Les Proies

There's no way to watch this film without remembering the power of the original Don Siegel 1971 version. And this very poor remake has none of the original's draw or intrigue. It's almost completely pointless in every respect and feels like a mere box-ticking exercise. Avoid this and watch the superior original instead.

There are very few remakes that are better than the original. 3:10 to Yuma is the only one that comes to mind. This remake adds nothing and loses much of the original's feelings of intrigue. The ending is worse, as well. Don't bother - just watch the real movie with Clint Eastwood.

In Civil War Virginia, wounded Union soldier McBurney (Colin Farrell) seeks shelter in the plantation house of Miss Martha (Nicole Kidman) who runs a school for young women. The war has reduced the student body to a handful of young girls and teenagers, and only one remaining teacher, Edwina (Kirsten Dunst). Vowing to nurse the injured man back to health before turning him in to the Confederate authorities, Miss Martha and the other girls all become enamored of the handsome soldier, with dire consequences.

Director Sofia Coppola seems to be striving for a Barry Lyndon-esque natural light look, with no artificial lighting used at all, resulting in lots of gloomy and shadows during the evening scenes. The sound design also goes for an antiquated natural quiet, with the sounds of crickets and wind moving through the trees dominating, adding to a sleepy, dreamy atmosphere. The performers are all fine, and I even thought Farrell fit the manipulative soldier role better than Clint Eastwood did in the previous film. The three central women characters are noticeably different, though, and I felt they were each less compelling than those in the earlier movie (Kidman = Geraldine Page, Kirstin Dunst = Elizabeth Hartman, and Elle Fanning = Jo Ann Harris). This isn't a terrible film, but there's not a lot to recommend going out of your way for it, either.

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.

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.