VALUTAZIONE IMDb
5,3/10
24.248
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
La rivalità tra la manipolatrice responsabile di un'agenzia pubblicitaria e la sua talentuosa protetta si intensifica dal furto di credito all'umiliazione pubblica fino all'omicidio.La rivalità tra la manipolatrice responsabile di un'agenzia pubblicitaria e la sua talentuosa protetta si intensifica dal furto di credito all'umiliazione pubblica fino all'omicidio.La rivalità tra la manipolatrice responsabile di un'agenzia pubblicitaria e la sua talentuosa protetta si intensifica dal furto di credito all'umiliazione pubblica fino all'omicidio.
- Premi
- 3 candidature
Ian T. Dickinson
- Officer
- (as Ian Dickinson)
Gernot Alwin Kunert
- Lab Technician
- (as Gernot Kunert)
Trama
Lo sapevi?
- QuizWhen Noomi Rapace was cast, she suggested Rachel McAdams for the role of Christine, because they had worked together on Sherlock Holmes - Gioco di ombre (2011) and wanted to repeat the experience, this time with plenty of on-camera interaction.
- BlooperExterior shot supposedly in London - see the double-decker bus - except the vehicles are driving on the wrong side of the road. The scene was actually shot in Berlin, Germany.
- Citazioni
Isabelle James: What do you want?
Christine Stanford: I used to want to be admired.
Isabelle James: I admire you.
Christine Stanford: Well, now I want to be loved.
- Curiosità sui creditiIn the copyright notice at the end, the proper nouns "European" and "United States of America" are all lower case, rather than with initial capital letters.
- ConnessioniFeatured in Talking About Passion (2013)
- Colonne sonoreProgrammed
Written by Dave Pen (as D. Penney), Darius Keeler (as D. Keeler), Danny Griffiths (as D. Griffiths) and Mickey Hurcombe (as M. Hurcombe)
Performed by Archive
© Fintage Publishing
(p) 2006 Archive
Courtesy of Fintage Publishing and WARNER MUSIC
A Warner Music Group Company
Recensione in evidenza
The narrator goes mad
DePalma's first film in five years is purely for the fans, a throwback to his sensual thrillers of old; Sisters, Obsession, Dressed to Kill. So right off the bat, this probably excludes the majority of casual viewers who will find this too messy and too illogical to be of substance. Younger viewers who simply pick this off a website, will probably see the visual tricks he pulls as weird, lame stabs on ordinary technique.
The problem is that DePalma has not changed as a filmmaker, it's the film norm that has absorbed and extended so much visual language that was considered somewhat radical in his time, so when Tony Scott films are marketed as ordinary action, of course he'll seem far less sophisticated. Same thing happened with Hitchcock near the end, when guys like DePalma where coming out.
But oh what sweet, sweet DePalmaesque inanity this is!
What DePalma is saying is always in the camera. He seems to say: this is a movie, the result of illusory placement of the eye, so why not go wild on placement? Also: the eye, by its very nature, causes narrative dislocation. He is intelligent, not in what the dislocations mean but in the fact they are shown to be at work, which now and then fool as depth in just the same way they fool the characters.
You'll see all sorts of fooling the eye here. The car crash in the company garage, first filmed as dramatic with lachrymose piano cues and the second time as comedy. Scenes filmed with dutch angles and unusual shadows to register as dream but they are real. A split-screen that lies about its timeline. A scene set-up to be viewed as hallucinative dream but it's a flash back. And later we know it was an untrusted narration.
Many others will make a more streamlined, more exciting thriller, but no one is so committed to expose cinematic illusion like DePalma. He doesn't hit deep, because the illusion is not wrapped around character but around plot, that is always the tradeoff with him. A tradeoff I am willing to make, because I can find more introspective filmmakers elsewhere. There is Wong Kar Wai, Shunji Iwai. Lynch, who brings illusion alive.
But then you have an ending like this. It is utterly nonsensical as story, but the narrator has fooled us so much we'll fool ourselves thinking it's more than madness.
The problem is that DePalma has not changed as a filmmaker, it's the film norm that has absorbed and extended so much visual language that was considered somewhat radical in his time, so when Tony Scott films are marketed as ordinary action, of course he'll seem far less sophisticated. Same thing happened with Hitchcock near the end, when guys like DePalma where coming out.
But oh what sweet, sweet DePalmaesque inanity this is!
What DePalma is saying is always in the camera. He seems to say: this is a movie, the result of illusory placement of the eye, so why not go wild on placement? Also: the eye, by its very nature, causes narrative dislocation. He is intelligent, not in what the dislocations mean but in the fact they are shown to be at work, which now and then fool as depth in just the same way they fool the characters.
You'll see all sorts of fooling the eye here. The car crash in the company garage, first filmed as dramatic with lachrymose piano cues and the second time as comedy. Scenes filmed with dutch angles and unusual shadows to register as dream but they are real. A split-screen that lies about its timeline. A scene set-up to be viewed as hallucinative dream but it's a flash back. And later we know it was an untrusted narration.
Many others will make a more streamlined, more exciting thriller, but no one is so committed to expose cinematic illusion like DePalma. He doesn't hit deep, because the illusion is not wrapped around character but around plot, that is always the tradeoff with him. A tradeoff I am willing to make, because I can find more introspective filmmakers elsewhere. There is Wong Kar Wai, Shunji Iwai. Lynch, who brings illusion alive.
But then you have an ending like this. It is utterly nonsensical as story, but the narrator has fooled us so much we'll fool ourselves thinking it's more than madness.
D’aiuto•9223
- chaos-rampant
- 20 giu 2013
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare una lista video per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Passion?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
Botteghino
- Budget
- 20.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 92.181 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 33.400 USD
- 1 set 2013
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 713.616 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 42 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti