This was a very strange film- I guess dehydration on the desert can cause someone to go slightly insane. Yet the leopard was beautiful and somehow connected with the soldier. There are stories about animals that befriend humans- the most famous is Incident at Hawks Hill by Eckert- where a badger protects a young boy- that is why Passion can be a believable movie. the cinematography is gorgeous and though the acting, not all that good, the leopard makes the story. Independent films like this give the audience a wider view of the filmmaking scene and this is a unique story set in a unique time. Worth a glance.
19 Reviews
Roy Horn's great grandfather begins a legacy in Egypt
helpless_dancer17 March 2004
The story starts out with a soldier being transported to a desert town then goes back in time to tell the tale of how he came to this place. He started out as an officer in Napoleon's army fighting in Egypt but became separated from his unit. After nearly starving and/or dying of thirst he came upon a leopard which somehow became his bosom buddy. It brought him food and before long the soldier became almost totally wild so acute was his bonding with the animal. All things do end however and the man decided it was necessary for him to leave the critter. A very strange film, well written and portrayed. Beautiful scenery from Jordan and Utah which didn't always blend perfectly, but who cares.
Can you believe a desert love affair between a soldier and a leopard?
pugdad21 November 1998
This is another film where the cinematography is the best thing to recommend it. That would be fine if the film were a travelogue, but as a dramatic exercise in cinematic artistry, that is not good enough. The theme of inter-species respect and co-operation ventures timidly into the forbidden world of inter-species love, but its approach is stereotypical, indicating a lack of understanding of the behavior motives of either species. As with many films, one always wonders what could have been achieved by a more innovative director and a more creative screenwriter. Alas, we probably will never know.
An Unforgettable Journey
paramitch1 May 2000
Those who distill "Passion in the Desert" down to "a guy falls in love with a leopard" actually miss the point. The interesting thing about this movie is not its unique and stark setting, or the strange match of its two protagonists, but the way the film manages to paint a metaphorical portrait of love and all the slings and arrows that go with it -- and it does so almost wordlessly. The resulting film is curiously pure, strange, and unforgettable.
Even the first act, which is more or less a conventional portrait of two men lost in the desert in Napoleonic times -- has a richness and poignancy (one man, an artist, drinks his paints in thirsty desperation, and the image of his paint-stained lips is haunting).
But ultimately this is a movie about love, a sensitively told fable, gorgeously photographed, about a man who is first mysteriously protected by -- and then drawn to -- a wild she-leopard, and of the way the leopard begins to draw him into her world. The movie isn't so much about men vs. leopards (or "men with leopards!" tabloid-style -- the movie stops short of portraying the affection between the two in the biblical sense, although there is some ambiguity there) as it is about the nature of love itself. The film paints some fresh, unsettling, and sometimes amusing portraits of the things people do when they're in love -- all the way down to the spitefulness and jealousy that come into play when that love is threatened.
By the end of the film, the story has become almost Shakespearean in its depth and richness as the plot plays out to its haunting end. At this point, the roles have almost reversed -- the man has become wild and catlike, and the she-leopard seems strikingly human and thoughtful in her expressions and her actions. The film is the first I've ever seen which actually raises some uncomfortable and ultimately fascinating questions about the possibility of a human falling in love with an animal -- and it explores these questions gracefully and without sensationalism.
All in all, "Passion in the Desert" was an exquisite film that really moved me -- the performances, both human and animal, are breathtaking and frankly amazed me, and the cinematography and music are glorious. (Too bad there aren't animal Oscars -- the she-leopard in this film really gives an incredible performance.) Bottom Line: If you're looking for something off the beaten path (no pun intended), this film's a keeper.
Even the first act, which is more or less a conventional portrait of two men lost in the desert in Napoleonic times -- has a richness and poignancy (one man, an artist, drinks his paints in thirsty desperation, and the image of his paint-stained lips is haunting).
But ultimately this is a movie about love, a sensitively told fable, gorgeously photographed, about a man who is first mysteriously protected by -- and then drawn to -- a wild she-leopard, and of the way the leopard begins to draw him into her world. The movie isn't so much about men vs. leopards (or "men with leopards!" tabloid-style -- the movie stops short of portraying the affection between the two in the biblical sense, although there is some ambiguity there) as it is about the nature of love itself. The film paints some fresh, unsettling, and sometimes amusing portraits of the things people do when they're in love -- all the way down to the spitefulness and jealousy that come into play when that love is threatened.
By the end of the film, the story has become almost Shakespearean in its depth and richness as the plot plays out to its haunting end. At this point, the roles have almost reversed -- the man has become wild and catlike, and the she-leopard seems strikingly human and thoughtful in her expressions and her actions. The film is the first I've ever seen which actually raises some uncomfortable and ultimately fascinating questions about the possibility of a human falling in love with an animal -- and it explores these questions gracefully and without sensationalism.
All in all, "Passion in the Desert" was an exquisite film that really moved me -- the performances, both human and animal, are breathtaking and frankly amazed me, and the cinematography and music are glorious. (Too bad there aren't animal Oscars -- the she-leopard in this film really gives an incredible performance.) Bottom Line: If you're looking for something off the beaten path (no pun intended), this film's a keeper.
This is my answer to "what is the worst movie you have ever seen?"
nagibson1-319-9883902 August 2023
This is my answer To the question, "what is the worst movie you've ever seen?"
Now, I will say that I watched the film when I was about 19 years old. I watched it on a fairly poor quality television and probably 1998. However, I think I would characterize this movie as something like "hysterically artistic". There is a painstaking labor towards artistry in the film. I also can partially accept the premise that the desert drives people mad. If you accept the hysterically artistic, and you accept it is plausible because the desert Drives people insane - then it's possible to connect a little with the premise of the film. But gosh, I feel like there is some point where you just say, "nope." In this movie was that for me.
However, it does not surprise me, nor does it bother me, the some people think that it is a "unforgettable journey" or a "sensitively told fable", and so on. And I will hold back from accusing such people of being hysterically artistic. I think everybody has a "nope." point In interacting with avant-garde art, and this movie definitely crossed my threshold and I think probably will for most people.
Last, when I picked this off of a shelf in Blockbuster in 1998, there was not a good description of what I was getting into. The pictures made it seem like there would be shooting, passion, and other exciting things. They were certainly not man colored as a leopard on the front cover of that version. So it may be all about what you think you are getting into when you commit a couple hours to this film.
However, it does not surprise me, nor does it bother me, the some people think that it is a "unforgettable journey" or a "sensitively told fable", and so on. And I will hold back from accusing such people of being hysterically artistic. I think everybody has a "nope." point In interacting with avant-garde art, and this movie definitely crossed my threshold and I think probably will for most people.
Last, when I picked this off of a shelf in Blockbuster in 1998, there was not a good description of what I was getting into. The pictures made it seem like there would be shooting, passion, and other exciting things. They were certainly not man colored as a leopard on the front cover of that version. So it may be all about what you think you are getting into when you commit a couple hours to this film.
Sensational!
Philaura25 January 1999
My opinions do not flow with the majority in most cases. I tend to lean toward the artsy, imaginative, and different. This movie was reminiscent of Frances Ford's "The Black Stallion" wherein a fantasy situation is created to showcase the beauty of a magnificent creature who's not readily available to view performing at its peak except on these multitudes of documentaries ala natural. Unlike those nature films, this offering utilizes the finest movie making techniques the industry has to offer fit for a diva creating one of the most sensual super stars (the cat) on the screen.
This fantasy depicting the love relationship that develops between a french soldier (he is very nice too) lost on the Egyptian desert and a female leopard he encounters when he chances upon an abandoned Egyptian temple is mesmerizing. I bought into it wholeheartedly. If you are the least bit open to fantasy and appreciate the grace, beauty, power and sensuality of the feline, you should enjoy it.
The only flaw in my book was the ending. It was a perfect set up for a Romeo and Juliet finale - that would have taken me over the top.
This fantasy depicting the love relationship that develops between a french soldier (he is very nice too) lost on the Egyptian desert and a female leopard he encounters when he chances upon an abandoned Egyptian temple is mesmerizing. I bought into it wholeheartedly. If you are the least bit open to fantasy and appreciate the grace, beauty, power and sensuality of the feline, you should enjoy it.
The only flaw in my book was the ending. It was a perfect set up for a Romeo and Juliet finale - that would have taken me over the top.
Mesmerized
iteti1 June 2001
I recently stumbled across a TV showing of "Passion...." (having missed the opening scenes). Ms Currier in to be praised for having the vision and courage to bring such a strange de Balzac tale to the screen. I am grateful to the entire cast and crew for their parts in producing such a thoroughly fine motion picture. It must have been arduous shooting so many scenes in the desert. And I cannot comprehend how her trainer coaxed such a fine "performance" from the leopard, Simoon. (This adverture calls to mind another suspenseful adventure, "Naked Prey"). Why isn't this film more well-known?. Hope I can find it on video.
Never thought they could make a decent movie of this story
gmcdouga-111 June 2004
I remember reading the original Balzac story in college French.
I remember Ken Nordine of WGN-TV in Chicago reading it as one of his late night shows.
Always loved the story but never believe they could or would make a movie of it. To my surprise they did and did it VERY well.
Few of any Balzac stories lend themselves to dramatization, which is unfortunate, and -cat lover that I am, I was always hoping it WOULD be filmed without a lot of Hollywood sexing up. This is as close to perfect conversion as could be done.
The theater of the mind is always better than what the eye can see, but this is as close as I think it can come to letting the imagination of reading meet the reality of seeing.
I remember Ken Nordine of WGN-TV in Chicago reading it as one of his late night shows.
Always loved the story but never believe they could or would make a movie of it. To my surprise they did and did it VERY well.
Few of any Balzac stories lend themselves to dramatization, which is unfortunate, and -cat lover that I am, I was always hoping it WOULD be filmed without a lot of Hollywood sexing up. This is as close to perfect conversion as could be done.
The theater of the mind is always better than what the eye can see, but this is as close as I think it can come to letting the imagination of reading meet the reality of seeing.
A beautiful Film
Sepia-323 September 1999
This movie is beautiful in all ways. It is visually stunning, and this is a good thing since the dialogue would only take up a page or two of paper. The acting is superb; it is subtle, passionate and intense. Ben Daniels does a fabulous job of turning himself into an animal, and mixing that wild nature with a man's overbearing passion and honor. There is not one flaw, not one mistake or wrong moment to be found anywhere. It is completely perfect, but only if you understand what you're going to experience. It isn't a movie for anyone who wants normality.
Like a stranger, kinkier "English Patient"
eek-429 March 1999
A film about the relationship between a man and leopard that's very reminiscent of "The English Patient," even down to a scene similar to when Ralph Fiennes' character carries the body of his lover across a desert-rock cliff. In "A Passion in the Desert," the main character carries the body of the leopard across a desert-rock cliff but in the opposite direction (calculated decision or unconscious contrast?). Historically expanded from a very short Balzac story, the film is not perfect but a treat no less. Final shot will haunt me for weeks. (8 of 10)
What is true Passion? A desire to survive.
stingaree125 July 2000
An excellent story well told by the film maker. The interactions between the man and the leopard brought many questions to the viewers mind about just who was being humane. The humans killed for no reason the animals only to survive. At the end of the movie you were left wondering just who the real "hero" of the movie was. A well told story. The human actor did an excellent job but the leopard stole every scene it was in.
It's time to think Symbolically
futures-128 March 2007
"Passion in the Desert" (1998): Adapted from Balzac's novel, filmed on the AMAZING landscapes of Jordan, scored by Jose Nieto, filmed by Alexei Rodionov, and directed by Lavinia Currier, this is one seriously interesting, highly symbolic film. Napolean's soldiers are trying to cross the Sahara, with typical chauvinism to their imperial viewpoints. When two men become lost, all the old habits and rules are turned to cinders under the hot sun. THEN things get interesting
and not as linear or predictable as you will probably expect. Ben Daniels stars as the soldier whose spirit moves through many changes. DO think symbolically for this story. THAT is where the worthwhile meanings are found.
Wow!!!
monimm182 August 2006
What an incredible story and what a beautiful film! Hat's off to Ben Daniels, Lavinia Currier and the great Honore de Balzac. This captivating film conveys the passion experienced by the characters so effortlessly and yet so powerfully. I watched it mesmerized, almost holding my breath as the story developed towards its inexorable end. This film's execution was almost flawless: simple and pure, it plays with our hearts, guiding us in understanding the strange platonic, absolute thus possessive bond between two creatures not meant to be part of each other's world. Both are capable of affection, yet ironically, it's the more "evolved" one who becomes dependent and possessive, unable to accept the other's freedom. It's one of the most fascinating and intriguing look at the many forms of love, and an incredible study on how oppressive and destructive human love can be sometimes.
Only a rudimentary mind would associate this story with any kind of bestiality.
Only a rudimentary mind would associate this story with any kind of bestiality.
it's a great movie
EgyGirl7 December 2005
I love this movie, though I don't like how they picture Egyptians, being an Egyptian citizen myself! that's why it earns an eight out of 10.
The relationship between Augustin and the leopard is awkward, and of course because of loneliness and living in that cave for quite so long, he develops a kind of insanity and passion to that leopard.
A very touching scene when the leopard dies, watch Augustin's reaction..
All in all I find it enjoyable, and I'm looking forward to reading the short story by Balzac.
The relationship between Augustin and the leopard is awkward, and of course because of loneliness and living in that cave for quite so long, he develops a kind of insanity and passion to that leopard.
A very touching scene when the leopard dies, watch Augustin's reaction..
All in all I find it enjoyable, and I'm looking forward to reading the short story by Balzac.
Passion in the Desert: A Wacky Review
Mignonne8 July 1999
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is just your basic, sappy, pathetically romantic boy-meets-leopard story. You know the type. If you've ever been around a person who's in love with a dangerous predator, I don't have to tell you how annoying it is to be around them; those "subtle" googly-eyed looks they keep throwing at each other are just a little more than most of us can take. Sadly, this movie is just more of the same. I mean, don't get me wrong. We've all been there. Who can resist the shy, flirtatious glance of a large spotty beast? I mean, we're only human. I'm not saying I'm in any position to judge.
But as tragic as this love affair ends up, it's a little hard to sympathize with the guy. I mean, get a clue. Most of us are smart enough to limit our love interests to members of our own species. It's kind of a common sense thing. Dating a man-eater is just asking for trouble. I haven't even had a lot of dating experience, but I can tell you that much, right off the bat. I mean, seriously, am I wrong? Doesn't it always end up the same? There's a misunderstanding, someone gets hurt, and before either one lets down his guard enough to show a little empathy or forgiveness, one of them is lying in a pool of his own blood. It's sad. Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against the director of the film. She had some extra time on her hands and decided to adapt a short story by Balzac to the big screen. Sure, why not?
Problem #1: The short story was written by a guy named Honore de Balzac. Hello, people. Who names their kid Honore? It almost sounds French, for pete's sake. His parents were probably pretty wacked-out and maybe they thought if they gave him a French name it would make him seem really smart or something. As if the name Balzac weren't bad enough by itself. He had to have been beat up a lot as a kid, and it's no wonder he ended up with a twisted mind. Let's consider the source here. But that's not even the biggest problem.
Problem #2: It's not like the Balzac story starts out "Once upon a time there was this man, and he met an attractive leopard." I mean, it starts out pretty dang normal. It's just this random guy talking to this random lady. Then the random guy decides to haul off and tell her this wacked-out beastly love story that he'd heard from some other guy a few days ago.
Problem #3: The guy he'd heard it from was DRUNK at the time. Okay, we know that Balzac was twisted and wacked-out. But he did have enough sense to know that man/leopard love stories are generally a little hard to swallow. He didn't expect us to believe it, for crying out loud. He sure as heck didn't expect us to repeat it to anyone. All he was trying to say is that drunk people sometimes tell wacked-out stories. I think we can accept that. I think most of us can agree with that observation. And the random guy who heard the story by the drunk guy, and then told it to this random lady, was probably drunk, too. We don't know that he wasn't. We don't have any evidence that he wasn't drunk, or schizo, or just totally wacked. He might have totally changed the guy's story and made it even more twisted and wacky, just for fun. Maybe the random lady he told it to was really twisted and weird, and she liked to hear wacky, twisted stories. Maybe that's how they got their thrills, by telling perverted wacky stories to each other. It could happen.
Problem #4: The short story by Balzac, like most short stories, is short. Movies, including this one, are around 90 minutes long. Fortunately, there is a lot of sand in Jordan to fill in the inevitably long empty spaces. But it would have been better if Currier, instead of making a full-length movie, had made a 30-minute blurb about a drunk guy telling wacked-out stories. It would have been more interesting.
Problem #5: The guy who told the story (the one that was DRUNK) was an old Napoleonic veteran who had severe sun-stroke. At least, I bet he did. He was drunk, and he was telling a story about something that happened to him maybe 40 years ago while he was lost in a sweltering desert without food or water and only a lot of sand to look at for weeks. Get a clue. As if anyone who heard him tell this wacky story was going to be like, "Wow, did that really happen?", unless they were drunk too. I mean let's get a clue, people.
Problem #6: The guy, who was drunk, told this wacked-out story soon after watching a show by a wild animal tamer. Gee. I wonder where he got the idea for this twisted, wacked-out story about a wild animal. If he had just come out of a bingo game, he would have made up a totally different wacky story, like maybe about how he had built a national monument out of bingo cards in a desert, or something like that. And then some weird twisted wacko would have made a movie based on that, maybe.
Come on, people. This is what happens when you try to make a movie out of a story that was written by a wacky guy named Honore, about an old drunk guy telling a twisted, weird story. Let's think about this for a minute.
Now don't get me wrong, because I think Balzac was a genius. He knew some twisted person would try to make a movie out of his story some day. Prove to me that he didn't. I'd like to see you try to prove it to me. He had to know that some twisted weirdo would make a movie based on his short story and that it would be so looney that it would make him look like a freaking genius, by comparison. That's the only reason he would have written something like this.
And that's what I like most about Balzac. Oh, yeah, he was twisted, all right. We've established that fact. But he wasn't a total wacko or anything. That's one of the things I like about Honore de Balzac. He was pretty smart. He probably thought about making movies, but decided that writing stories would just be better. You have to give him that much, anyway.
But the movie ... well, let's just say it was pretty wacked-out.
But as tragic as this love affair ends up, it's a little hard to sympathize with the guy. I mean, get a clue. Most of us are smart enough to limit our love interests to members of our own species. It's kind of a common sense thing. Dating a man-eater is just asking for trouble. I haven't even had a lot of dating experience, but I can tell you that much, right off the bat. I mean, seriously, am I wrong? Doesn't it always end up the same? There's a misunderstanding, someone gets hurt, and before either one lets down his guard enough to show a little empathy or forgiveness, one of them is lying in a pool of his own blood. It's sad. Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against the director of the film. She had some extra time on her hands and decided to adapt a short story by Balzac to the big screen. Sure, why not?
Problem #1: The short story was written by a guy named Honore de Balzac. Hello, people. Who names their kid Honore? It almost sounds French, for pete's sake. His parents were probably pretty wacked-out and maybe they thought if they gave him a French name it would make him seem really smart or something. As if the name Balzac weren't bad enough by itself. He had to have been beat up a lot as a kid, and it's no wonder he ended up with a twisted mind. Let's consider the source here. But that's not even the biggest problem.
Problem #2: It's not like the Balzac story starts out "Once upon a time there was this man, and he met an attractive leopard." I mean, it starts out pretty dang normal. It's just this random guy talking to this random lady. Then the random guy decides to haul off and tell her this wacked-out beastly love story that he'd heard from some other guy a few days ago.
Problem #3: The guy he'd heard it from was DRUNK at the time. Okay, we know that Balzac was twisted and wacked-out. But he did have enough sense to know that man/leopard love stories are generally a little hard to swallow. He didn't expect us to believe it, for crying out loud. He sure as heck didn't expect us to repeat it to anyone. All he was trying to say is that drunk people sometimes tell wacked-out stories. I think we can accept that. I think most of us can agree with that observation. And the random guy who heard the story by the drunk guy, and then told it to this random lady, was probably drunk, too. We don't know that he wasn't. We don't have any evidence that he wasn't drunk, or schizo, or just totally wacked. He might have totally changed the guy's story and made it even more twisted and wacky, just for fun. Maybe the random lady he told it to was really twisted and weird, and she liked to hear wacky, twisted stories. Maybe that's how they got their thrills, by telling perverted wacky stories to each other. It could happen.
Problem #4: The short story by Balzac, like most short stories, is short. Movies, including this one, are around 90 minutes long. Fortunately, there is a lot of sand in Jordan to fill in the inevitably long empty spaces. But it would have been better if Currier, instead of making a full-length movie, had made a 30-minute blurb about a drunk guy telling wacked-out stories. It would have been more interesting.
Problem #5: The guy who told the story (the one that was DRUNK) was an old Napoleonic veteran who had severe sun-stroke. At least, I bet he did. He was drunk, and he was telling a story about something that happened to him maybe 40 years ago while he was lost in a sweltering desert without food or water and only a lot of sand to look at for weeks. Get a clue. As if anyone who heard him tell this wacky story was going to be like, "Wow, did that really happen?", unless they were drunk too. I mean let's get a clue, people.
Problem #6: The guy, who was drunk, told this wacked-out story soon after watching a show by a wild animal tamer. Gee. I wonder where he got the idea for this twisted, wacked-out story about a wild animal. If he had just come out of a bingo game, he would have made up a totally different wacky story, like maybe about how he had built a national monument out of bingo cards in a desert, or something like that. And then some weird twisted wacko would have made a movie based on that, maybe.
Come on, people. This is what happens when you try to make a movie out of a story that was written by a wacky guy named Honore, about an old drunk guy telling a twisted, weird story. Let's think about this for a minute.
Now don't get me wrong, because I think Balzac was a genius. He knew some twisted person would try to make a movie out of his story some day. Prove to me that he didn't. I'd like to see you try to prove it to me. He had to know that some twisted weirdo would make a movie based on his short story and that it would be so looney that it would make him look like a freaking genius, by comparison. That's the only reason he would have written something like this.
And that's what I like most about Balzac. Oh, yeah, he was twisted, all right. We've established that fact. But he wasn't a total wacko or anything. That's one of the things I like about Honore de Balzac. He was pretty smart. He probably thought about making movies, but decided that writing stories would just be better. You have to give him that much, anyway.
But the movie ... well, let's just say it was pretty wacked-out.
Worth viewing...
avanwhy23 November 1998
Bad ending
Sam-28513 January 2002
This movie could have been immensely more successful if it was not for the ending, which made it lousy. I think the producers are stupid for creating a movie with such good scenery and such and waste it all with the ending.
Wow I liked this movie!
papadea195320 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I did not expect this kind of theatre in an independent film. At first I was intrigued and then I became mesmerized. Here is the spoiler: The "IDIOTS" shot off the nose of the Sphinx and yet for so many scenes afterward, the Sphinx had a complete nose!!! Hey guys. what the hell were you thinking??? Blow off the nose, take it off on the rest of the scenes. My question here was, "Too much Ouzo?" As for the rest of the movie. I felt this was a "perfect" romance. I LOVED the thought of a feline falling in love with a human. For the rest of those humans out there who HAVE fallen in love with a cat, I honestly believe this can happen, with ANY animal, be it dog, cat, rat, or horse, or whatever. I know someone who has fallen in love with a bird! And the Bird is GREAT!!! It's a great movie but I hated the ending. I think things could have happened better but, hey, this was the Napoleon Era.
Miss Sepia is insane
andycool4 November 2006
There were several "wrong moments" in this movie. However, despite being the worst overall movie I've ever seen, I recommend drinking heavily and watching it. When I was drunk I laughed so hard that I cried. I guarantee that you will laugh so hard that urine will leak from your body. WEIRDEST MOVIE EVER!!! On a more serious/disturbing note, I'm also stunned at the fact that it's acceptable for this dude to have a love affair with an animal. This leopard is maybe 10 years old. What if this was a 10 year old human? Would it not be more believable that a man would fall in love with a 10 year old human, rather than a 10 year old animal? That being said, I'm considering producing a movie called "Passion in the Daycare."
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
