Les proies

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

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 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.

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.

Sofia Coppola's capacity to create beautiful shots in incredible settings, and capture actors' specific beauty is unquestionable. Finding depth in her characters is a different story. A new take on a old tale, the actors in the Beguiled fail to get us to actually care about any of them and, as a consequence, their fate in the story.