, makes a frankly positive impression, because finally dispels all concerns about the health of the honored director – no, DePalma is not crazy, he is just joking!
"Blow up/out"Antonioni/DePalma
Of course, the moderately successful retelling of the tape by Alain Corno did not even lie next to the filigree “Blow out” (by the way, Antonioni’s “Blow up” was also very, very disposed to Americanization – therefore the remake was successful), but there is not the slightest desire to scold “Passion”, despite the presence of grounds. After all, now we have two spectral-opposite readings of the same story – the European strictly academic and American stylized kitsch. That's how different your "West" is.
8 out of 10
It would seem that recently new productions of Brian De Palma were expected almost impatiently and even before their premieres stood a deafening ovation. Brian De Palma gave cult gangster paintings, such as “Untouchables” and slightly identical “Scarface” and “Carlito’s Way”, competing in this skill with Martin Scorsese himself, he gloriously worked in the genre of thriller and even spy action “Mission: Impossible” he was given with amazing clarity, immediately winning a huge mass of admirers. But after the 2000s, he did not go quite smoothly, the viewer began to be wary of the new films of this well-deserved, if not already legendary director. We can say that Brian De Palma experienced the same decline as another famous director Joel Schumacher, they did not have time to rebuild in time in the emerging era of large-budget blockbusters with a total emphasis on computer special effects, still believing in intellectual cinema. “Fatal Woman” and “Black Orchid”, films that focused on the mass audience, caused mixed assessments and reviews, these paintings did not even pay off at the box office, which few expected. But Brian De Palma, for which he was honored and praised, did not give up and continued to storm Hollywood and cinemas to prove that he is still in the saddle.
Here is the last picture of Brian De Palma, where he took as a basis the French original of 2010 “Crime for Love” by the honored and, unfortunately, already deceased, the figure of European cinematic arts Alain Corno, did not win much love and respect from critics and viewers, which is evidenced not only by a deafening commercial failure (a pitiful $ 92,000 against the invested 30 million!), but as a rating of his tape, fluctuating within 5-6 points according to the estimates of users of IMDb and KP out of 10 possible. Horror, that's all. So I was cautiously approaching the viewing, expecting almost a second-rate thriller. But in this case, the reviews are subjective, and absolutely the same opinions about one film can not be, because for some reason I was suddenly fascinated by this film, where the main roles were played by Rachel McAdams and Noomi Rapace.
First, the fact that the main roles in a psychological thriller in women, pleases, because now it is rare to meet. Expect insidiousness, as in "Disclosure," sexuality, as in "Basic Instinct," and mystery, as in "Final Analysis." Of course, I got a little hot with sexuality, because in the film Noomi Rapace (it is subjective!!!), but still. In addition, these actresses clearly follow the main peaks of cinema. Rachel McAdams initially seemed like the new romcom princess who was going to replace Meg Ryan and Jennifer Aniston, but then she showed and proved that she could do more serious roles, for example, “Night Flight” and “Cool Turn” became evidence of this. And Noomi Rapace, the star of the Scandinavian trilogy “Millennium”, has already settled in Hollywood and is filmed at the “monsters” of the director’s workshop, as, for example, in “Prometheus” by Ridley Scott.
And the girls didn't. Their sharp, peculiar, contextual relationship in the film they attract. What brings them together and what pushes them away? What is hidden under the veil of their friendship or hatred? All this is demonstrated by the actresses on the screen with a general balance, they thicken the colors, making the film fascinating, and you do not know which of them should be more afraid, each behaves sometimes worse than a black widow spider. But not only these two actresses work to convince the viewer of layering various guesses about the plot twists, they are diligently helped by Caroline Herfurt, as if the shadow is next to the main, as we think, characters. The only man worthy of attention in the film is Paul Anderson, for whom there is a fight, but soon he falls in everyone’s eyes, and again all attention turns to fierce hostility or visual friendship of women.
In the film there are, unfortunately, drawn-out scenes, too ambiguous dialogues, which is why I want to hint that you should not so diligently create a halo of mystery, put on the plot, sorry for the metaphor, veil, after all, Brian De Palma is not noir-style to keep everything in clingy clutches of secrecy, you can give the viewer pieces of the mosaic, so that he could build a picture, what is actually so clearly hidden there. They also overdid the final phase of the film. So I wanted to get a clue and understand for myself whether you guessed or not, but the ambiguity takes alive, as it was with “Fatal Woman”. But we must make a reservation - the finale does not cause disappointment, he leaves the desire to turn to the creators to find out the answer, which version was correct. That's it, yes, there is a double bottom and for those who find it interesting - please see.
Not perfect, of course, the picture of the famous master Brian De Palma, but with a low rating it I do not agree, there is something in this film that catches, and first of all it is a bright, lively game of actresses, shamelessly revealing behind-the-scenes intrigues of corporate collectives, and women they are very vindictive, it should be noted.
It’s not easy to judge a picture when you first see a format like this. Arthouse films that leave behind unusual feelings for a long time are completely addictive. The problem is that there is not always a mood under which it is necessary to look at the development of plots of such paintings.
The tape caught my attention solely because of the beloved in her previous work Rachel McAdams. Who are Noomi Rapace, Brian De Palma, may their fans forgive me, I did not know only because I first watched such an unusual movie of the genre of “thriller”.
At first I didn’t really understand what was happening on the screen. The film was positioned as a fight between two businesswomen for a man, but from the first minutes it was clear that neither of the women took it for an object that is worth fighting in principle. The story is tied exclusively to the relationship of the main characters.
The next thing I noticed was that Passion began to drag me on, and it happened twenty minutes into the movie. Then, more, the plot began to twist, lies-betrayal-kiss-revenge. It was like a labyrinth where the director leads you, and at each new turn you hope weakly and naively that everything will turn out the best way for both heroines. The closer you get to the end, the more you get confused in your own thoughts. The film ends, the questions remain. Those who love puzzles will be disappointed – the picture will not be folded by the author. Maybe you can build it yourself, or maybe not.
True connoisseurs of this director or direction have their own, clearer and more confident opinion about the film, but as a person who decided to expand his genre range, I can notice that this film is addictive, surprising, returning to reality, shocking.
As for Rachel McAdams, in my opinion, she lived the role of her character perfectly.
P.S. An hour after viewing, there was an inexorable desire to revise the picture from a new angle, to try to understand it. That's probably what the director wanted. Well, I'm on the hook. No backstabbing. Just Passion.
What a wonderful cast of the film! And that's where my excitement fades. Why, I’ll tell you a little bit more.
Plot. The title of the film ' Passion' was extremely encouraging. The war of Christina ("Rachel McAdams") and Isabelle ("Numi Rapace") could potentially be interesting, but only from the first minutes of viewing there is a sense of predictability. There is a bit of drama and a detective, but there is absolutely nothing.
Cristina is a careerist who incomprehensibly dominates a large team of men, although she is much more busy with her personal life and all sorts of scams than with work duties. McAdams is charismatic, but apart from this charisma, there is nothing behind her character. Isabelle is talented and modest, she is forced to share her talent ' for the good of the team' When it comes to personal, patience comes to an end. Here the same story - the actress is brighter than the character. Secondary characters - it seems that they did not exist at all.
Costumes. Costumes clearly overdone: Christina is too visually bright, and Isabelle is too modest, this applies to makeup. Obviously, this method should have been shown the opposite of the heroines, but it turned out inharmonious.
The result. This film I would compare with pictures that ' draw' elephants, holding a brush in the trunk - a lot of bright colors, a lot of storylines, the enthusiasm of the creator, but only the point is not enough. De Palma took as a basis a film on which it is pointless to shoot a remake, invited actors who exceeded the task, and completely hyperbolized everything. The title ' Passion' is not more a reflection of the plot or mood of the film, but how much De Palma loves his profession and how he doesn’t care about the reaction of the audience – he just revels in the process of shooting.
The film is as neutral as possible, and that's all it says.
5 x 10
In order not to annoy you with the enthusiastic tone of my review (as well as the volume), I must immediately explain that the film “passion” presented itself after watching as the most verified, most thoughtful, most colorful and multi-level masterpiece of Brian de Palma, which I have ever met. It’s just amazing how this 70-year-old old man from New Jersey manages in the era of craze humiliating for art thrillers and horror films not to lose the spark that invariably ignited the young artist in the 70s. But, of course, there are those who, sceptically clenched their lips, will notice that the film is nothing but endless self-citation, and we do not see anything fundamentally new. But let’s figure out what the similarity of this picture with previous works, and in the process try to find something fundamentally original.
Characters. Due to the rapid changes in the living conditions and social structure, the habitat of the main characters has become a large corporation selling a mandatory and mandatory gadget for every 10th inhabitant of Europe-smartphone. As it is easy to guess directors, marketers and top managers of transnational corporations, due to saturation, do not shy away from spicy fun in bed and corporate affairs in the office. Sometimes such games exceed the limits allowed by corporate ethics and become criminal. But as is always the case with De Palma – the story of the murder of the character is only an occasion to ensure that the director was able to fully demonstrate his inexhaustible artistic skill and stun the viewer with the multi-level ambiguity of those events that the latter managed to notice on the screen (and the more he notices – the more likely to comprehend the true essence of things ... if, of course, it exists at all!).
Technical excellence. What I like most about this director is that there is no gap between the story being told and its visualization. Ultimately, the camera is not just one of the characters, but directly the narrator, in connection with which there is a feeling of absolute immersion in the plot, which can contribute to the awakening of unimaginable interest in even the most intriguing story about how two women quarreled over one member. For this technical reason, the story often acquires the character of an illusion, delirium or hallucination that arose in the character, but still thinned by objective facts, for which the viewer clings as a lifeline, in the hope of landing on the shore of truth, reason and rationality. But the solid soil of the earth also turns out to be nothing but a deceptive mirage. The question is – what gave rise to it – the director’s genius, or can... our own imagination? In my opinion, both. Remarkable (sic) murder scenes, as poetic and transcendental as it is possible to make with the help of video recording, have long become a trademark of De Palma. In Passion, the moment of death and murder so interesting to all kinds of artists and philosophers is adjacent to Debussy’s most gentle, innocent and brilliant symphonic composition. Such a contrasting combination acts stunningly, being at the same time the central, landmark episode of the picture, after which an absolutely stunning transition of the film from realism to genuine surrealism in the style of Mulholland Drive is made.
Idea. So characteristic of De Palma absolutely autonomous and veiled element of madness has not gone anywhere. Quietly hiding and silent before the self-assured, proud speeches of reason, he, silently keeping the secret of the duality of human nature, being aware of the most immoral and anti-rational areas of the human soul, from his dark shelter in fact ... rules the ball! And at the moment when he comes to light, the fabric of reality breaks, exposing the hidden behind things. emptiness
Okay. We can safely say that all of the above was already present (and in excess) in the previous paintings of this artist. Moreover, since the time of his “front body”, released almost thirty years ago, absolutely nothing has changed. After all, at that time his work was criticized as one large and continuous self-quotation, using more than once tried plot and the same technical innovations as a decade ago. It is difficult to argue with this statement, in addition, as we saw all the main elements of Di Palm’s corporate style inherent in this picture. But! Why is this permanence treated as a flaw? While, in my opinion, to carry through half a century, with its constant change of tastes, directions and styles “his chip”, not to miss it and not to sell it to the studio bosses and to shoot the thirtieth film with the same painstakingness, thoroughness and love, as the first one – all this is an invaluable virtue.
P.S. I had previously disliked the genre of erotic thriller, probably because in most films the former existed completely independently of the latter. But De Palma’s painting is an example of how unimaginable sexual tension can arise without a single scene of a candid nature.
I wanted to see this film so badly because I was sure that under the direction of Brian De Palma, I would surely enjoy the tandem of my beloved Rachel McAdams and the Swedish Noomi Rapace, who was on the wave of popularity after the adaptation of the Millennium trilogy by Stig Larson. And then the famous German Caroline Herfurt lit up. In general, De Palma gathered three famous actresses in one place, but there is a chasm between them. No connection and no passion.
It's a weird story. Christine and Isabelle work together on advertising a new phone, but between them some strange relationship, certainly beyond professional. It seems clear that Christine as a boss flirts with her subordinate, motivates and inspires her, and then reaps the benefits for selfish purposes. But if Isabelle is so timid and in love with her boss, why is she sleeping with her boyfriend Christine? And then the assistant Isabelle constantly gets confused under his feet and tries to open his colleague’s eyes to the boss-bitch.
In short, a movie about women. About female friendship and love, about how passionate, insidious, playful, nervous, rejected, vengeful, etc. they are. I didn't like the plot. The film turned out to be elementary boring. It is not drawn by the cast, lesbian scenes, or climax. I only liked Rachel McAdams' monologue when she talked about her sister. She played great there. And in general, she succeeded in a bitchy image. Just within the framework of the plot, it was unconvincing. And Noomi Rapace didn't like it at all. The whole film she is kind of frostbitten, always in black and always with a grave expression on her face.
Those shadows covering half of my face and the music made it feel like I was watching a very old movie. Perhaps that’s why it seemed banal. Where the $30 million went was a mystery to me. The interior of the house is, of course, beautiful, as is McAdams' wardrobe, but clearly does not justify the expense. De Palma disappointed me this time. The original French did not watch, but for some reason I have no doubt that he was many times more interesting than the incomprehensible thriller about jealous lesbians with PMS.
4 out of 10
I must admit that the first thing I noticed was that the heads of major posts do not behave in this way. It's too unlikely when you put carnal desires above your career. That's not serious. Engaging in a very dangerous, mesmerizing game, betting on your victory and putting a lot at stake. For what? And most importantly, for what?
So, two employees from the first frame deceive each other. The viewer is even explained who broke the vow first, and on whose side to stop the choice, but it is not so important – the girls are so “good” that it is enough to follow their intrigues until the end of the film. As a contrast between themselves, the creators picked up different in character and appearance actresses – Rachel McAdams, as a more experienced Hollywood star, much more effectively played a dangerous thing Christine, obsessed with carnal pleasures and forbidden desires (which are not averse to share with others). Numi Rapace may be smart enough and deserves her place in the company, but you feel some kind of incomprehensible attraction to her (probably due to a more chaste look and greater concentration), and at the same time you push her away, believing that in the Christine-Isabelle pair she is still in second place. It is possible that the external factor plays a role in this assessment, and Christine looks more like a calculating and slightly abnormal bitch (each has its own quirks), but Christine skillfully combines an external cold mask with hot warmth inside. Like I always did. Like she's no stranger. Isabelle is still studying. About Dirk I generally keep silent - the character is unstable, windy, and even heeled. The question is, can such people really hold high positions?
In the spirit of “Savage” and “Cruel Games”, business relationships are subtly intertwined with so-called passion. Everyone wants to save their skin, is not afraid of decisive action, and at some point declares a real war. It’s like being a strong woman, no matter what the strength is.
However, I did not see much passion. Yes, the business conflict affected other parties as well. The girls felt obliged to fight. But it's corny and pretty rash. It would be worth fighting for! Again, there is no such absorbing, animal passion. Except that intellectual passion is an undeniable desire to take the place of a leader. And then – the plot switches to Isabelle, her “problems” with pills, resulting from hallucination. It's like you're going crazy and you can't stop.
The film's budget is grossly overstated. And not justified. Not at the box office, not at the criticism.
It is said that Brian De Palma creates freely. I can’t agree more, because the film is built on freedom – the plot can change dramatically, and while you go to the final, you can only predict its completion. Freedom, even for writers. The options can be any – you probably won’t guess how it will end. Personally, I did. I lost the battle with predictability.
In my opinion, Brian de Palma was commissioned to shoot a couple of commercials for Apple and Panasonic, but he shot everyone and instead made a remake of corporate anti-thriller Alain Corno & #39; Crimes for love & #39; about manners in an advertising agency. And the first 50 minutes, it seems that all this is in vain, since on the screen almost frame-by-frame remake, only with either overplaying actors, or parody-ironic view of de Palma on the original (you can’t guess with it). But starting with the signature and masterfully made suspense scene with the use of a polyscreen, the action takes on a much more lively and unexpected character. Since where Corno stopped, realizing that further can slide into vulgarity, Brian de Palma with passion begins to wind up new rounds of intrigue, realizing that his reputation has long been drunk. So there's nothing to lose. What about love? Passion? Don’t get emotional at work. Nothing personal, just business. Obey or you'll be fired.
It is assumed that this story about how the office plankton evolves, forced to survive in a brutal corporate environment; as a small but smart fish, being bitten by a larger fish that took away its prey, and realizing that it is not able to defeat it in an open fight, allows the next time the enemy swallows himself, then pops up the belly of the offender from the inside with suddenly grown fangs, taking its place; of course, another cabinet trifle, dreaming to climb the career ladder and get a more privileged position in the food chain, rushes to the teeth and begins to burn everyone.
The inhabitants of the business population, following the laws of nature, mother, destroy each other, take risks and win ... or lose. That's what happens in life. So it was in the original film of Alain Corno, where around the rainbow life prospects performed a passionate dance with sabers with a lethal outcome Ludivine Sanya (a talented ingenue, mutated into a bitch) and Christine Scott-Thomas (arrogant cruel lady - boss). Watching such battles is definitely fascinating. You expect the same from the remake of De Palma, but on closer examination you realize that in his pond females went crazy: pushing the males and the struggle for the best place under the sun far away, the females began to flirt with each other, subordinating their actions not to necessity, but to whims. Black-haired employee Noomi Rapace (the quiet pool in which everything is not common: both creativity and negativity), gold-haired executive Rachel McAdams (narcissistic not particularly smart pretentious nothing) and the red-handed Carolyn Herfurt (kind neither) staged a deadly office battle, like wrestlers in the ring. It seems to be spectacular: the ladies beat each other in dirt, tears and blood pretty much, but no one will ever think that what is happening is actually possible, the notorious “I do not believe” and tears from the lips, their artificial passions do not touch for a moment, their actions, not always friendly with logic, cause bewilderment. Except that visually look spectacular fights of girls of different colors mixed with kisses, but this is potentially a strong side of a completely different movie. There is nothing more to catch your eye.
Is that surprising? Not really, by and large. Bryan De Palma has always tended to be secondary. He took other people's guaranteed ideas and shot his polished updated versions. The main success of the director brought remakes of “Carlito’s Way”, “Scarface”, now the hope for “Passion”. Unabashedly borrowing from Hitchcock (find five differences between "Observation" and "Vertigo"), he modestly called himself a follower of the creator of suspense. And there was not enough - the beloved polyscreen again found its application. Someone will think: the author's method. Like, in unconventional “Sisters” he was, and in the famous “Carrie”, and in the passing “Fatal Woman”. I will argue that the author, but the author is different - none other than Hitch thought of in his time. Repeating someone else’s idea will never make it yours. But the “top of skill” becomes constant self-citation, parasitism at one successful moment. And if in the parody of the "False Body" it is at least justified by genre, then in the last work of the American, how can one explain the fact that part of the action is again transferred to the realm of dreams as in three early works? Someone will say: personal style, I object: only minimizing risks. The director in his favorite manner took advantage of the successful technique, which, among other things, allowed him to disguise scripted miscalculations - which only in the border state is not dreamed of and play with the light - strange colors only in real life can cause bewilderment. With the world on the thread - a film for Brian. For many years, without creating anything original, De Palma once again did not do it, and again hopes for success. The bicycle is not normally invented. Handle it, gentlemen!
It's an ambiguous movie. Multifaceted and interesting. With a lot of traps and clues, where there is nothing superfluous.
Three goddesses. Obviously different outwardly. Their appearance and behavior imperceptibly create the illusion of diversity. Like candy with the same coating and different filling. Here these different women are filled with one 'chocolate' Therefore, that external exclusivity when showing them ' in the case' No. Impersonal murder, wait-and-see surveillance and ' Unique' vibrant life, where instead of a mirror only a blindfold. And they won't wake up.
Thriller, crime, detective - these lines are so clear and predictable that, like a triple with bells, instantly convey to the main - drama. The desire to be loved and the desire to love mature to passion. Passion equals, passion depersonalizes. And if there is no bridge between these desires, then passion rewards loneliness and soon kills Man. A dream comes, and cancel its beginning, wake up and leave the game ' Suicide #39; unable.
The drama is presented by women and this does not burden the perception of film passion with stereotypes of intersex relations. Only, in my opinion, such women or men (which is not so important, because we are one whole, where only he (she) can be right or guilty) is the real end of the world.
The finale is set to review the film in a wider range.
To watch or not to watch? Respecting yourself and others, I do not want to encroach on your free will. The answer is yours.
The first film since 2007 directed by Brian De Palma. The author of such cult films as: 'The Way of Carlito', 'Scarface', 'Untouchables' and others. And it looks like he really had something to say.
' Passion' is a remake of the French film ' Crime for Love'. The plot of the picture is quite simple: Elizabeth (Noomi Rapace) shoots a stunning commercial, which conquered the management of the company, In turn, Christine (Rachel McAdams) assigns the idea and authorship of the video to herself. Next, a cold war ensues between the girls, and each of them is ready to do anything in this war.
Perhaps ' Passion' this is the case when it is not necessary to analyze the film into components, and evaluate the picture in parts. After all, then, we must admit that the storyline is slightly weak for a thriller, the musical accompaniment of the 80s era looks ridiculous in modern paintings, etc. However, if you rely on the overall impression left by the tape, if you take the aftertaste left after watching, then the film will seem very good.
Of course, the film is not for the mass audience. Fans of modern blockbusters will not understand it, will find it boring and dull. However, in my opinion, such films should certainly be shot, and even though the commercial success of the tape does not gain, this film will not be called a failure. After all, cinema should not only entertain people, it should also make the viewer think. And in 'Passion' this component is just present.
I recommend the movie, but I don’t recommend it to everyone. Even if you don’t like the movie, don’t regret 110 minutes of your life. Still, the picture raises as old as the world, but more relevant today is the topic of games that people play and people who play games.
Passion: Crime, Punishment, and Dangerous Connections.
Cult director Brian De Palma shot a remake of the action film “Crime for Love” (Alain Corno, 2010), turning it into a psychological thriller, renaming it “Passion” and giving a unique atmosphere.
“Crime for Love” is quite an average film, however, with a claim for something more. De Palma, taking the plot frame, changed many nuances and completely remade the ending. The story of two careerists, whose relationship, starting as a professional, then moves into a more intimate stage, involving sex, secrets, humiliation, blackmail, does not seem to have the potential to move a film based on it into the category of cult. However, De Palma fills the cinematic space with psychology and impeccable both internal and visual style.
Compared to "Passion," "Crime for Love" looks like a pilot episode alongside a well-funded aired series. It feels like a real cinema class. Metaphorism permeates literally everything – from the clothes of the main characters (the loose bright colors of light fabrics are contrasted with black dull-smelling heavy jackets) to the style of shooting. If the first half of the film, in which the atmosphere and relationships between the characters become darker and more complex, looks just perfect, then starting with the event turn, the picture changes, losing its proportionality. The proportions are replaced by original angles and the loss of standard focus. Also as an artistic technique, a double image is used - the events preceding the climax are parallel to the ballet under Nezhinsky-Debussy "Afternoon of a Faun".
The Passion genre is certainly a psychological thriller of such a high level that it only takes acting and no visual effects to create tension. In this sense, De Palma bypasses Danny Boyle and his "Trans", in which McAvoy's play was sometimes eclipsed by the visual findings of the director's artist, and the ending was blurred and too primitive, although the film was not bad overall. In De Palma, the inner state of the hero is primary and determines absolutely everything that happens on the screen, generating a nonlinear plot and an open ending.
The casting of the film was conducted perfectly by Noomi Rapace and Rachel McAdams brilliantly cope with their acting task. The main male role went to the Englishman Paul Andersen, who is known for his acting talent, the embodiment of Sebastian Moran and an incredibly stylish hairstyle. By the way, in the original French version, the same role was played by no less impressive Patrick Millet.
Passion is obviously (for various reasons) an underrated film. For the average viewer, it will seem too complex, and he will prefer a similar genre, but simpler in content “Trans”. For prestigious film awards, the film is too chamber, although it is more a virtue than a disadvantage. The film, the meaning of which is the dissection of human passions in a broad sense (from voluptuousness to thirst for money), as well as reasoning on the topic of crime and punishment is always relevant and must-see.
Brian De Palma poses important questions with this film work, and in a metaphorical, allegorical, indirect form gives answers to them. But, “Passion” is the rare case in modern times, when the viewer is supposed not just to look, but to see and think. After all, not only the main character of “Passion” will have an impossible decision and a choice between a terrible end and horror without end.
The movie turned out to be gloomy and this gloom is emphasized by bright details, for example, red lips Rachel McAdams, her (or maybe not) turquoise sandals, a stack of red hair Carolina Herfurt.
The plot is interesting and the further the movie continues, the more I want to know what will happen next. And somewhere in this gap you do not notice how from reality you smoothly move to the world of dreams and fictions. Do you want to know more about the outcome? Passion is a mix of genres: melodrama, thriller, detective...
Rachel McAdams in the film looks organic and convincing. Such a chic businesswoman bitch, who, going to her goal, absolutely does not think about the feelings of the people around her. She easily manipulates people, but is very angry if manipulated.
Numi Rapace is also convincing, quite fit into the role of designer a la "don't be born beautiful."
In the film Brian De Palma, you probably will not discover anything new, will not see anything spectacular or out of the ordinary, but this film will definitely be a journey for you. A dark journey.
“Scarface,” “Carlito’s Way,” and “The Untouchables” are the first things you remember when you hear the name Brian De Palma. The mayor after 5 years of silence showed the viewer a new work - the film "Passion".
The film tells about “people in masks”, and faces are often hidden not literally, but figuratively, distorting the true gut, desires and impulses. At the center of the events are two women – “businesswomen”. They are successful, desperate and ruthless in everything: in career, love, in life itself.
De Palma always knew how to show a beautiful woman, remember at least "Black orchid" or "Fatal woman", but this time the images created by the director are somewhat caricatured, of course, attractive, but pretty overloaded.
"Passion" is a beautiful, subtle movie, confusing, but predictable. Despite the intense efforts to hide from the viewer the perpetrators of the events and the true motives, the story is quite transparent. At least, this can seem to the viewer almost to the very end, and then a sharp turn of the plot, and there are almost more questions than during watching the film. The audience was almost an open ending.
Rachel McAdams is the star of this film, she is magnificent here, everyone around her fades against her background, which is what the plot of the film implies. Numi Rapace is overly meek and wordless, her character is constantly in the shadow of a brighter woman.
This is the story of a confrontation between two intelligent and charming women walking along the same career ladder, spinning an affair with the same man. They are ready to literally step on each other’s throats, while recognizing each other’s merits. The struggle for power of two careerists escalates every day, until it reaches its climax, and then a third woman appears on the stage, able to confuse the cards, seemingly in a completely calculated combination.
"Passion" is a remake of the French film "Crime for Love", shot most recently - in 2010. Brian De Palma's version came out more expensive, stylish, tasty, filled with gloss and brilliance, honed almost to perfection. All the controversial issues concern rather the plot, perfectly revealed by the director. This story would have been more poignant in the 90s, now a sophisticated viewer saw a lot and such a narrative will not delight him. But to dispute the fact that within the framework of this story, the picture came out excellent, not everyone dares.
With the work of Brian de Palma, I am familiar only from the film “Black Orchid” and, to be honest, I can not say that the film is somehow impressed. But seeing the trailer of the picture “Passion” immediately interested, the plot was very promising and intriguing. I've been waiting a long time for her to come out. And finally, I watched this movie. To tell the truth, Passion turned out to be an interesting picture and, of course, interesting thanks to the play of two actresses: Rachel Mac Adams and Noomi Rapace. I was delighted to see the duo.
In the center of the picture are two girls who work in the same company and have an affair with the same man. And the heroine Rachel Mac Adams (Christine) plays the boss, very luxurious, domineering, spectacular, cruel, but not without personal problems. And I really want to celebrate her game, as she amazes with her truthfulness, there is absolutely no playfulness. Noomi Rapace also did a great job, although I didn’t like her very much before, but in this film she looked very organic. And her heroine (Isabelle) turned out to be multifaceted, not as simple as it might seem at first glance. Although in some ways she even evoked sympathy, for example, the scene when Christine humiliates her in public. But Isabel was not confused, but on the contrary, decided to take revenge. Cold-blooded, thoughtful, once and for all paying off his hated boss. And as a result, the film from melodrama smoothly turns into a detective.
In conclusion, it is worth noting that, in general, the film is built correctly. It's beautiful. The only, but significant, minus is the ending. It's too scrappy. It’s as if the author didn’t have time to tell us something.
'Thriller is a genre where you are free to tell a story through images and music. Everything else is secondary. Visual style for such films - the main thing & #39;
Brian De Palma
For so many years, being in a protracted creative crisis, invariably falling under the fire of critical remarks of journalists, once De Palma was considered a direct follower of Hitchcock, moreover, once he was caught by this cult director in plagiarism, which, in fact, did not prevent him from remaining one of the best filmmakers of the twentieth century, now, reviled by the indignant public for the negligence of his works, once again preferred the indulgence of the masses to the author's self-expression, presented in the framework of the competition program 69-Venice film, which, as a full-recesssionist in the French film, recitation of his film, 39th;
The phrase ' erotic thriller', so often used to designate the genre affiliation of this film, is just a delusion imposed by the press, because the lesbian kisses of leading actresses and the unsuccessful simulation of sexual intercourse in several especially not outstanding scenes are devoid of genuine sensuality, necessary to give spiciness to a rather ordinary story, hardly have a place. Even the slightly accentuated sexual fetishism of the heroine McAdams, an unusually curious consequence of the psychological trauma experienced in childhood, does not allow the director to overcome ignorance than dictated modesty, to maintain the integrity of the character’s image (an optional expressive detail).
The prospect of successful promotion on the career ladder confronts ambitious top managers with the problem of unfair competition, encourages women associated with vanity confusions to overstep the norms of professional ethics, while it is not an end in itself, it serves only as an excuse for self-affirmation at the expense of humiliating an opponent, proof of superiority and power, driving the force of satisfying the need to seem significant. Alas, but as the whirlpool of corporate passions increasingly drags the characters of the film, involves in the confrontation of the girls of their mutual acquaintances, who also had an impact on the development of the conflict and its outcome, the tension categorically refuses to increase.
The supposed suspense genre is no longer subject to the once skillful imitator Alfred Hitchcock: the anxious expectation of the consequences of the intrigues woven by the director of an advertising company replaced the observation of the revenge of her infringed self-love, rather unsophisticated ridicule, still somehow insulting the employee subordinate to her, the viewer has sympathy for the victim of arbitrariness not causing. It would seem that the twisted detective line should leave to be lost in guesses about the identity of the masked killer, as it should, to hand over the motives of the crime to each of the actors, is quite predictable and if it were not for the rigging of reality by the director, puts De Palma a disappointing sentence.
Passion is a story about a fake life, fake people who hide behind masks, but not carnival, but everyday. They hide their faces, their guts, their true intentions. '
There was a video by Via Gra where three women climb out of a spaceship-pill and sing "The heart demands revenge, even in two hundred years this time I will not forget if ... live." It is a pity that de Palma did not see this video. Inspired by yourself.
For a long time I remember watching the movie Black Orchid. I remember there were beautiful women, murders. And I remember not understanding. After perplexed comments on de Palma's new work, I realized that misunderstanding is his goal and aesthetic obfuscation is his method. So I just got ready to look at beautiful women. And they at Palma are not just beautiful, but made-up and dressed to the funeral Hollywood mothball. It's like a vampire movie. Even my beloved Noomi is a frightening woman here. Scary businesswoman. And there are three such business riches in heels: again, according to the rules of Via Gra - an ash blonde, a burning brunette and a red German to fill the middle of the spectrum. This red-haired timid secretary in a page vest, by the way, just recently starred in a movie about a vampire as a neophyte girl who is desperately harassed by a blonde mother vampire. But it is not fate ("Taste of the Night"). Here, roles change by the end. She harasses and kills the unhappy and unloved. The aesthetic struggle of blondes and blondes, blondes and brunettes is perfectly worked out by Tarantino. Who is smarter, who is more beautiful, who is more dangerous. Who wins? Yes, and “Side Effect”, of course, is remembered: because about drugs for depression, about erotic scenes between women, about meanness and about another girl with a dragon tattoo.
De Palma is definitely a muddler. It's his handwriting and style. He's thinking through all the evidence, all the leads. Colorfully shoots them, lays out solitaire ... and then mixes the entire deck. And not that another solitaire folded up, but that the cards at the end of different “streets” beautifully laid down. He likes to turn the viewer’s perception by 90 degrees, break the entire structure. And it does not matter that with each turn, the story looks more and more strange and did not happen in principle.
I thought this movie was a great story about revenge. Here, by the way, there is a quote-reference epigraph to “Kill Bill”. Only towards the end does one feel some edifying pressure, something fatal from Romeo and Juliet, when revenge leads to two lying corpses. Revenge will always stifle and be strangled. There is no revenge here that can win (like Tarantino's). Here, revenge is some endless race with overlap. And don’t believe the reviews: everyone here is humiliated. Everyone has ambition. And everyone takes revenge. Except men. Those who polish the strapon quietly on the side.
Why did de Palma make a movie about lesbian relationships and revenge? About some symmetrical facets of female passions. About eroticism, revenge and domination. As a woman wants love and self-affirmation, creates a double for herself, and from this double, the object of her passion dies. There is a black swan in the offices. With a career reshuffle. And they will strangle each other in competition for the main batch with a snow-white scarf.
Beautiful women walk down the catwalk in expensive shoes. And they slip. And fall. And they curl their necks. And push. And laugh. And crying. And strangle. Here is the film with a Hitchcock climax to the music of Debussy. And to appreciate the beauty of this scene, remember how the faun reverently held a thin scarf of a beautiful nymph that eluded him. And then the last shots turn into the lying rust of passionate rage, instead of love.
A few girls from a big corporation. And they all have one man. It is clear that issues of sexuality will break through in the most bizarre way. It is obvious that the subject of corporate abuse will come up, as will murder. Passionate murder. Cold, planned to the smallest detail and stupid. For murderers are always stupid.
Oh, come on. The plot is clear. Now we have to move on to the film. It's quite textbook here. Brian de Palma returns stylistically to his 'Fatal Woman' while using his 'Neohitchcock' potential.
In general, I think that stylistically the film was a complete anachronism. If it had been shot in the mid-'80s, it would have been an event. If this film was released on the wave of success ' Basic Instinct' - it would be clear. And nowadays, alas, the topic raised has long been revealed. It is very difficult to come up with something new.
To be fair, the movie is pretty good. But I didn't see anything extraordinary. The duo of Noomi Rapace and Rachel McAdams is pretty good. But I wouldn’t say the actresses showed anything new. They worked on the wave of success of their past roles, and applied long-proven clichés.
Of course, it would be possible to take a risk and make a tough erotic drama, with fixation on erotic scenes. But Brian de Palma has long since stopped taking risks. So, the picture came out very fresh.
But why only three balls? The fact is that the picture is incredibly predictable. In addition, I repeat that all the production tools de Palma seems completely unoriginal. In the early 90s, it was all there.
In the end: Despite the very well-known names of actresses performers and director, the film seems quite ordinary thriller category B. Sometimes in the course of viewing it seemed to me that Michael Madsen or Billy Zane was about to appear in the frame, and everything would fall into place.
3 out of 10
Brian De Palma has not appeared on the film horizon for a long time, he has not shot new films with his signature handwriting. The director, whose fame and respect brought thrillers, again returns to this genre. He is filming a remake of the French film ' Crime for Love'. And he does it perfectly.
The movie is weird. Quite chamber, devoid of a large number of characters. The whole plot revolves only between a few pieces that seem to be placed on a chessboard. The director plays with the audience until the end. So when you think the queen's down, checkmate. The movie is unusual. It begins as a classic thriller with erotic overtones, and ends as a typical art house, where nothing is ever clear to the end and what was white suddenly becomes black for some reason.
The story revolves around the relationship of four people. In the middle is Isabelle. And all the others are around it. With each passing minute of timekeeping, the tangle of emotions, feelings and connections becomes stronger and stronger and reaches its heated, in the end mixing all the threads that connected the characters. The finale of the film is generally inexplicable and inexplicable logic. It can safely be called open, because he leaves behind many more questions than gives any answers. True, throughout the tape, the viewer is given some hints, but it is impossible to believe them completely and completely. De Palma confuses the viewer and plays with him. It is not clear who is the hunter and who is the victim. The audience thinks for themselves.
The film is stylish, the music gives it an atmosphere of noir, because it sounds not at all modern, and also adds to the tape of mystery and some charm. Tones and colors are mostly faded and monotonous. Brightness stands out only the character of Rachel McAdams – Christine, but the bright colors only emphasize her bitchy character. Every hero here is insane in his own way. There are no normal things in this movie.
Actors are good. I especially liked Rachel McAdams, although I don't like her at all. Her character came out bright, spectacular, provocative. It turns out that she can play not only cute ladies. Noomi Rapace fades in her background. Although she made a fairly solid image. But there is a feeling that she hangs in the images of strong women. They look good to her, but I would like to see more diversity in her filmography. She is an amazing actress that I love very much. Unusual and completely unconventional. Especially in Hollywood, which is full of puppet faces. I also liked Caroline Herfurt. Good. A kind of red beast.
Brian De Palma made a film about women and for women. But all the women in his film are dangerous, strong, crazy, and anyone can be tricked. Cinema is not for everyone, someone will seem strange, fragmentary, unfinished. But in my understanding, this is a moderately psychological and erotic thriller about the female nature and that women, no matter how twisted, are still more dangerous, cunning, calculating and quirkier than men.
A remake of the film “Crimes of Love” by Alain Corno (2010), dedicated to the confrontation of two ladies working as top managers in a large corporation, whose relations balance on the verge of love and hatred and are diluted with mutual frames, which ultimately leads to murder. The original was very gray, boring and anemic spectacle, but pensioner DePalma managed to go even further - to remove a remake, an order of magnitude worse than the original. If for all the boredom and inconsistency of the first film there was at least a hint of grace, plus the subtle play of Ludivine Sanje and Christine Scott-Thomas looking great together, then when viewing this picture it becomes clear why the public booed the film so powerfully at the premiere screening at the Venice IFF.
Where the 30 million budget went is unclear, the action takes place in two gray sets, and the leading actresses are unlikely to receive huge royalties. But most importantly, where did the innovative director, who amazed the audience with the skillful use of a polyscreen, a lot of allusions to Hitchcock and the Jallo-atmosphere, as well as the extraordinary, brilliantly written suspense scenes that were full of his best works of the 70-80s? There is no “passion” stated in the title, and there is no mention, as well as an attempt at eroticism, the characters are constrained, the actions are boring and far-fetched and simply discouraged by their illogicality, and the film itself constantly gives the impression of some “plasticity”, reminiscent of an episode from some average television series. The actresses also did not please - the contrasting outwardly duet of blonde McAdams and cold brunette Rapace did not work out, despite all my love for Rachel, she here played not an imperious corporate bitch, but Regina George from Mean Girls, as for Rapace, then she, as always, walks like a bruised bag for most of the screen time. No tension is observed, because not to count for him stunted ending and uninteresting one-single use of the polyscreen in the middle of the film. Yes, Mr. DePalma, old age is no joy. But Apple and Panasonic should be grateful to you - such an obsessive product placement is rarely found in Bekmambetov's films.
4 out of 10
A large corporation in Berlin employs two employees Christine and Isabel as top managers. But once their professional-friendly relationship cracks and it leads to the most unexpected and tragic consequences.
The latest directorial work of the outstanding American director Brian De Palma called “Passion” in 2012, first presented to the public at the Venice Film Festival, at the end of the session was mercilessly booed by film critics of various stripes. The whistle of the venerable critics, of course, is not always an indicator of the low quality of the film, but in the case of "Passion" this action is an eloquent proof of the ambiguity of the new work of the cult director. Being a remake of the not the most famous French film “Crime for Love” of 2010 directed by Alain Cornault, in which, however, shone Christine Scott Thomas and Ludivine Senier, the remake from De Palma also boasts a spectacular acting duet of two strong and beautiful actresses and, first of all, women – Noomi Rapace as Isabel and Rachel McAdams as Christine, and the obvious conflict of the antagonist and protagonist of the film as a whole is devoid of all female characters of the tape are ambiguous, rocky, poisonous. However, in this picture, these actresses perform far from the brightest and best of their roles, because they themselves and their heroines seem only vignettes in the hands of Brian De Palma, who with extraordinary sinophile zeal and skill dissects the genre of erotic thriller and noir into something deliberately kitschy, pretentious, weaving irony into a multi-layered plot intrigue, without ceasing to play in Hitchcock. The neglect of the logically built plot canvas and thoughtful development of the plot, the aesthetic game almost in Greenway with its semantic separation of the screen in one of the key scenes of “Passion”, the emasculated glamorous urban picture of the operator Jose Luis Alcaine for miles removed this film from the genre of production-melodramatic thriller in the style of “Exposure” by Barry Levinson, making “Passion” a specific tape that is extremely difficult to evaluate in the framework of standard cinema.
The film closer to the final with a surprise becomes a kind of game for the audience, in which De Palma leads the viewer into a maze of passions, tearing apart the perception of the outside world by the main characters and the picture seems to be a dream dissected by a butterfly of the real world, in which, as if by Freud, any little thing is full of subtext and eroticism. The film is far from thrash, but it is not a classic erotic thriller; by constructing a visual concept, De Palma in “Passion” once again proved his talent as a visualizer and sinophile, not disdainful of quotes and self-citations and turning a generally uncomplicated story about female revenge into something pleasant to the eye, but leaving an unusual aftertaste after watching.
The most beautiful soundtrack from the composer Pino Donajdo envelops the film in a noir atmosphere; the music is perfectly combined with a visually perfect video sequence, playing with notes of suspense and literally anticipating the next plot moves.
So, “Passion” should be called an aesthetic detective thriller with a slight touch of eroticism, which I quite liked and delivered a lot of unforgettable minutes. This film clearly will not appeal to all viewers due to excessive focus on the visual component of the picture and too brazen and noticeable product placement, but the stylish author's handwriting and through irony made this picture quite lookable and interesting, especially if you are a big fan of De Palma's work and do not think that the master "deflated."
8 out of 10
Do you want to have a good evening? Are you tired of sweet stories? Are you sick of cheap crime? Watch Passion.
There are a few things that make this movie different. It is necessary to name them, and immediately it will be clear what ' class' this film .
(1) Pino Donagio, as always, creates amazing music. Through it, the plot is even more fully revealed. The viewer feels embroiled in this tragic (!) heartwarming story. It’s an aesthetic pleasure, as is the whole movie. In short, the musical accompaniment will introduce you to real ecstasy, really.
2) The work of the operator is a separate topic. Every new situation, every twist of the plot - everything from a new angle, even more heating the action. Everything is so delicately felt. There is a play of light and shadows, and an unexpected close-up, and the appeal of the audience to purely artistic details.
(3) With the (actually) absolute similarity of the plot to the film Crime d'amour (2010), this film is fundamentally different from it. It's a remake. But it has been transferred to our days, to our lives. If you’ve seen the movie, don’t put it on the shelf. In comparison, you can see how much our world has changed over the past two years. Then, Brian de Palma gives us the opportunity to look at the world through the eyes of both heroines, which in the previous version was simply excluded. Passion says loudly: 'There are no absolute monsters in the world! There are no people who commit murder (whether psychological or physical) completely in cold blood. There are only two soul mates who, ironically, must meet in a duel. In a fight where there can be no winner. '
I hope I haven’t ruined your impression with my compliments. Look at this. Look at this. Look at this.
10 out of 10
What can be expected from the English-language remake of the depressing French thriller Crime for Love, directed by a director who, according to some critics, has long been in a creative crisis? Well, at best, a quality one-time movie that flies out of your mind two minutes after watching. I started watching Passion just for the tick because of Rachel McAdams, and then to tell myself: I knew it! The unsuitability of Brian de Palma’s creation was more than obvious to me, as I watched the original film for exactly three days, because I could not concentrate more than five minutes on the nonsense that Alain Cornot directed. However, de Palma did the impossible: he made a unique movie. It is useless to describe, but you need to see with your own eyes.
In "Passion" mixed a huge number of different genres and styles. Here, everything is piled up in a pile: an erotic thriller, noir, a thriller, melodrama, kitsch, European author's film, a detective in the style of Hitchcock ... The result was a hell of a thrash. It would never occur to me that today there is a person who can give a damn about all the tenets of good cinema. At first, Passion resembles a cheap imitation of an erotic thriller, intended for release immediately on DVD, however, then the action turns into such clinical nonsense that makes you open your mouth with amazement. Cinematic vulgarity here climbs because of all the cracks: tastelessly decorated titles, ugly game Noomi Rapace, stupid dialogue, oblique angles, annoying product placement of Apple, the famous logo of which is shown on the whole screen ... The list could go on. This film is a perfect example of how not to make a movie, and even this is brought to the point of absurdity. The erotic tension created by the director is more like a prelude to porn, and all eroticism is limited to a couple of lesbian kisses and a second display on the screen of a dildo and some strange thing resembling balls implanted on each other. Detective investigation is like a farce. Excessively dramatic music, sounding behind the scenes during “sharp” moments turns the tragedy of what is happening into a real camp. The illogical nature of the plot, especially the final twist, casts doubt on the adequacy of the writer. When trying to understand the behavior of the characters, the brain twists into a zigzag.
“Passion” is so terrible that watching it turned into a festival of the soul for me, making me laugh to the point of abdominal pain and greedily absorbing every frame. Such madness on the screen was not even in the films of Rodriguez and Tarantino. I don’t know who to recommend this movie to. It is too informal, definitely not for wide distribution. It is possible that even for fans of thrash and camp, “Passion” will seem too crazy and bad, but for me it was a real discovery. Best film of 2013 so far.