User reviews

This is just an OK film which means it's a bit disappointing from a director who has a reputation. It works as a - not very thrilling - thriller, and Noomi Rapace does a good performance. Plus the film delivers some intense scenes and good photography in front of very cool, emotionally empty sets.

What doesn't work so good: It starts as a kind of 21st century version of an 80s erotic thriller, but never gets erotic. In fact, the title is ridiculous, because it never even gets passionate - everybody tries to be in control and nothing happens instinctively or out of reflex. (The slow, controlled ballet sequence strengthens this impression). Also, Rachel McAdams is good at bitchy, but I couldn't believe in her as a tough enterprise lady. And finally, the twist, when it finally came, was exactly what was hinted at ...

Watchable De Palma time killer that borrows heavily from the director's earlier works...which in turn borrowed heavily from Alfred Hitchcock. Whole lot of borrowing going on. Still, that has little to do with judging how entertaining the film is and more about judging its artistic value.

My first impression of Rachel McAdams is that she was miscast but I accepted her more as the film goes on. Noomi Rapace is fine. I assume both women were intentionally directed to act in a somewhat peculiar manner by De Palma. It bears pointing out for those misled by the poster, trailer, or press for this film that it's not really the sexy lesbian thriller it's made out to be. That stuff only plays a peripheral role in the film and you never get any particularly sexy scenes between McAdams and Rapace as one might be led to believe by the marketing.

Still, it's an entertaining enough movie. Not De Palma's best but far better than his last two films.

I had grown disappointed with Brian DePalma throughout the 1990s and 2000s. The man who gave us "Phantom of the Paradise", "Carrie", "Dressed to Kill", "Scarface" and "Carlito's Way"* suddenly turned to overblown stuff like "Mission: Impossible", "Snake Eyes" and "The Black Dahlia". So it's a little bit of a treat to see "Passion". It's not as good as his early work, but the tension between the main characters is definitely what I hope for in one of his movies. In fact, DePalma tricks the audience by getting them to think that it's a clash-of-egos story...before the real plot line sets in. Far from her perky roles in previous movies, Rachel McAdams plays a scary executive. The viewer practically wishes for Noomi Rapace's character to do something nasty.

Basically, "Passion" has a hint of what usually made DePalma's movies good. It's probably not going to be for everyone, but I liked it.

*For the record, I didn't think that "Bonfire of the Vanities" was that bad.

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.

Hard to believe Brian dePalma has sunk this low. The film is boring, dreadfully scripted, and looks like a long perfume commercial. Real people just don't dress and look like this; DePalma seemed to be heading toward this stylized, air-brushed Playboy magazine look when he made "Dressed to Kill," and it's gotten progressively worse with each film, except "The Untouchables." "Passion's" script starts out to be about two female executives vying for the same account, and then goes off in five different directions. He toys with gratuitous lesbianism in some segments, which might have been bold and sexy in the 70's and 80's, but now just comes off looking dated and embarrassing. The film's 100 minutes could easily have been pared down to 20 and it would have been more interesting and less ponderous. A real disappointment.

Saw this one at the Toronto International Film Festival, it's a cross between a late night made for cable movie and a European art film. The cinematography is great, lots of inventive shots. Actually, nearly every shot is a winner. The musical score can

Rachel McAdams and Noomi Rapace ham it up as back stabbing mind f*cking executives. They have great chemistry and as the plot twists along we are never quite sure who to root for. Rachel McAdams' Christine basically plays a grown up version of Regina George from Mean Girls.

None of it is meant to be taken too seriously. The Anyone who liked Basic Instinct, Fatal Attraction or De Palma's own Dressed to Kill will be into this movie.

"Passion" is a ridiculous remake of the great French thriller "Crime d'amour". The screenplay uses the same storyline and has minors but significant modifications when compared to the original movie that spoils the movie. The scene of the murder of Christine in the original movie is unbeatable. The police investigation of the evidences is very poor in this remake. The conclusion is awful. The decadent Brian De Palma still uses split screen technique but without any brilliance. The two lead actresses of the original movie, Kristin Scott Thomas and Ludivine Sagnier, are wonderful and their duel is engaging. However, Rachel McAdams never convinces as an executive and looks like a vulgar woman. My vote is two.

Title (Brazil): "Passion"

What was that, anyway? An exhilarating suspense carried with style but lacking in content or an intriguing whodunit that seems to live and breathe with sensuality but it's just a giant tease to cause some stir in the audience? De Palma's awaited return "Passion" has him returning to his days of "Dressed to Kill" and "Sisters" with a touch of "Basic Instinct" (this one directed by Paul Verhoeven) but failing in all accounts to look like any of those. Not only the man is out of ideas by remaking this (the original is a French film), he's also completely lost and confuse and the latter spread fast among us viewers so accustomed to see him completely in charge of what's he doing, always referencing the master of suspense and trying some innovations.

It doesn't go all the way down. There's admirable qualities in the story that involves jealousy, possession, lust, ambition, murder, mystery and other associated matters. In an advertising agency, the ultimate power comes from Christine Stanford, a hateful shrew (Rachel McAdams, brilliant) who is deeply admired by her dedicated protégée Isabelle (Noomi Rapace), who does anything to earn her respect by coming up with great ideas to promote the company and the clients' products. The ideas work, she's heading to be promoted but the boss takes up further and gets the credit for the idea. There's misunderstanding, outrageous acts by both sides of the issue, tense work environment and then tragedy takes place with a lousy investigation on course. And who killed Christine?

We're told that this is a story about passion. But it's more about intrigue, manipulation and domination than just desire. There's something going on between assistant and chief but we don't know exactly what. The first seems to be fascinated with the woman of power and action while the second is just using of all possible ways to get her things done, to explore everyone around her but ultimately is someone with some small weaknesses. Like "Basic Instict" it goes with the premise everyone's bisexual in a way. Or perhaps, they just "shift" of preference to follow their goals (as evidenced, Isabelle has an affair with Dirk, Christine's boyfriend). And that's where De Palma's movie deserved more outcry from the LGBT community than all of what Verhoeven's movie got. Not just because of that, but specially the way all the female characters are treated (and we have to include Isabelle's assistant, played by Karoline Herfurth). They're presented as manipulative, insensitive, mean spirited among other things, people who'll do anything to succeed, and here comes the sad example of the movie, weakened due to what they are in their sexual nature, represented on a tasteless scene where Christine schemes to fire Isabelle's aide on the grounds of being harassed by her. But those protests are pointless, the best one can do is really bad-mouth the movie.

"Passion" is not a bad movie, it just makes a lot of wrong turns on the way that it looks bad. The script when it comes to give us realistic elements (such as the work routines both the agency and the police, second half of the film) is a completely mess using of unbelievable situations, inauthentic reactions and behavior, very ridiculous at times. The weakest part was the public humiliation suffered by Isabelle. Since the idea is to come up with unbelievable situations, she should have pulled the George Costanza card ("Oh yeah? And I've had sex with your boyfriend!") as a way to get revenge from her boss rather than laugh hysterically sounding like a sick hyena. And if those "real" moments don't work how come they expect us to buy the cinematic and definitely illogical moments, like the mystery, the crimes, the plot twist? And we cringe to the dialog, cheap and absurdly spoken for most of the time.

But De Palma isn't completely lost and insecure. He creates some wonderful moments, most notably the Hitchcockian climax but using of a modernity element to built tension. Let's face it, he creates some interest and we follow along. Yet he insists in dividing the screen pretending he's serious about focusing simultaneous actions at the same time, technique he explored better in other movies and here is just dull. Call me nuts but I see more quality in "The Bonfire of the Vanities" than in this thing. OK, I'm a little biased because I love that movie despite its flaws. But still.

And I couldn't forget to mention how deceitful this picture is. De Palma is a master in involving us with seductive women, gorgeous femme fatales, sexy creatures who demand our attention and the main characters. However, Rapace, McAdams and Herfurth although beautiful they don't share that magnetic and powerful quality which Melanie Griffith had in "Body Double" or Michelle Pfeiffer in "Scarface". They were sexy and friendly yet they meant trouble. Here, the characters pretend to be too innocent or trouble is already exposed on their faces.

"Passion" lacks of sensuality, eroticism and excitement; its only advantage is to be a little more bold in the kissing department. In the end it's just a minor suspense, almost embarrassing considering who's involved and it's time for him to move on to another direction, trade of genre once and for all. It generates interest, a little entertaining but nothing we can be passionate about. 6/10

DePalma must have made this on a lark as it was pretty weak. Some of the shots are stellar, classic Depalma, especially with the use of streaks of bright color on Christine and some of the angles and hard shadows. The casting of Rachael McAdams as Christine was a huge mistake as it is impossible for anyone who saw the original Love Crimes to not compare her to the French Christine. McAdams' character was too young and girly, lacking the poise, command and sophistication required for a person in a position of Christine's. This movie moved too fast and did not explore the psychology of the characters with the necessary patience nor did it pace the plot properly. Noomi Rapace was good, but this is no surprise. Do yourself a favor and see the original, as the acting is far more superb, and it is casted and paced much better. It will not be ruined one bit by seeing Passion beforehand.

I am a De Palma fan as much as I can be. He's got a bunch of misses out there but the hits hit hard. Passion brought the great De Palma quality that we haven't seen in a long time. Felt Hitchcock without ripping off Hitch.

The story is set up very well with some twist and turns that seem confusing at first but this director is a master. So just sit back, relax and watch a real movie.

The plot develops very nicely and you don't really know where it's headed. Nice to see a movie that was actually well crafted. No camera tricks or anything really flashy. De Palma uses his years of experience to put the camera in the right place and cut at the right time.

Have you ever wondered how it is possible to identify a rubbishy movie within the first 20 seconds of dialog? It is simply amazing how fast a crap script writer can get fatuous nauseating inane notions across in such a short time; something that should surely be speculated upon in film schools during the first semester. And we sure have one here: silly spite, pointless rejoinders, phony regrets, token-lesbianism, sleazy egoism; all in one pointless, plot less string of malicious banalities that makes melodramatic 50s B movies look like literary fiction. Have you ever wondered why, even when given a million dollar budget, movie makers will waste such an opportunity on a string of clichés and bland story development that would embarrass your thirteen-year-old daughter and bore your cat? It is surely a wonder. And a wonder that movie audiences would put up with such drivel and not walk out.

Well, I did. And it took me an hour to recover my composure.

Brian De Palma returns with a remake of a 2010 french thriller, Crime d'amour (Love Crime), now renamed Passion. It stars Rachel McAdams and everyone's newest favorite actress, Noomi Rapace, who we all feel in-love with for being the original Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. They are work colleagues and we witness the beginning of what becomes a rivalry between them that spirals out of control until one of them is left dead.

The opening scene makes you wonder if you've just found yourself watching an improvised video that will eventually lead to a softcore pornographic lesbian sex scene between the two actresses. If this doesn't make you want to watch it, you'll be more likely to enjoy where the story actually does go. Rachel McAdams is who Rachel McAdams is in half of the other movies she is in, like a grown-up version of her role in Mean Girls. Noomi Rapace's performance gets better with each scene. Two great actresses, but we already know that.

The story is a throwback to the 1970's when directors were all trying to imitate the master of suspense, Alfred Hitchcock. Brian De Palma is quite a high profile director himself, often put up on a pedestal with Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola. He can be innovate but sometimes we can go a little too far with experimental framing and different editing techniques. How much does it enhance the story to use split screens in the scenes that he does? Sister and Phantom of the Paradise put him in his place but he peeked with such classics as Carrie, Scarface, The Untouchables and Carlito's Way. With Mission Impossible he had hit the top of his career, as far as success. His next film, Snake Eyes, would be torn apart by critics and Mission to Mars was unforgivably bad by everyone's standards. And though he is trying, he is unable to tap into what it was that originally made him such an exiting director to look out for through the 70's and into the 90's.

Passion is a fun, twisted little story that is told without any real passion. A low-budget we can look past, this just feels cheap.

Great movie, could have been more suspenseful but had a nice twist at the end. I've been a Brian DePalma fan since the early 80's. He seemed to channel his inner Alfred Hitchcock this time, especially at the end. Rachel McAdams, Noomi Rapace and Karoline Herfurth work well together, I'd like to see all three in something else in the future.

I've always been annoyed with Brian De Palma, because he so blatantly plagiarized Hitchcock, without ever developing a style of his own that could survive without constantly borrowing from the master. Nonetheless, De Palma did direct some decent movies, my favorites being Dressed to Kill, Body Double and Scarface.

Be that as it may, his recent efforts (Femme Fatale, Passion) were so shamelessly bad, that I will have to watch closer to make sure I do not run into one of his mongrels again.

I could not watch Passion to the end, it was just too much. I'll be brief:

Direction: sloppy, disinterested, too linear Camera: cheap, TV-ish Acting: appalling, especially Rapace is shockingly bad, robotic and not believable Story: run-of-the-mill B-movie

Despite being tonally inconsistent and silly at times, it's a (somewhat) welcome return to form for De Palma, even if his Hitchcock-aping doesn't really take effect until the last act. Structurally and tonally, one can divide this movie into three parts: The first is kind of like a dramedy (suggested by the soundtrack), the second is more of a melodrama and the third (and final) act goes into full WTF mode as De Palma pulls every trick in his admittedly small book and tries to get the viewer to question the reality of everything they see. As such, the movie isn't really that effective until this section, with most of the prior dialogue seeming sophomoric and shallow, much like the relationships and characters in the film. Still, this movie is worth watching for that final act. It's style over substance, but it's got quite a sense of style.

Don't be mislead by the title, or the fact that it is a remake of a French film called 'Sex Crimes.' There's not much sex and even less passion. However, it still makes for an enjoyable thriller. Oh, actually, it's not that thrilling either, but it is still okay - honest! It's about a nasty female boss (Rachel Adams, who may just be a tiny bit too young to pull off running a huge company, but we'll ignore that for now) who takes advantage of her assistant (Noomi Rapace) and, before long, they're at war. You may see some of the pitfalls that the characters have to face coming - some are derived from their own bad judgement, plus the film delivers enough intense and well-directed scenes, making the most of the emotionally empty sets.

Don't expect a masterpiece; I found it a little similar (plot wise) to the 1998 thriller 'Wild Things.' Here everybody tries to be in control and nothing happens instinctively or out of reflex, utilising a slow, controlled ballet sequence to strengthen this impression. It's not as trashy as Wild Things - it tries to be a little more arty. So, if you're in the mood for something slow and winding then this one might fit the bill.

Probably more a 7 than a 8, but I enjoyed it. Others may find it a little on the dull and lifeless side.