The Beguiled

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.

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.

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.

Boring, sleep inducing movie. Tried to go to sleep but couldn't. Slow, little to no plot. I really wish I could get the time back. I'ts very hard to understand how it made it to the box office. I don't want to waste anymore time in my life on this movie except I have to write 5 lines to get the review posted.

It would be easy to view this film as all about gender. (Is it feminist? Is it anti-feminist?) Or even to focus on race issues. (Did Coppola whitewash the story?) But that misses the point of this sumptuous, visceral, superlative movie. Coppola made a film about what humans do under extreme conditions that is refreshingly devoid of the gender tropes Hollywood loves to spew such as "lusting male manipulator" and "frigid female spinster." In this film, every character is first and foremost human--complex, nuanced and struggling with their conflict between survival, desire and morality. Coppola's film shows that humans (male and female) struggle with the same conflicts. Yes, women lust. And, yes, men have moral struggles. Because both women and men lust and have moral struggles. And both have the instinct to survive. The experience of the film was a unique blend of powerful sensuality--the intimate sharing of music, food, and prayer, acts of care and service like bathing, bandaging and even gardening, exotic rich nature scenes, the distant sounds of war and the sparse but compelling soundtrack make this a film you want to crawl into and touch, taste, and smell as well as see and hear. The exquisite costuming creates mesmerizing tableaux as well as expresses both what's common and unique to each of the female characters--not an easy feat to accomplish. The leading stars shine brilliantly, but we also see a depth and profundity of character and acting among the 4 young girls in the film. A truly ensemble drama, not usually seen among a cast of such varied ages. The emotional ride is also a powerful experience. Sexual tension, flirtation, desire, and eroticism alternate with fear, suspense, and even horror. And, of course, the brilliant direction makes you not want to blink for fear of missing even one of the impeccably designed and composed ethereal, exotic, dreamlike visions in scene after scene. I do not give a 10 rating lighting, but this film really deserves it. It is so far above the normal Hollywood fare. After seeing the film, I understand and agree with Coppola's explanation of why she chose not to include racial diversity in the cast. Because of the time period, the film would have had to address the racial divide of slavery and to do that justice would take the film in the opposite direction of Coppola's vision, which is to use an isolated group of people to show how fundamentally alike men and women are, even in a sex segregated society. A film can't be all things to all people. There are plenty of African-American films, for example, that do not address the issue of sex segregation in black culture even today. If you make sense of the world through the lens of gender stereotypes, or need big explosions to feel anything, you are probably not going to enjoy this film. But if you like complex human characters and sensuous subtlety, brilliant acting and virtuoso directing, don't miss seeing this film on the big screen.

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.