The Beguiled (2017) Poster

(2017)

User Reviews

Review this title
251 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Boring and one dimensional
cousinvin629 July 2017
My being familiar with the original 1971 Clint Eastwood version of this movie, I see that Sophia Coppola stripped away all the rich character development and backstory of Ms Farnsworth's incestuous relationship with her brother as well as the flashbacks that revealed the true conniving nature of John McBurney and the sexual fantasy aspect of these characters which was the basis for their motivation in the story. Miss Coppola seemed to sacrifice all this for the sake of making a film that appear to focus on nothing more than a fancy woman's dress party, as if they were all attending a gala ball every day, as well as some obsession of including trees with Spanish moss in almost every scene filmed at almost every angle with the camera being held on them for an usually prolonged period. The result of which made this film nothing more than a boring shallow one dimensional film and was seemingly made by her for the sake of creating nothing more than a moving piece of art to show female regal apparel and Spanish moss trees.
238 out of 288 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
The 1971 version was way much more interesting and thrilling
nepeta10 September 2017
Yesterday I watched the remake of The beguiled and I found it much less impressive than the film made in 1971, but I couldn't remember so well the older version because I watched it more or less 20 years ago so I decided to watch it today to make a comparison. I find that the new version was completely spoiled by PC fanaticism. I don't understand why Sofia Coppola left out Hallie the slave, slavery was a key point on the American Civil war and Hallie was an important character with lots of interesting dialogues. She also left out the scenes of the crush between the soldier and Amy, the 12 years old girl in order to not shock people with paedophilia. The incestuous memories of Martha were also left out. In summary, she impoverished the characters, their relationships and their thoughts to avoid shocking PC people and replaced the interesting varied characters by a group of pretty blondes. The first version is much more thrilling and interesting. It's a shame that now with much better make up and photography the core of the film was spoiled.
136 out of 163 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A double-bill of THE BEGUILED 1971 and 2017
lasttimeisaw21 August 2017
A double-bill of THE BEGUILED, Thomas Cullinan's source novel is a civil-war drama positing a tantalizing scenario where a wounded union soldier fetches up in a southern all-girls' school, nurtured to recovery by the apparently good-willed women but also subjected to temptations from female gazes and one false move, he will go through purgatory of his sorry life.

The 1971 version is directed by Don Siegel, the third of his five collaborations with Clint Eastwood, who plays the Yankee Corporal John McBurney, and is discovered by a 12-year-old Amy (Ferdin, an absorbing talent), to whom he indulges with a peck on her lips, a blatant way to take away a child's first kiss (also pretty provocative by today's regressive yardstick), instantly, what Siegel hammers home to viewers is that he is not a humdinger, and through glimpses of fleeting flashback interleaved into the narrative, John emerges as a congenital liar, flippant and manipulative, currying favor from his petticoat accompany to slough from a possible fall of incarceration, whether it is Miss Marsha (Page), the headmistress of the seminary school, Edwina (Hartman), the virginal teacher to whom he claims his attraction, a nubile 17-year-old student Carol (Ann Harris), who is sexually active, even the slave Hallie (Mercer, a defiant soul hampered by her identity), cannot evade his come-ons.

The advent of a hot-blooded albeit bedridden male inevitably causes an erotic disruption among the exclusive distaff clique, whose members are circumspectly secluded from the battlefield merely outside their perimeter and sexually repressed, for pert, callow girls, they are inclined to project John as a perfect specimen of their untested sexual allure versus the opposite sex, in the cases of Edwina and Carol, one is the prudish committed type and the other is a wanton nymphet. But the most complex character amongst them is no doubt Miss Marsha, whose incest past and subliminal lesbian proclivity get a full treatment in the audacious script and visual presentation, the latter is even coalesced with a flagrant religious connotation to soup up the film's maverick idiom. When the crunches arrives, a man's conceit in his potency is punished by blunt castration and signifies a rude awakening of the priapic worship.

On top of his virile stallion credence, Clint Eastwood imbues a cunning, almost overweening facade which audience isn't familiar with, not cut from the same cloth from his hard-boiled tough-guy legend. Geraldine Page, emboldened by her matriarchal gravitas and demanding onus, doesn't shy away from any extraneous intrusion (the Union and the Confederacy alike) and builds a palpably beguiling tension through the mind games she plays with Eastwood yet holds the rein from stem to stern in unyielding resolution of taking the escalating situation in her own hands. Elizabeth Hartman, the fragile Oscar-nominated actress whose premature demise was a harrowing tragedy ripe for cinematic transposition, brings about something equally tangible and visceral as she is bedeviled by the discord between a man's promise and his action, but still holds out the last remaining benevolence out of her own impressionable nature.

Crowned BEST DIRECTOR in Cannes, Sofia Coppola's remake is an aesthetically beguiling psychological intrigue, superbly recreates a mystical Gothic quaintness in the closing days of the civil war entrapped within the terrain of a majestic mansion of the antebellum south, which certainly is a scintillating upgrade from the 1971 version's sepia retro flair.

But story-wise, Sofia's script not only eviscerates the role of Hallie (which is a double-edged sword since she claims that out of the respect of this sensitive issue, she doesn't want to tread lightly, but also can be easily accused of racially insensitive), but also leaves no allusions of all the taboo issues tackled in Siegel's movie, lesbian kiss, incest depravity and of course, that inappropriate kiss between a grown-up man and a teenage girl, are outright sanitized, and in fact, the whole story has been strenuously internalized, for instance, John's transgression, where is given a plausible justification in Siegel's film, is carried out in a slipshod manner, indicating that it is nothing less than a spur of horniness.

Atmospherical over dramatic, it is beyond reproach that Coppola opts to tell the allegory with her own agent, but unfortunately, the resultant impact doesn't meet up with expectation, especially when juxtaposed with its far more entrancing antecedent. Nicole Kidman intrepidly takes the mantle from Ms. Page, and actualizes an extremely sensual sponge-washing scene with Colin Farrell's less forthcoming and more sympathetic portrayal of a soldier turns paraplegic when he is subjected to an ambiguous retribution out of the necessity of saving his life. Kirsten Dunst and Elle Fanning don't make a splash in the shoes of Hartman and Ann Harris respectively, save Oona Laurence, whose Amy, precisely captures a child's malleable mentality.

So, the jury is out, the remake is humbled by the original, which is quite a shocker because on the paper, Coppola's feminine sensitivity seems to be more adept to parse this age-old gender axe battle than an action-inclined Mr. Siegel, again there is no sure thing in the film industry, and that is exactly why it keeps us intrigued every time.
53 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Now I really appreciate the original film
smoke026 September 2017
I have some lovely scenic videos on my camera, does that mean I can win Best Director at Cannes also? All seeing this film did was remind me of how much I enjoyed the trashy, tawdry original movie, which didn't even have to try half as hard as this one needed to to achieve atmosphere, characterization, and coherence.

Sofia took a simple story of love-starved ladies and adolescent girls alone with a handsome scoundrel who uses and abuses them until they turn the tables on him, and won an award for changing it into a confusing, dull, illogical mess of a movie with some pretty scenic views scattered here and there. Apparently this story was supposed to be told from the women's point of view, but there was no point at all.

There is also no point in viewing this film, so stick with the original.
52 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
The Beguiled is a yawn-fest. Or, act two is a great time for a nap
johnchristopher-18 July 2017
Honestly, I can appreciate a slow building drama that takes its time to build characters. Unfortunately, this remake of the film gives us very little in the way of conflict or tension after the setup and introduction of the characters.

There is some decent acting here from the cast, but I found it nearly impossible to see any detail in their faces due to the choice of shooting in very low light or artificially creating the effect in post. While I can't place blame entirely on the film as our local theater may have had issues with their projection system. Still, I prefer to see the expressions in actor's faces, otherwise I might as well be listening to a radio play.

The film could have been a full stop brighter and adding some fill light on the faces still would have allowed the look to be dark and drab as it was apparently intended.

By the time we get to the third act we still aren't rooting for our protagonist and frankly it's not completely clear until the climax that it's supposed to be Kidman's character. The editing is unimpressive.

This remake of "The Beguiled" isn't anything special. I suspect the jurors who awarded Coppola "Cannes Best Director Award" must have not have seen the film. For me it was best summed up by a phrase I overheard by a nearby audience member, "Is that it?". Yes... I'm afraid so.
116 out of 160 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I feel utterly duped
nickijjohnson2 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I guess if you're a Coppola they'll let you make any crap movie you want. Literally nothing happens in this movie but you were reeled in by a trailer that leads you to believe there will be vengeance of some sort from these women. Wonder why. Could it be because he literally shouts "what have you done to me you vengeful bitches!" This is the second movie this year I've seen with a misleading trailer. The first being It comes at night which was a very poor title because literally nothing came at night but nighttime. This movie too has an exceptional cast with a storyline that falls flat as a pancake. Here goes the summary: guy shows up wounded, women take him in until he heals, girls are all smitten, guy fools around with girl, girl he told he loves catches them and pushes him down stairs, guy breaks leg so they amputate it, guy wakes up and gets angry, women can't live with angry man, women poison him with bad mushrooms. The end. This was boring from start to finish so much so no music at all plays during the film so every scene feels dull and lifeless. I love how people say slow burn. That's like when you say big but you really mean fat. I went in for a hell hath no fury like a woman scorned movie and got Pride and prejudice. Hated it.
122 out of 174 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
So badly lit...thought I was going blind
rtcone1 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Worst lighting of any movie I've ever seen. Was this filmed with candles? Thank the Lord it was a short movie or I might have went blind. The slave character (a major character) in the book isn't even in this film version. In the book they are in Virgina but this looks like it was filmed in Louisiana with all the moss covered trees. An all around disappointment and not worth watching. My advice is to read the book.
32 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A perfect cure for insomnia
ladybampton15 July 2017
I have seen the original version of this film, which starred Clint Eastwood, many years ago and remembered it as being atmospheric and full of sexual tension so was looking forward to seeing this. Unfortunately I was in for a huge disappointment. The pace was slow, dialogue laboured, scenes so darkly 'lit' my overwhelming impression of the film is endless greyness. Even the beautiful and talented Nicole Kidman couldn't lift it out of the gloom. The characters had no flesh on their bones, there was no back story of any depth and I cared so little for any of them that I fell asleep. I was saddened to wake from my slumber and discover I had only slept for a few, too brief, minutes and this turgid film was still playing. I decided I must try harder to get on board as it was my time and money after all and I could sleep for free at home so concentrated on staying awake and waiting for the excitement, as every film has at least a little bit of excitement, but not this one. It is one-paced, boring, dull, nothing of any import happens at all. Save your money, stay at home and watch the original, it's a far better film than this drivel.
85 out of 125 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Have mercy!!
houstons-8295212 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
One of the worst movies i have ever seen. One hour later after the movie started, my wife smiled at me and said she was sorry for dragging me to that movie. I like watching these kind of movies with the company of my wife, but not this time. A few minutes before the end, i had the feeling that the film turned to thriller, but the end was so.... I mean, come on guys!!! Sofia (Coppola), what the hell!
63 out of 92 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Runs a disappointing second to the 1971 version
sagerage-057251 July 2017
First, two dimensional performances by everyone. 2. No sexual tension between Kidman and Farrell 3.No suppressed sexuality in the younger cast members which the earlier film was notable for 4. Photography consists of oaks, with dripping moss, mist and slanting sun or moonlight, again and again
105 out of 159 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Very very disappointing
choonmixer9523 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I was expecting a great deal from this movie as I had enjoyed the original Don Siegel movie of 1971. Having watched this very weak remake I went back and watched the original again. I'm glad I did.

The original 1971 movie is an interesting claustrophobic Gothic thriller set against the backdrop of the brutally divisive American Civil War. The original movie initially juxtaposes the caring females who rescue the dying soldier and nurse him back to health (despite him being the enemy), against the typically male scheming, conniving (and ultimately violent) persona of the soldier who sets about seducing his way to domination. The movie then subverts the narrative with the manipulative behaviour of the jealous women and their ultimate act of revenge brought about by his own arrogant assumptions of male superiority. Hardly any of this is present in this remake. Furthermore, the sexual tensions of the original movie with its disturbing take on incest, predatory underage sex and the destructive jealousy between the principal and the unmarried teacher which eventually leads to the wounded soldier's demise was almost completely absent from the Coppola movie. In addition, the new movie also removed the black slave character and in so doing a whole subtext concerning white male exploitation of black women and overall black subjugation by both the Confederate and Union armies was lost.

The Coppola movie never really gets going and the removal of all of the backstories left the viewer with no idea of why the characters were behaving in the way they did. As many other reviewers here have said it makes for a boring turgid evening. Mercifully it was only 90 minutes long.

Viewed through modern eyes,the the 1971 film is a bit clunky but the Coppola movie is so thin by comparison. It really does beg the question of why bother to make it unless you can improve on the original.
22 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The Beguiled Be Damned
syd99073 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
*Spoiler Alert* Just in case you haven't seen this film or the original 1971 version.

The coach put me on the bench because I'm batting double OO with movies, the last string of films I viewed…All Eyez on Me, Transformers:The Last Knight and 40 Meters Down, were side-eye inducing without a doubt. But this weekend I saw the new Sofia Coppola film "The Beguiled", which is based on the 1971 film of the same name starring Clint Eastwood and Geraldine Page. Before I go all IN on the film, here's a little tidbit about Coppola. She just won the Best Director award at the Cannes Film Festival in May, and is only the 2nd woman in Cannes history to win in that category. Let that sink in for a minute. Now getting back to this film. Out of the gate, the pacing was extremely slow. So much so, that I actually started looking for which exit I could get to the quickest. But I'm a trooper, so I hung in there.

None of the characters were fleshed out, especially Kirsten Dunst and Nicole Kidman's caricatures of repressed southern belles. By the way, Kidman, Dunst, Elle Fanning and one other character in this meandering nonsensical film, kept losing their southern accents. I could have understood better if this were their first film (nervousness and all), but Kidman is an Oscar winner, Dunst and Fanning have over the years, gotten critical acclaim for their acting. They simply phoned in their performances and looked as if they couldn't have cared any less if they tried. Now let's get to Colin Farrell.

His once promising career really hit an all-time low with this schlock. He hardly had any dialogue and the dialogue he had, was comical and it wasn't supposed to be. THAT'S how bad this film is. His best scenes were off-screen after Kidman's character amputated his leg and he found out. Why Coppola chose for the audience to hear his tirade instead of seeing it, was puzzling to say the least. That probably would have been great to see because Farrell is a good actor and he does a lot of his best work when he's in meltdown on-screen. Coppola's choices with how she shot this film left me and I'm sure so many others who've already seen it, wondering WHY? But here's one choice she made I'm in full support of…the choice to NOT put the female slave character in this film that was in the book. The Black actress who would have been cast, dodged a bullet thank goodness. No one needs this incarnation of The Beguiled on their acting resume. The long and short of it is basically…The Beguiled didn't make any sense at all. It was a story without any substance or direction. How Coppola won in Cannes in the Best Director's category for THIS film is another mystery. To say The Beguiled wasn't her best work is an understatement, and it also begs to question the legitimacy of her winning that award.

Coppola has done tons of applause worthy work such as Marie Antoinette, The Virgin Suicides and Lost in Translation, did the judges in Cannes see the same film as the rest of us? Did they get their eyes dilated that day and couldn't really see the banality of this film….what happened? As one critic noted about the film "it was so unnecessary" and no truer words could EVER be said about this film. This was a good idea gone horribly wrong and Coppola, the writers who helped her create this puerile piece of tripe and the actors, had no clue how to make this film compelling enough to where it would hold your attention and the audience would become emotionally invested. Instead, it had the audience holding their breath counting the minutes until the agony was over.
71 out of 114 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Dreary, weakly feminist production
Trellismay30 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Rather silly, and superficially morose, this pretends to be set in a girls school in Virginia in 1864. Settings are important - there are no giant live oak groves with heavy hanging Spanish moss in Virginia.

The entire 93 minutes seem sunk in impenetrable dark mists inside and out. Gothic? Fairy tale? Hard to decide. Actors seem to move around as subjects in a tableau of stylized Victorian portraits, their roles seem interchangeable. Handsome Colin Farrell hardly seemed worth the group effort.

Nothing emotionally charged, not much going on at Miss Martha's School except a bit of sewing, foraging for mushrooms, French verbs, dressing for dinner, more sewing. One could see why these gals were left alone during the War for Southern Independence. Even the wine couldn't stir up any heat or light.
71 out of 114 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Disjointed, dull, and problematic in its sexism.
Red_Identity2 July 2017
I'm going to try to be very delicate with expressing my following (strong) opinion because it seems like the film has quite a lot of fans on here, but watching The Beguiled was the most surprising film experience I've had in years. I'm surprised anyone would even think of remaking it, I'm even more surprised that someone is Sofia Coppola, and I'm most surprised its gotten favorable reviews and any positive attention whatsoever.

When I watch a film I think is good or successful in some way, I don't necessarily think back to its themes or what it was trying to tell me. I feel it and it doesn't need to be something explicit I check off. But it's definitely noticeable when you feel absolutely nothing for a film. I am utterly at a loss as to what the point of The Beguiled was. What was it trying to say? What were its themes? Jessica Chastain's comment at Cannes must have been directed towards this in particular, because it proves that a film starring several women does not mean it has any feminist themes whatsoever. The Beguiled comes across as very hateful and sexist in general, painting no gender in any positive light and definitely portraying women in a very negative way. It's a period film, sure, but what was its intention? What was it trying to say? Did it really just go over my head? As far as I'm concerned, it's absolute trash. Not only is it problematic, the filmmaking isn't even that good either. There are some nice shots here and there, but much of the cinematography is awkward and unambitious and the editing pretty disjointed. As for the performances? Colin Farrell was pretty terrible in the third act, and while Dunst, Fanning, and Kidman weren't bad, their characters didn't allow them to be anything of note. I am particularly shocked at the buzz for Kidman. She did absolutely nothing of worth.

I'm not asking for a film to be explicit in its themes or character intentions. This film wasn't even ambiguous in any sort of way. The character arcs (if you can call them that) were wholly unsatisfying. 90 minutes later and I still wasn't sure who these people were. More than anything, the film didn't know what it wanted to be. If it wanted to be an art-house drama, it failed. At least had it become an entirely trashy thriller it may have been more enjoyable. The filmmaking is mediocre, the storyline dull, and the implications very problematic.

Since I know there are people who liked it, I really am just wondering if anyone would be kind enough to post why they liked it. What did I miss? How was this film even conceived and remade? What was its point? I haven't been so surprised and disappointed by a film in years, and it's shocking to me that this was made by the same person that made The Virgin Suicides and Lost in Translation. I guess I am more inclined than ever to read its positive reviews. More than wondering how anyone could find it enjoyable and all that (which is a very subjective opinion), I really want to understand how this could be anything other than completely sexist.
151 out of 260 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Interesting To Look At
daoldiges19 May 2018
This film does have a distinct visual appeal to it, as well as overall solid performances. However, the underlying tension that Coppola I think was going for doesn't really materialize. Instead the viewer is left with feelings of frustration because we know what we're supposed to be feeling, or what we think we should, but the director just can't make it happen. In part this is due to her going for style in place of substance, when these need not be mutually exclusive.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
a beguiling exercise in form over substance
CineMuseFilms17 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
When movie's form and substance are not in harmony the strain can be obvious. With a stellar cast, superb cinematography and magnificent American Gothic period setting, The Beguiled (2017) has uncompromisingly beautiful form. In terms of substance, on the other hand, its characterisation and narrative interpretation are underwhelming.

The storyline is uncomplicated. A wounded Union mercenary Corporal John McBurney (Colin Farrell) is found in the woods by a young pupil of a nearby prestigious girls school. She helps him limp to the school where the headmistress Miss Martha Farnsworth (Nicole Kidman) agrees out of Christian kindness to provide shelter from the Confederates. The slave servants have fled and the Civil War rages, but the school stays open for a handful of orphaned girls. McBurney knows that his charm and seduction skills are vital to his survival as he smirks privately at having landed in a crinoline paradise compared to the battle outside. The ladies are aflutter at his presence and an atmosphere of repressed sexuality and jealousy simmer below the surface. But he is too clever for his own Irish charm as he tries to worm his way into too many beds. When caught out for his duplicity, the sweet angels of charity exact their revenge.

With a story rich in narrative potential and star-power like Kidman, Farrell and Fanning, you might expect a delicious thriller melodrama with characters of depth, complexity and nuance. But instead we find a flat narrative with two-dimensional caricatures devoid of emotional expression. Apart from McBurney's angry outburst at having been thwarted by a mere handful of women, nobody in this film seems to feel anything more urgent than how the plates might be arranged for dinner. Piques of jealousy, fear, passion, feminist rage? – none of seems to have made the final cut. Perhaps it's a Gothic affectation that upper-class Southern ladies enjoy French grammar and music lessons accompanied by exploding cannonballs. Whenever there is hope for an exciting narrative twist, the ladies spontaneously assemble for a posed composition of exquisite elegance and formality as if beckoned by a painter for a portrait sitting. Seeing this the first time is a visual delight; seeing it multiple times displays a level of artifice that distracts from an already slow narrative. Gothic atmosphere is usually full of tension but here it's more about smoky mists and mood lighting that varies between dark, darker and darkest. What could have been offered as a triumphantly gruesome finale is instead played out as deadpan politeness in a sewing lesson for once rich young white ladies.

Opinions differ widely about this film. Some will have seen the 1971 version or read the source novel, others of course will see it cold. Perhaps it is meant to be a deliberately restrained feminist Gothic noir interpretation. However, despite its high-quality inputs this film is more about form than substance. It has not risen to its potential.
18 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Very Very Weak
catphilly6 July 2017
I have to think that the reason for the almost all star cast is because they are doing favors for the director/producer. This movie had so much potential, but the acting (by everyone) was forced and so much more could have been done with the plot. The potential here was wasted. Just like her other movie (the Paris one) this movie just dragged on and on - to get to the very weak action at the ending.

Don't go.
90 out of 156 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Francis Ford's little girl wastes our time again
mzand-751-53957228 September 2017
I echo all the negative reviews of this terrible remake, the bad acting, the glacial pace, the stripping away of all the interesting backstory etc... with one other major criticism. This was the worst lit film I have seen in recent history. It's as if Coppola was determined to imitate Stanley Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" and light her entire movie only with candle light. Forcing your viewers to struggle to just see is an arrogant self indulgence which shows contempt for your audience. A better title for this waste of time would have been "The Bedarked."
18 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
People.....Did we see the same movie?
johnnyburnsth1 July 2017
Absolutely horrible! People do not waste your money! I was hoping for so much more, very disappointed. The only similarity to Misery is that it was miserable sitting through it. Characters were extremely weak with no substance. The performances were decent, but its hard to elaborate on such a bad film. Sophia hope you deliver on your next piece of work, this was atrocious.
98 out of 184 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
quiet dull lifeless and ultimately pointless
HEFILM2 July 2017
This seems like an attempt by Coppola to make a commercial film--though odd as it's a remake of a commercial failure. But these days anything made once is worth remaking.

The film is almost totally bland in every way. There is virtually no music or camera movement and in a story that takes place largely in confined spaces this is a deadly choice.

It generates no momentum as it goes on and on....

Coppola has no feel for the material and key changes from the original leave plot holes--or if you prefer character motivation holes.

If you've never seen the excellent original film the basic story, even in this watered down version, could hold your interest, but it better because this is a very polite version of a story that is far from polite. She leaves out the slave character from the book and original film and this is a mistake, all the mistakes like this seem to be for the same kind of reason for fear of the film being about racism or about sexual attraction and danger or about war and what it does to people. For fear of the film being about anything that might offend anyone.

So she spends her time in dimly lit interiors with mostly very polite low toned interactions between people and a music score this is a short collection of drones that seem like music left out of some 80's horror movie score.

The movie manages to have no point of view, no central character and so it's just hard to care.

This is being sold as a thriller and she certainly has no feel for that, the best shots in the movie are some moody southern hanging vines and such,but when she rarely goes in for a shot of anything other than a bland medium to long shot it seems for little purpose.

She seems afraid to break an egg to make an omelet is one way to look at it. The actors seem like they'd like to break out and get into the movie but she refused to let them. Now is this a matter of editing--where to bring the length down key things got left out--perhaps, as some scenes seem to have no connection emotionally for the people in them. Someone will be enraged, then in the next scene perfectly calm as if nothing happened.

Or is it in some failed attempt to do something different than the original. Problem with this is when there is some perfect choice already done well then what do have you as options? Less good choices or just no choice is what the do here.

If she wanted to make a film of the novel she hasn't, as the book is told from different characters perspectives this could have made for an interesting, who is really seeing the truth type of film. If that was done you could see that one girl thinks the soldier is just trying to exploit them for his advantage--sexual and or otherwise, while another girl might seem him as friendly and haplessly driven by extremes of the head mistress.

This element exists to a small degree in the original film but here it's nowhere to be seen.

The film feels and mostly looks like a watered down shot on video rather cheap TV production from 30 years ago, made by people who don't care much for the story but are doing it because it's something to do and let's just get it done with as little fuss as we can.

A waste of time.
43 out of 76 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Soul Eroding Effect of Hypocrisy
elenasurikova17 October 2017
Sophia Coppola addresses one of the most overlooked problems - a ubiquitous issue of hypocrisy that is reigning in the political games lately and remains an intrinsic part of our society.

An isolated group of women in the movie represents a slice of society, while Colin Farrell, an outsider, who is simply struggling to find his place within it. The outsider is condemned for putting an act, but nobody says or does anything that reflects true feelings. Nothing comes from a genuine respect for another human being. False pretenses and masquerading based on flattery is the only way the characters communicate and stay together. And unfortunately, the only way we know. The only time we see their true colors is during paroxysms of rage, outbursts of lust, hatred and jealousy. But as long as the ugliness is hidden under the veneer of a civilized decorum, it is considered all right by the majority.

Jealousy or repressed sexual desires is just what we see on the surface. All the inner mechanics of their behavior are driven by the fear of a misstep in the eyes of the polite society. The morality they know teaches them to never question the rules and never step out of the dogma-ruled world. Rules like 'keep your stitches even," shield them from facing real moral dilemmas.

The unfolding drama is depicting how morality, which it's just a set of rules established by a self-proclaimed civilized society, has replaced all spiritual concepts. Morality, as a set of standards, is bent and stretched without mercy. Anything is possible for the sake of appearances and propriety. Those who dare to break those pretensions are ostracized, banished or simply discarded.

Sofia Coppola showed the modern world slipping further down into the abyss of hypocrisy, when almost everyone fails to stay true to oneself, twists "morality" as one pleases and values what's proper over what's right.
33 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Stay not awake but asleep
connormwrench16 July 2017
i will keep this short. Having seen this movie it was genuinely one of the best movies to put you to sleep that I have ever seen.

The tension between characters felt nothing but awkward and as if they didn't want to act together let alone build sexual tension.

The wide screen views of trees and the garden where a highlight in the movie, however did not understand the role they were to play in the movie.

The happiest and redeeming feature was that I had free tickets!

I also no longer trust the official critics which I relied upon. Internet community has overwhelming win my respect in forming an opinion on movies. Critics have gone to far.
38 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Who was asking for this?
ReelLifeReviews30 June 2017
The Beguiled (2017) - Not since Bambi have I seen so many twitterpated characters. But at least in that movie I actually cared about what happened to them.

The trailers had me thinking there was going to be a Misery slant to the film, with Nicole Kidman playing a civil war version of Annie Wilkes, but that was completely misrepresented. It is a plodding story that lacks intrigue and and any realistic character motivations. You'd honestly think these women had never seen a man before with how taken they are by him. Since the basis of the story is this already-flimsy premise, it has no hope of building from there.

The ensemble does a serviceable job with their performances, but they didn't get me interested in them individually. The size of the cast, while already relatively small, should have been pared down even further. Three of the students are all but interchangeable, so merging them into a single character would have allowed me to get more invested in the group overall.

It really can't be overstated how much this movie spins its wheels. Over an hour is focused on waiting for a leg to heal and watching characters from age 8 to 48 throw themselves at the injured party. We are then served a thrown together final act that is void of reason.

I had high hopes for this film, but ultimately came away disappointed. Farrell and Dunst, combined with the overall esthetic, brought the score higher than it would have been otherwise, but when you're that far down, really the only way to go is up. 4/10.
30 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
John McBurney(Colin Ferrall) is an injured soldier who seeks refuge at a female southern boarding school.
veronicard12 July 2017
I do not understand why this movie is getting the rating it has. I went to see it in theaters because it was average a 70, so i thought it would be semi decent. Never have i seen a film so boring, where it ended and i asked that's it ? It was bland at best and lacking of suspense and any form of emotion. Spock's monotone demeanor is more thrilling and entertaining than this. The biggest regret is that i cannot get the time i spent sitting there, thinking it will get better, back. Skip this movie, unless you want to fall asleep then by all means. The one thing that made this movie entertaining at the theater, was an old man who shouted "That sucked" after it was done.
27 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
If you've seen the 1971 version, ...Don't bother with this one.
mdfaraone5 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Having seen the 1971 Clint Eastwood version multiple times, and now having seen this new version over the weekend ,I can tell you unequivocally that there isn't a SINGLE THING about this version that is in any way an improvement on the original ( except perhaps two beautiful giant oak trees). This new Sophia Coppola version is stripped down and streamlined , which leaves crucial character development and backstory lacking, while somehow also seeming more drawn out and boring than the original that had a longer run time. Even the picture quality and cinematography were better in the original,..yes,a movie that is over 45 years old even LOOKS better than one filmed in 2017. There were crucial flashbacks in the original that paint the "McBurney" character as less sympathetic and more of a lying scoundrel. The sexual tension and love/lust triangle was much better fleshed out in the original ,with dream sequences showing that Martha the head mistress had bisexual cravings and simultaneously, secretly lusted after Edwina and McBurney while also being jealous of them. The little sexpot character of Carol (Alicia in the 2017 version) was much better and more believable in the original. The Edwina character was PERFECTLY cast in the original by the believably innocent naive Elizabeth Hartmann, a hauntingly tragic figure who took her own life in real life after struggling with depression and bisexual urges before it was socially acceptable. ...And perhaps one of my biggest qualms with the new version is that they COMPLETELY TELEGRAPH the twist ending and remove all of the shock value by basically telling you point blank what they are going to do. The 1971 version was an incredible piece of art, well ahead of it's time, perhaps too much so for 1971 tastes. It was better cast, better filmed, better directed ,better explained and better ended. The new version is getting what are in my opinion over-hyped accolades due to this whole " womens' empowerment" social meme nonsense, but as a piece of art it is merely "servicable at best". If you want to see this 2017 version, do yourself a favor and watch the original first, then you tell me which one is better.
23 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed