You really have to admire Brian DePalma as a director. He's directed some of the finest thrillers in the last 30 years and even his misfires are interesting to watch like "Snake Eyes". I really enjoyed how well made this film is. If you don't like the story, thats your business. But this film is so finely detailed and shot that I put it in the same boat as "Mulholland Dr." and "Blackhawk Down". Interesting films that some viewers had mixed reactions to but the direction of these films was so expertly crafted that even the most ardent critics had to admit to the talent of the director. This film starts out at the Cannes Film Festival where a group of thieves are attempting to steal some diamonds off of a model by having Laure Ash (Rebecca Romijn-Stamos) seduce her in a lesbian encounter in the ladies bathroom. Things go wrong and Laure takes off with the diamonds. Seven years later Laure is married to an American diplomat and is in Paris with her husband when a papparazzi named Nicolas (Antonio Banderas) takes a picture of her. She doesn't want to be photographed because the former members of her gang are still looking for her. What I have just mentioned is just scratching the surface. This is a psychological thriller that has so many twists and turns that the casual film viewer will probably be in over their head. But this is a film that gives many hints along the way as you watch it. You have to pay attention to this film and one key scene takes place when Laure and Nicolas are having coffee in a cafe. Laure is sitting next to the window. Outside, a poster is being put up for a film called "Deja Vu" and the reflection of Laure on the glass is centered in the middle of the poster. DePalma uses many overhead shots to allow the viewer to get full view of certain scenes. Some viewers and critics have said they were disappointed with the casting but I admire the job that Rebecca did for this film. Okay, she's not Jodie Foster as far as being an actress is concerned but Foster couldn't exude sexuality like this if her life depended on it either. I thought it was believable that her character could manipulate Nicholas the way she did. How could he not? She was a combination of sexuality and vulnerability inside a very smart and devious mind. And for a film called "Femme Fatale" you had better find an actress that is smart and utterly beautiful at the same time. I found her performance to be bold and brave. DePalma uses each shot to send signals relating to the story. It sounds like a very difficult shoot because each scene has so much meaning. He doesn't have cameras following characters for nothing. Each shot has a reason. The details to this filming are enormous and difficult. DePalma again shows us the attention to details of his complex artistry. If your one of those shallow film watchers that only views films from the incredible mediocrity of Hollywood than your probably going to be lost watching this film. For the viewers that remember and care about risk taking when making movies, than you can appreciate the effort made by DePalma. If you don't like it, thats okay. But you should appreciate his effort and nerve as a director.
252 Reviews
Suspenseful and intriguing thriller from Brian De Palma with a lot of twists and turns.
ma-cortes26 October 2023
This erotic action thriller starts with an exquisitely designed diamond theft set against an authentically recreated red carpet premiere at 2001 Cannes Film Festival. There mercenary thief Laure Ash (Rebecca Romijn) participates in a diamond heist. The scheme is for Laure to steal a necklace of valuable diamonds from the ensemble of a female attendant named Veronica (Rie Rasmussen). Posing as a French photojournalist, Laure gains access to the festival gathering, where she lures Veronica to the ladies room and begins to seduce her in a stall, during which Laure's two accomplices "Black Tie" (Eriq Ebouaney) and Racine (Édouard Montrouge). But a Spanish paparazzo named Nicolas Bardo (Antonio Banderas) chases her and takes her picture. Nothing is more desirable or more deadly than a woman with a secret!.
This haunting thriller flick is plenty of mystery, intrigue and suspenseful. A highly exploitative and fast-paced suspense/thriller, recognisably from the blood-spattered hands of expert cinéaste Brian De Palma. The film displays a great and catching musical score by Ryuichi Sakamoto who along with Pino Donaggio are De Palma's favorite composers, in Bernard Herrmann style and imitating former hits. There is much for De Palma buffs to savour in this thrilling and atmospheric handling of a complex story with deliberately old-fashioned treatment. This elegantly dreamy 'Femme Fatale' is as rich and rare as anything De Palma's made for a while. The cinéphile Brian De Palma is a genre unto himself these days, including his own trademarks and a plot twist which, as the writer/filmmaker admits, will alienate half the audience. The film sets luxurious scenaries and brilliant gowns at the 2001 Cannes Film Festival in France with some actual happeninings in the red carpet. The movie introduces us to Hitchcock style, adding Brian de Palma's own films from Marnie, Rear Window , Obsession, Blow-out to Dressed to kill. It can be the answer to De Palma's feminist critics , but tall willowy Rebecca Romijn makes a poised , confident heroine and the visuals are often impressive. Adding special characteristics techniques as ominous camera movements and split screen. The mechanics of suspense are worked quite well by the filmmaker and many frighten the easily scared quite adequately, but De Palma has made a habit of dwelling on their more sordid side-shoots. The result is provocative, surprising, outrageous and fun. Rebecca Romijn gives an essentially erotic acting as a woman tries to straighten out her life, even as her past as a con-woman comes back to haunt her. And Antonio Banderas is pretty good as a nosy photographer who gets involved in twisted problems.
It contains colorful and glamorous cinematography by cameraman Thierry Arbogast, as well as perceptible and thrilling musical score by composer Ryuichi Sakamoto. Displaying a professional and graphically mysterious direction from cinéphile Brian De Palma. ¨Femme fatale¨ is Brian De Palma's homage to Hitchcock and the reason for the chief amusement turning out to be inquire what scenes taken from Master of suspense. That's why takes parts especially from Hitchcock. The flick was well directed Brian De Palma in his usual style, but it turns out to be inferior to the other similar suspense films that he directed. This ¨Femme Fatale¨ (2002) ¨along with ¨Sisters¨, ¨Body Double¨, ¨Dressed to Kill¨, ¨Blow out¨ resulting outwardly another ode to Hitchcock with the accent on the killing, but on most occasion is really decent. Rating : 6/10. Acceptable and passable, it gets some riveting basic ideas and fascinating images .
This haunting thriller flick is plenty of mystery, intrigue and suspenseful. A highly exploitative and fast-paced suspense/thriller, recognisably from the blood-spattered hands of expert cinéaste Brian De Palma. The film displays a great and catching musical score by Ryuichi Sakamoto who along with Pino Donaggio are De Palma's favorite composers, in Bernard Herrmann style and imitating former hits. There is much for De Palma buffs to savour in this thrilling and atmospheric handling of a complex story with deliberately old-fashioned treatment. This elegantly dreamy 'Femme Fatale' is as rich and rare as anything De Palma's made for a while. The cinéphile Brian De Palma is a genre unto himself these days, including his own trademarks and a plot twist which, as the writer/filmmaker admits, will alienate half the audience. The film sets luxurious scenaries and brilliant gowns at the 2001 Cannes Film Festival in France with some actual happeninings in the red carpet. The movie introduces us to Hitchcock style, adding Brian de Palma's own films from Marnie, Rear Window , Obsession, Blow-out to Dressed to kill. It can be the answer to De Palma's feminist critics , but tall willowy Rebecca Romijn makes a poised , confident heroine and the visuals are often impressive. Adding special characteristics techniques as ominous camera movements and split screen. The mechanics of suspense are worked quite well by the filmmaker and many frighten the easily scared quite adequately, but De Palma has made a habit of dwelling on their more sordid side-shoots. The result is provocative, surprising, outrageous and fun. Rebecca Romijn gives an essentially erotic acting as a woman tries to straighten out her life, even as her past as a con-woman comes back to haunt her. And Antonio Banderas is pretty good as a nosy photographer who gets involved in twisted problems.
It contains colorful and glamorous cinematography by cameraman Thierry Arbogast, as well as perceptible and thrilling musical score by composer Ryuichi Sakamoto. Displaying a professional and graphically mysterious direction from cinéphile Brian De Palma. ¨Femme fatale¨ is Brian De Palma's homage to Hitchcock and the reason for the chief amusement turning out to be inquire what scenes taken from Master of suspense. That's why takes parts especially from Hitchcock. The flick was well directed Brian De Palma in his usual style, but it turns out to be inferior to the other similar suspense films that he directed. This ¨Femme Fatale¨ (2002) ¨along with ¨Sisters¨, ¨Body Double¨, ¨Dressed to Kill¨, ¨Blow out¨ resulting outwardly another ode to Hitchcock with the accent on the killing, but on most occasion is really decent. Rating : 6/10. Acceptable and passable, it gets some riveting basic ideas and fascinating images .
Both De Palma and Romijn-Stamos are in fine form here.
Hey_Sweden22 December 2019
Brian De Palma crafts a typically engaging erotic thriller, one that has a great deal of respect for film noir and femme fatales of legend (especially "Double Indemnity" and Barbara Stanwyck). Rebecca Romijn-Stamos is quite easy to watch as Laure, a sexy criminal who double crosses her partners during an elaborate robbery (all of this while the Cannes Film Festival is going on). Then she finds an opportunity to live the straight life (and the high life) for a while, until she ends up back in Paris where she's at real risk of having her past come back to haunt her. Sealing her fate is a slightly shady photographer, Nicolas (Antonio Banderas), who is tasked with snapping a picture of her.
While the script itself is not flawless, De Palma still tells a pretty entertaining story, one that holds the viewers' attention regularly. Certainly his filmmaking skill was still quite sharp at this point, especially when one considers the true highlights of the film: that aforementioned jewel robbery, and a scene in a strangers' home. These take place without much dialogue, and it just goes to show how the directors' style can carry scenes practically by itself. The exotic French setting is also a real asset to the picture.
The mostly French cast acquits itself well, with Romijn-Stamos clearly having fun playing a bad girl who knows full well how bad she is. She can really wrap guys around her finger, such as the hapless Nicolas, or Watts (a very likeable Peter Coyote), the nice-guy American ambassador to France. Gregg Henry, a semi-regular in De Palmas' films, is also solid as a strong-arm man working for the ambassador. Eriq Ebouaney has a great screen presence as the formidable criminal mastermind "Black Tie", while Thierry Fremont is amusing as a French police inspector annoyed at having to deal with Nicolas.
One of the more interesting touches occurs around 12 minutes from the end. While some viewers may be annoyed at the use of such a device / revelation, it allows for our main character to second-guess herself, and make different choices.
A must if you are a De Palma fan.
Seven out of 10.
While the script itself is not flawless, De Palma still tells a pretty entertaining story, one that holds the viewers' attention regularly. Certainly his filmmaking skill was still quite sharp at this point, especially when one considers the true highlights of the film: that aforementioned jewel robbery, and a scene in a strangers' home. These take place without much dialogue, and it just goes to show how the directors' style can carry scenes practically by itself. The exotic French setting is also a real asset to the picture.
The mostly French cast acquits itself well, with Romijn-Stamos clearly having fun playing a bad girl who knows full well how bad she is. She can really wrap guys around her finger, such as the hapless Nicolas, or Watts (a very likeable Peter Coyote), the nice-guy American ambassador to France. Gregg Henry, a semi-regular in De Palmas' films, is also solid as a strong-arm man working for the ambassador. Eriq Ebouaney has a great screen presence as the formidable criminal mastermind "Black Tie", while Thierry Fremont is amusing as a French police inspector annoyed at having to deal with Nicolas.
One of the more interesting touches occurs around 12 minutes from the end. While some viewers may be annoyed at the use of such a device / revelation, it allows for our main character to second-guess herself, and make different choices.
A must if you are a De Palma fan.
Seven out of 10.
Triple Indemnity
tieman6427 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
"Femme Fatale" is best understood as a game played by Brian De Palma and appreciated by knowing cineastes. It's not about story or characters, but about the construction and manipulation of art.
Antonio Banderas plays Nicolas Bardo, a photographer who has turned his back on photographing celebrities. He now spends his time living in an apartment, making huge composite images by arranging tiny photographs. The Bardo character, in many ways, is Brian De Palma. At war with Hollywood storytelling (which is fuelled by celebrity) De Palma takes these multiple images and weaves them into a tapestry until a final image is made. The point is that the final image is not reality. It is the artists recreation and completely false.
At the end of the film, Bardo completes his masterpiece by inserting a little white figure (of Laura, a name which itself alludes to Otto Preminger's classic) onto his wall. The figure doesn't belong, Bardo simply chooses to put it there. Thematically, "Femme Fatale" ends on the same note. Noir fatalism is thwarted by a completely arbitrary, totally ILLOGICAL and cosmically IMPOSSIBLE moment of editing whereby De Palma redeems his hero and kills off her opponents.
Critics call this sequence implausible. But De Palma's point is that it doesn't have to be plausible. Bardo puts the white figure on his wall because he wants to. Similarly, De Palma ends the film as he does, because he wants to. He shows us Laura's fatalistic noir dream and then rescues her from it. He makes it clear that he is redeeming her and willing this positive ending into existence solely because he as artist, but more importantly, as noir God, has the power to do so.
This flips the usual noir logic. If Kubrick's "The Killing" highlights the deterministic law of the universe (Clay's plan crumbling to pieces all because of a random poodle), De Palma's "Femme Fatale" highlights the power of the artist, able to do recreate a universe entirely devoid of cosmic law.
This theme is also highlighted by the use of the name "Bardo", a Tibetan word meaning "intermediate state". A state between life and death. Over the course of the film, Bardo will be caught between life and death, as De Palma toys with killing him. Bardo's existence or artistic merit is down to an artist's mere whim.
Everything else about De Palma is present in "Femme Fatale": the voyeur and his object, the representation inside the representation, the original and its fake copy, the doubled characters, key episodes built from multiple points of views, the elaborate camera work...
Watch as De Palma's camera continuously misleads our eyes, giving the hidden predominance over the shown, until we are forced to separate in our minds the real from its representation and to connect the different pieces into a "sense". This technique comprises the film watching experience as a whole, and is what De Palma's films are essentially about, from Jack Terry's reconstruction of truth with the aid of montage in "Blow Out", to Santoro's investigations of a crime from partial testimonies in "Snake Eyes".
This theme, the division between reality and image, has grown increasingly important for De Palma. The majority of his films are concerned about how we see and watch movies, the director obsessed with reminding us that information is not the same thing as knowledge.
Consider "Snake Eyes", which opens with an unbroken tracking shot that essentially lays out the film's plot. The rest of the movie then becomes a demonstration of why everything we had seen in that sequence was a lie. Likewise, the opening sequence of "Mission: Impossible" showed us Tom Cruise's crew of agents being picked off one by one. We had already seen each of those murders, though, in nearly subliminal blips during the movie's credit sequence (information without knowledge). "Black Dahlia" and "Redacted" similarly deal with a search for truth amongst an image bank of lies.
"Femme Fatale" begins with a long heist sequence. Throughout this sequence, allusions are made to "Snake Eyes" (the literal "serpent camera" and the object of the heist, a snake shaped piece of gold), De Palma effectively saying: "The camera is a snake and not to be trusted." Note too the film "Est-Ouest" showing as the heist goes on. Like "Femme Fatale", this is another stream-of-consciousness film with an unreliable narrator.
And so the rest of "Femme Fatale" takes a "dream within a film" approach (foreshadowed in opening shot). Watch how De Palma sets this dream sequence up with careful details: the storm, the clock (the time 3:33 will appear on clocks throughout the dream), the water running, Laura sinking, and by having the actors from before her dream taking on different roles within it.
These signifiers, and others, will emerge throughout the film, emphasising the surreal atmosphere of Laura's adventure. Everything becomes disconnected, dialogue makes no sense (at some points it's dubbed without even following the actors' lips!), time jumps back and forth etc etc.
Indeed, during her dream (like "Mulholland Drive"), Laura herself will embody different female archetypes, all traceable in film history and particularly in De Palma's films. She's Kim Novak in "Vertigo" and also Melanie Griffith's prostitute of "Body Double" and so on and so on.
The majority of De Palma's films have dream sequences. Even a "serious" film like "Casualties of War" ends with a character waking up on a train, realising that the whole film was a nightmare. Why does De Palma feel the need to insert this? My guess is that he doesn't want his films to be seen as "real". They exist in a wholly metaphysical space.
8.5/10 - As usual with a De Palma film, critics and audiences rejected "Femme Fatale".
Antonio Banderas plays Nicolas Bardo, a photographer who has turned his back on photographing celebrities. He now spends his time living in an apartment, making huge composite images by arranging tiny photographs. The Bardo character, in many ways, is Brian De Palma. At war with Hollywood storytelling (which is fuelled by celebrity) De Palma takes these multiple images and weaves them into a tapestry until a final image is made. The point is that the final image is not reality. It is the artists recreation and completely false.
At the end of the film, Bardo completes his masterpiece by inserting a little white figure (of Laura, a name which itself alludes to Otto Preminger's classic) onto his wall. The figure doesn't belong, Bardo simply chooses to put it there. Thematically, "Femme Fatale" ends on the same note. Noir fatalism is thwarted by a completely arbitrary, totally ILLOGICAL and cosmically IMPOSSIBLE moment of editing whereby De Palma redeems his hero and kills off her opponents.
Critics call this sequence implausible. But De Palma's point is that it doesn't have to be plausible. Bardo puts the white figure on his wall because he wants to. Similarly, De Palma ends the film as he does, because he wants to. He shows us Laura's fatalistic noir dream and then rescues her from it. He makes it clear that he is redeeming her and willing this positive ending into existence solely because he as artist, but more importantly, as noir God, has the power to do so.
This flips the usual noir logic. If Kubrick's "The Killing" highlights the deterministic law of the universe (Clay's plan crumbling to pieces all because of a random poodle), De Palma's "Femme Fatale" highlights the power of the artist, able to do recreate a universe entirely devoid of cosmic law.
This theme is also highlighted by the use of the name "Bardo", a Tibetan word meaning "intermediate state". A state between life and death. Over the course of the film, Bardo will be caught between life and death, as De Palma toys with killing him. Bardo's existence or artistic merit is down to an artist's mere whim.
Everything else about De Palma is present in "Femme Fatale": the voyeur and his object, the representation inside the representation, the original and its fake copy, the doubled characters, key episodes built from multiple points of views, the elaborate camera work...
Watch as De Palma's camera continuously misleads our eyes, giving the hidden predominance over the shown, until we are forced to separate in our minds the real from its representation and to connect the different pieces into a "sense". This technique comprises the film watching experience as a whole, and is what De Palma's films are essentially about, from Jack Terry's reconstruction of truth with the aid of montage in "Blow Out", to Santoro's investigations of a crime from partial testimonies in "Snake Eyes".
This theme, the division between reality and image, has grown increasingly important for De Palma. The majority of his films are concerned about how we see and watch movies, the director obsessed with reminding us that information is not the same thing as knowledge.
Consider "Snake Eyes", which opens with an unbroken tracking shot that essentially lays out the film's plot. The rest of the movie then becomes a demonstration of why everything we had seen in that sequence was a lie. Likewise, the opening sequence of "Mission: Impossible" showed us Tom Cruise's crew of agents being picked off one by one. We had already seen each of those murders, though, in nearly subliminal blips during the movie's credit sequence (information without knowledge). "Black Dahlia" and "Redacted" similarly deal with a search for truth amongst an image bank of lies.
"Femme Fatale" begins with a long heist sequence. Throughout this sequence, allusions are made to "Snake Eyes" (the literal "serpent camera" and the object of the heist, a snake shaped piece of gold), De Palma effectively saying: "The camera is a snake and not to be trusted." Note too the film "Est-Ouest" showing as the heist goes on. Like "Femme Fatale", this is another stream-of-consciousness film with an unreliable narrator.
And so the rest of "Femme Fatale" takes a "dream within a film" approach (foreshadowed in opening shot). Watch how De Palma sets this dream sequence up with careful details: the storm, the clock (the time 3:33 will appear on clocks throughout the dream), the water running, Laura sinking, and by having the actors from before her dream taking on different roles within it.
These signifiers, and others, will emerge throughout the film, emphasising the surreal atmosphere of Laura's adventure. Everything becomes disconnected, dialogue makes no sense (at some points it's dubbed without even following the actors' lips!), time jumps back and forth etc etc.
Indeed, during her dream (like "Mulholland Drive"), Laura herself will embody different female archetypes, all traceable in film history and particularly in De Palma's films. She's Kim Novak in "Vertigo" and also Melanie Griffith's prostitute of "Body Double" and so on and so on.
The majority of De Palma's films have dream sequences. Even a "serious" film like "Casualties of War" ends with a character waking up on a train, realising that the whole film was a nightmare. Why does De Palma feel the need to insert this? My guess is that he doesn't want his films to be seen as "real". They exist in a wholly metaphysical space.
8.5/10 - As usual with a De Palma film, critics and audiences rejected "Femme Fatale".
FEMME FATALE (DIDIER BECU)
Didier-Becu23 October 2003
Since De Palma directed the debacle that was Mission Impossible, it seemed like a genius director has lost it all but this latest movie by the "new Hitchcock" is perhaps one of his strongest since "Carlito's Way" and the masterpiece "Body Double". The story itself is quite simple : during the filmfestival of Cannes is a bunch of diamonds stolen but then the fun begins...you really have to be attentive during the whole movie as every minute De Palma puts you on a wrong foot just like we're used to by the master of the black thrillers... An absolute must!!!!
I Would Expect Much More Than That for a Brian De Palma Movie
claudio_carvalho24 August 2003
Warning: Spoilers
The thief Laurie Ash (Rebecca Romijn-Stamos) steals the expensive diamond jewel called 'Eye of the Serpent' in an audacious heist during an exhibition in Cannes 2001 Festival. She double-crosses her partners and is mistakenly taken as Lily, a woman who lost her husband and son in an accident and is missing since then, by an ordinary family. One day, while having bath in Lily's bathtub, Lily comes back home and commits suicide. Laurie assumes definitely Lily's identity, goes to America where she marries a rich man, who becomes the Ambassador of USA in France. When Laurie returns to France, her past haunts her.
"Femme Fatale" is a confused movie and the flawed plot presents many points not well-explained. For example, why should Laurie leave the safety of living in USA, having a fortune from the robbery (and maybe from a divorce from a rich man), and comes back to France, where she could feel jeopardized by her past? Certainly It would not be to stay with her "beloved-husband" in Paris. Therefore, there is no plausible explanation for her return to Paris. Further, divorces are common in America, so it would be very easy to her to resolve her problem. In addition, this situation of double life has been successfully explored in many movies, like for example by David Lynch in "Lost Highway" and "Mulholland Drive". The use of a classic scene (in this movie, 'Double Indemnity') is also very common technique. I would expect much more than that for a Brian De Palma film but in the end it is entertains. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "Femme Fatale"
"Femme Fatale" is a confused movie and the flawed plot presents many points not well-explained. For example, why should Laurie leave the safety of living in USA, having a fortune from the robbery (and maybe from a divorce from a rich man), and comes back to France, where she could feel jeopardized by her past? Certainly It would not be to stay with her "beloved-husband" in Paris. Therefore, there is no plausible explanation for her return to Paris. Further, divorces are common in America, so it would be very easy to her to resolve her problem. In addition, this situation of double life has been successfully explored in many movies, like for example by David Lynch in "Lost Highway" and "Mulholland Drive". The use of a classic scene (in this movie, 'Double Indemnity') is also very common technique. I would expect much more than that for a Brian De Palma film but in the end it is entertains. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "Femme Fatale"
A Different Male Lead Would Have Made This Much Better
ccthemovieman-113 May 2006
This was a lot better than I expected, which wasn't a lot. It turned out to be interesting thanks in part to the stylish film-making and the nice job it did in keeping the audience's attention.
It got a few extra points for at least us males gaping at Rebecca Romijn-Stamos, who looked spectacular, but lost a few for some big credibility holes in the story.
The film also would have been much better with a different male lead than Antonio Bandaras, someone who could speak English so people could understand him!
With Brian De Palma directing, you get some stylish camera shots in here, so it's a good visual movie....a lot more than just girl-watching. It's a film you could enjoy multiple times, especially if you get a translator for Bandaras.
It got a few extra points for at least us males gaping at Rebecca Romijn-Stamos, who looked spectacular, but lost a few for some big credibility holes in the story.
The film also would have been much better with a different male lead than Antonio Bandaras, someone who could speak English so people could understand him!
With Brian De Palma directing, you get some stylish camera shots in here, so it's a good visual movie....a lot more than just girl-watching. It's a film you could enjoy multiple times, especially if you get a translator for Bandaras.
One Of The Most IDIOTIC Films Ever Made
Richard-Nathan22 November 2002
Warning: Spoilers
This film was idiotic. Some people tell me I shouldn't dislike films if they don't make any sense. They tell me I should just enjoy the ride. Sorry, I can't turn my brain off. It is particularly important in a caper film that the film make some sort of logical sense.
MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW
We have to believe that the guys planning the heist at the beginning of this film are willing to risk a huge amount of money, not to mention their own personal safety, on the premise that a female photographer is absolutely certain to be able to lure a complete stranger into a toilet stall for a round of hot lesbian sex. Now it turns out at the end of the film that the stranger isn't a total stranger after all - but this is a big surprise to the guys who planned the heist. They actually planned the heist based on the premis that their photographer would absolutely, without doubt, be able to lure a stranger into a toilet stall during a film premiere.
How stupid is that????
And don't tell me I shouldn't expect logic because it's all a dream. That wasn't part of the dream. And here's another moment that wasn't part of the dream. We learn at the end that the woman lured into the toilet stall kept the real diamonds, but told the police they were the fake subsitutes. You think the police wouldn't want to examine whatever she had for clues?????
Sorry, I can't turn my brain off -and this was an IDIOTIC film.
MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW
We have to believe that the guys planning the heist at the beginning of this film are willing to risk a huge amount of money, not to mention their own personal safety, on the premise that a female photographer is absolutely certain to be able to lure a complete stranger into a toilet stall for a round of hot lesbian sex. Now it turns out at the end of the film that the stranger isn't a total stranger after all - but this is a big surprise to the guys who planned the heist. They actually planned the heist based on the premis that their photographer would absolutely, without doubt, be able to lure a stranger into a toilet stall during a film premiere.
How stupid is that????
And don't tell me I shouldn't expect logic because it's all a dream. That wasn't part of the dream. And here's another moment that wasn't part of the dream. We learn at the end that the woman lured into the toilet stall kept the real diamonds, but told the police they were the fake subsitutes. You think the police wouldn't want to examine whatever she had for clues?????
Sorry, I can't turn my brain off -and this was an IDIOTIC film.
pure movie-making
rbverhoef23 June 2005
Brian De Palma's 'Femme Fatale' is pure movie-making. In fact, it is done so well you almost forget it is all close to nonsense. But who cares, 'Femme Fatale' is an exercise in style drenched in twists and turns. Instead of cheating De Palma gives us a lot of little hints, easily missed the first time you see it. Explaining the story could ruin a lot and is probably useless anyway.
I can tell the film opens with a heist, probably one of the most erotic ones out there. Laure Ash (Rebecca Romijn-Stamos) is the one who goes away with a very expensive artifact betraying a whole lot of people. This event is what drives her the rest of the movie, but in what way I can not reveal. I can say that we move forward to seven years later and that Laure has changed her identity, more by mistake than on purpose. Another important thing I can tell you is that we meet a photographer named Nicolas Bardo (Antonio Banderas). He takes a picture of Laure while she is still Laure and he is the one who takes a picture of her seven years later, a photo that could spoil everything for her.
I should stop talking about the story. You have to see it for yourself, collecting clues and try to make something out of it. I love a movie like this. 'Memento', 'Mulholland Dr.' and 'Donnie Darko' are other examples. Maybe you can figure them out, if that is the filmmakers intention, maybe you can not. But it is not so much the conclusion I enjoy, it is the ride that brings us there. De Palma does it in a terrific way with a lot of love for the movies.
I can tell the film opens with a heist, probably one of the most erotic ones out there. Laure Ash (Rebecca Romijn-Stamos) is the one who goes away with a very expensive artifact betraying a whole lot of people. This event is what drives her the rest of the movie, but in what way I can not reveal. I can say that we move forward to seven years later and that Laure has changed her identity, more by mistake than on purpose. Another important thing I can tell you is that we meet a photographer named Nicolas Bardo (Antonio Banderas). He takes a picture of Laure while she is still Laure and he is the one who takes a picture of her seven years later, a photo that could spoil everything for her.
I should stop talking about the story. You have to see it for yourself, collecting clues and try to make something out of it. I love a movie like this. 'Memento', 'Mulholland Dr.' and 'Donnie Darko' are other examples. Maybe you can figure them out, if that is the filmmakers intention, maybe you can not. But it is not so much the conclusion I enjoy, it is the ride that brings us there. De Palma does it in a terrific way with a lot of love for the movies.
De Palma Does An Erotic Thriller
gavin694212 November 2013
A woman (Rebecca Romijn-Stamos) tries to straighten out her life, even as her past as a con-woman comes back to haunt her.
The highlight of this film is the gay Antonio Banderas. How often do you get to see that? I do not think you have ever seen it before this or since (though I would love to be corrected).
Roger Ebert says, "This is a movie about watching and being watched, about seeing and not knowing what you see." De Palma is known for his theme of voyeurism, and there is that aspect here: not only are we voyeurs to the film, but one of the main characters takes photographs of people who would rather remain private.
Ebert also says, "Romijn-Stamos ... is a great Hitchcock heroine -- blond, icy, desirable, duplicitous -- with a knack for contemptuously manipulating the hero." This is an interesting observation. On the one hand it rightly praises Romijn-Stamos (this is her best role), but also has that reminder that many people see De Palma as derivative of Hitchcock (among others) and not necessarily in a complimentary way.
We also have his split-screen, which has been used in more than a few of De Palma's films ("Blow Out" and "Phantom of the Paradise" immediately come to mind). Does it work? Oddly, yes.
The highlight of this film is the gay Antonio Banderas. How often do you get to see that? I do not think you have ever seen it before this or since (though I would love to be corrected).
Roger Ebert says, "This is a movie about watching and being watched, about seeing and not knowing what you see." De Palma is known for his theme of voyeurism, and there is that aspect here: not only are we voyeurs to the film, but one of the main characters takes photographs of people who would rather remain private.
Ebert also says, "Romijn-Stamos ... is a great Hitchcock heroine -- blond, icy, desirable, duplicitous -- with a knack for contemptuously manipulating the hero." This is an interesting observation. On the one hand it rightly praises Romijn-Stamos (this is her best role), but also has that reminder that many people see De Palma as derivative of Hitchcock (among others) and not necessarily in a complimentary way.
We also have his split-screen, which has been used in more than a few of De Palma's films ("Blow Out" and "Phantom of the Paradise" immediately come to mind). Does it work? Oddly, yes.
Hot body CONAN MUSIC. Makes no sense at all.
Sailinship11 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I have some questions. As I watch this movie I'm going to write this. 1. Why is there a cat in the security area of the theater?
2. Why is the chick with 10 million worth of jewels and gold on so stupid that she lets another woman not only strip her but also cut the gold thread,which obviously can't be fixed, and is the only thing holding her "costume" on?
3. Why is the chick in camouflage wearing the exact same clothes with the exact same hair cut 7 years later? And why is the guy wearing the exact same blood stained tux shirt, I know he just got out of prison, but can't he get another shirt? Wasn't the shirt held as evidence and why wasn't he given a deal to get out of jail early by turning on the people who he was working with?
4.And so he gets out of prison and throws the chick into the truck, without interrogating her or getting any info from her first which really doesn't matter because he sees the real girls photo on a poster across the street. Luckily, even though he just committed a murder he has enough time to see that poster because he's not worried about looking around for cops or witnesses or getting away quick?
5.What world do you live in that you can believe that a woman that hot can be walking down the street in those cameo shorts without every guy on the street totally staring and willing to come to her rescue when those two guys grab her and throw her into a truck? Or at least grab the guys who did it? Are we really suppose to believe that nobody saw anything? Why doesn't Antonio get a picture of them throwing her into the truck?
6.She just happens to meet her twins parents and be taken in to their house and the twin just happens to kill herself and leave a passport and a plane ticket which just happens to get bumped up to first class.
7.Why was Antonia Bandito's character so intent on taking the photos of two women talking outside of a church?
8.Those bad people? It's one bad person and if she's married to the "the richest man in the world" and looks like she does, why can't she just find another bad person to take him out? Although I did like the line "Bad people read papers too."
9. If she wants 10 million and she's married to "the richest man in the world", ever heard of divorce? I hear it pays well.
10. An American French ambassador's wife of the "richest man in the world" doesn't have 24 hour security?
11.They have sex with their clothes on and Ainthony Bentdildo turns out to be a forty second man? I know I'd want to spend a bit more time with her. At least forty five seconds.
12. What kind of professional killer doesn't shoot someone before they throw them over a bridge? Anybody remember the last scenes from the Batman TV show? Holy freaking nude hot chick Batman?
13.OK so why did I have to watch a stupid dream sequence? What's the point of watching a movie where everything that happens is written off as not being of any value? Everything you just watched is all beyond any criticism due to the fact that it's not real? Lame.
14.So two guys just got killed and the photographer isn't trying to get a shot, instead he's trying to get some pussy? Well... that sounds right.
15. What's up with the Conan music?
16. Why Why Why was this made? A big waste of time. Oh, Oh oh I have to add this one, what was the deal with the two gangsters having the guy in their car and him slamming heads and making like he was about to get away and then it just switches into them on the bridge running behind Romajin-Stamos and slapping her head and then throwing her over the bridge? And then shes in the water naked? What was that all about? A way to sell more posters and hand lotion? Was that a landing strip/pinstripe shave on her bush? I prefer a triangle myself, but then I don't sleep with supermodels.
2. Why is the chick with 10 million worth of jewels and gold on so stupid that she lets another woman not only strip her but also cut the gold thread,which obviously can't be fixed, and is the only thing holding her "costume" on?
3. Why is the chick in camouflage wearing the exact same clothes with the exact same hair cut 7 years later? And why is the guy wearing the exact same blood stained tux shirt, I know he just got out of prison, but can't he get another shirt? Wasn't the shirt held as evidence and why wasn't he given a deal to get out of jail early by turning on the people who he was working with?
4.And so he gets out of prison and throws the chick into the truck, without interrogating her or getting any info from her first which really doesn't matter because he sees the real girls photo on a poster across the street. Luckily, even though he just committed a murder he has enough time to see that poster because he's not worried about looking around for cops or witnesses or getting away quick?
5.What world do you live in that you can believe that a woman that hot can be walking down the street in those cameo shorts without every guy on the street totally staring and willing to come to her rescue when those two guys grab her and throw her into a truck? Or at least grab the guys who did it? Are we really suppose to believe that nobody saw anything? Why doesn't Antonio get a picture of them throwing her into the truck?
6.She just happens to meet her twins parents and be taken in to their house and the twin just happens to kill herself and leave a passport and a plane ticket which just happens to get bumped up to first class.
7.Why was Antonia Bandito's character so intent on taking the photos of two women talking outside of a church?
8.Those bad people? It's one bad person and if she's married to the "the richest man in the world" and looks like she does, why can't she just find another bad person to take him out? Although I did like the line "Bad people read papers too."
9. If she wants 10 million and she's married to "the richest man in the world", ever heard of divorce? I hear it pays well.
10. An American French ambassador's wife of the "richest man in the world" doesn't have 24 hour security?
11.They have sex with their clothes on and Ainthony Bentdildo turns out to be a forty second man? I know I'd want to spend a bit more time with her. At least forty five seconds.
12. What kind of professional killer doesn't shoot someone before they throw them over a bridge? Anybody remember the last scenes from the Batman TV show? Holy freaking nude hot chick Batman?
13.OK so why did I have to watch a stupid dream sequence? What's the point of watching a movie where everything that happens is written off as not being of any value? Everything you just watched is all beyond any criticism due to the fact that it's not real? Lame.
14.So two guys just got killed and the photographer isn't trying to get a shot, instead he's trying to get some pussy? Well... that sounds right.
15. What's up with the Conan music?
16. Why Why Why was this made? A big waste of time. Oh, Oh oh I have to add this one, what was the deal with the two gangsters having the guy in their car and him slamming heads and making like he was about to get away and then it just switches into them on the bridge running behind Romajin-Stamos and slapping her head and then throwing her over the bridge? And then shes in the water naked? What was that all about? A way to sell more posters and hand lotion? Was that a landing strip/pinstripe shave on her bush? I prefer a triangle myself, but then I don't sleep with supermodels.
Auteur theory is alive and well with De Palma
scoob-10 November 2002
Mr. De Palma is not a critics' darling, and as such his latest, Femme Fatale, has come in for his usual roasting. Is it deserved? Not if you love a film that embraces the visual splendour and techniques that make cinema a unique art form.
Femme Fatale sees De Palma returning to his forte: the suspense thriller. It is a welcome return considering his recent fare have seen him straying to more mainstream efforts - Mission to Mars, Mission: Impossible - that were shells of his virtuoso films of the late 70s and early 80s.
The film leads off with a stunning 20-minute Jewel heist sequence that takes place during the Cannes film festival of 2001. Completely bereft of dialogue, a la Topkapi, Rebecca Romijn-Stamos's character has the enviable task of lifting a diamond dress from Rie Rasmussun in a bathroom encounter. His first original screenplay in 10 years, De Palma writes a tightly-plotted tale that certainly does not lead the audience by the hand, and the resulting twists it provides will allow different perspectives on the film's events with repeat viewings.
Antonio Banderas - usually lost without cause if not working with Robert Rodriguez - does what he needs to do with efficiency; Romijn-Stamos, the Femme Fatale of the title, provides the eye candy. The acting is not top drawer, but it does not need to be: we're here to see an auteur in his element: De Palma delivers. Cinema is more than a stage with a camera - De Palma uses his camera and cinema technique to brilliant effect. Huge swooping camera movements, split-screen, slow motion sequences, no dialogue and an enveloping orchestral score; De Palma's signature is prevalent. And that is good: a director should never be an autonomous entity, happy to turn out derivative drivel that get the masses in and out - directors for hire are too commonplace in Hollywood today - and that is something that De Palma could never be accused of.
Femme Fatale is a great example of a director working in a genre he loves and understands, and given the freedom to create. Total cinema? Its smell is sure intoxicating. Welcome back, Mr. De Palma.
Femme Fatale sees De Palma returning to his forte: the suspense thriller. It is a welcome return considering his recent fare have seen him straying to more mainstream efforts - Mission to Mars, Mission: Impossible - that were shells of his virtuoso films of the late 70s and early 80s.
The film leads off with a stunning 20-minute Jewel heist sequence that takes place during the Cannes film festival of 2001. Completely bereft of dialogue, a la Topkapi, Rebecca Romijn-Stamos's character has the enviable task of lifting a diamond dress from Rie Rasmussun in a bathroom encounter. His first original screenplay in 10 years, De Palma writes a tightly-plotted tale that certainly does not lead the audience by the hand, and the resulting twists it provides will allow different perspectives on the film's events with repeat viewings.
Antonio Banderas - usually lost without cause if not working with Robert Rodriguez - does what he needs to do with efficiency; Romijn-Stamos, the Femme Fatale of the title, provides the eye candy. The acting is not top drawer, but it does not need to be: we're here to see an auteur in his element: De Palma delivers. Cinema is more than a stage with a camera - De Palma uses his camera and cinema technique to brilliant effect. Huge swooping camera movements, split-screen, slow motion sequences, no dialogue and an enveloping orchestral score; De Palma's signature is prevalent. And that is good: a director should never be an autonomous entity, happy to turn out derivative drivel that get the masses in and out - directors for hire are too commonplace in Hollywood today - and that is something that De Palma could never be accused of.
Femme Fatale is a great example of a director working in a genre he loves and understands, and given the freedom to create. Total cinema? Its smell is sure intoxicating. Welcome back, Mr. De Palma.
Better than expected
mm-3913 August 2003
Not a bad film, but is confusing and loses focus in parts. This film is European Chic and has nudity, and shock aspects. Parts of this film copies the European plot twists, what ifs, and style. Like many European Chic style films it's plot becomes too smart. Over all, I like this movie, but they could have cut 2 or 3 scenes out and tried to clear up some of the confusion. 7 out of 10
Style or no style, this movie remains confusingly bad.
Boba_Fett113818 October 2005
I'm an huge Brian De Palma fan but that doesn't in my opinion mean that he can just get away with everything. "Femme Fatale" is definitely style over substance but is just style enough to save this movie? Absolutely not.
Biggest problem with this movie is the script. It's unnecessary difficult to follow at times, including the ending. On top of that the story just isn't interesting enough. Also the main character is an huge failure. I'm not blaming ex-model Rebecca Romijn-Stamos her acting skills for this, I simply blame it on the script. Her character never becomes accessible or interesting and remains difficult to understand and follow throughout the movie. Antonio Banderas is simply miscast, the role simply doesn't fit him. Thankfully there also are some well casted parts in the movie. Peter Coyote is always good in a movie. It was also great to see Gregg Henry in a De Palma movie again, even though his role in this movie was quite pointless. Another strong piece of casting was the beautiful Rie Rasmussen who in her small role perhaps leaves the biggest impression of the entire movie.
It may sound weird but I still enjoy watching this movie, despite me rating it poorly. Like I said before I'm simply a big De Palma fan so there still is plenty to enjoy for me here. The beginning of the movie, 'the Cannes festival heist' is extremely good and memorable and has De Palma his style written all over it. De Palma can build the tension in a movie like no other director can, even though the whole sequences reminded a bit too much of the other De Palma movie "Mission:Impossible". To be honest De Palma never has been the most original director in the business but the scenes are simply always constructed so well and are so highly memorable that you'll always forgive him for not being terribly original.
However in this case style alone is not good enough to save this movie. The movie leaves a messy, confusing impression afterward, which is simply due to the poor written story that 'tries too hard to be difficult' at times.
For De Palma fans it simply still remains a must see but everyone else can better skip this one, or should stop watching after the 'Cannes' opening sequence.
4/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
Biggest problem with this movie is the script. It's unnecessary difficult to follow at times, including the ending. On top of that the story just isn't interesting enough. Also the main character is an huge failure. I'm not blaming ex-model Rebecca Romijn-Stamos her acting skills for this, I simply blame it on the script. Her character never becomes accessible or interesting and remains difficult to understand and follow throughout the movie. Antonio Banderas is simply miscast, the role simply doesn't fit him. Thankfully there also are some well casted parts in the movie. Peter Coyote is always good in a movie. It was also great to see Gregg Henry in a De Palma movie again, even though his role in this movie was quite pointless. Another strong piece of casting was the beautiful Rie Rasmussen who in her small role perhaps leaves the biggest impression of the entire movie.
It may sound weird but I still enjoy watching this movie, despite me rating it poorly. Like I said before I'm simply a big De Palma fan so there still is plenty to enjoy for me here. The beginning of the movie, 'the Cannes festival heist' is extremely good and memorable and has De Palma his style written all over it. De Palma can build the tension in a movie like no other director can, even though the whole sequences reminded a bit too much of the other De Palma movie "Mission:Impossible". To be honest De Palma never has been the most original director in the business but the scenes are simply always constructed so well and are so highly memorable that you'll always forgive him for not being terribly original.
However in this case style alone is not good enough to save this movie. The movie leaves a messy, confusing impression afterward, which is simply due to the poor written story that 'tries too hard to be difficult' at times.
For De Palma fans it simply still remains a must see but everyone else can better skip this one, or should stop watching after the 'Cannes' opening sequence.
4/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
"Style over Substance" works here
argv6 November 2002
Warning: Spoilers
`Femme Fatale' is Brian De Palma's latest foray into the challenging, but artful world of contemporary film noir. The genre is not new to De Palma's repertoire, but this one was a particularly difficult undertaking, due to its complex mix of cinematography, genre interplays, character profiles, and plot development. I have extremely mixed feelings about the film because where it succeeds, it does so extraordinarily well, but where it fails is too important to the overall quality of the film. I felt more saddened that De Palma, who wrote and directed it, didn't just choose less loftier goals and come out with a much stronger piece.
The plot revolves around an alluring seductress, Rebecca Romijn-Stamos, who leads a life of crime, but leaves it abruptly and unintentionally when circumstances give her a new lease on life as a respectable married woman. All's well, till her identity is revealed when a two-bit paparazzi, played by Antonio Banderas, brings her past and present together again, making for an explosive interplay of human character and dramatic plot twists.
I confess that the above plotline is grossly oversimplified, but I stop short of apologizing for it, because the plot itself is the least important aspect of `Femme Fatale.' Logistics are loose at best, but as the final scenes play out, the plot seems relatively unimportant compared to the much stronger elements of the film. The movie blends styles ranging from French independent films' European use of female personas and erotic sensuality, to American cult genres, such as Pulp Fiction or Twin Peaks, with its use of musical counterpoint. There are intensely mature scenes involving more explicit sexual innuendo, as well as sophisticated cinematic photography that plays with color, shadow and texture. Much of the production involved such intimate attention to this stylistic detail, it carries the film. Most well-versed film-goers are sure to appreciate and relish in the varied themes presented here.
The characters in the film are compelling, although two-dimensional, through and through. At first, I considered this a weak point, but when the filmmaker's intentions of style and mood became more clear, I reluctantly acknowledged that stronger characters would have drawn the focus away from the film's more abstract aesthetic qualities. Noire films are often more about style than plot, and the characters are often frustratingly under-explained, not that I necessarily support this aspect of this otherwise fine genre. It's the `contemporary' part that adds the additional dimension of abstraction that demands less from the characters than what we think we want to see. This odd paradox is exactly why I felt the plot was too strong, despite its logistical problems. Had the sequence of events been even less important, I would have found it much easier to bathe in the visual, audible and other aesthetic qualities of the movie.
To that end, `Femme Fatale' is clearly form over substance, which may not appeal to the more casual viewer looking for something reminiscent of previous De Palma mainstream blockbusters, such as `Mission: Impossible.' This film cannot be critiqued with a simple view, and I wish I had hours more to discuss its more intricate nuances, but even still, to recommend for or against seeing it is something I find more difficult than reviewing it.
The plot revolves around an alluring seductress, Rebecca Romijn-Stamos, who leads a life of crime, but leaves it abruptly and unintentionally when circumstances give her a new lease on life as a respectable married woman. All's well, till her identity is revealed when a two-bit paparazzi, played by Antonio Banderas, brings her past and present together again, making for an explosive interplay of human character and dramatic plot twists.
I confess that the above plotline is grossly oversimplified, but I stop short of apologizing for it, because the plot itself is the least important aspect of `Femme Fatale.' Logistics are loose at best, but as the final scenes play out, the plot seems relatively unimportant compared to the much stronger elements of the film. The movie blends styles ranging from French independent films' European use of female personas and erotic sensuality, to American cult genres, such as Pulp Fiction or Twin Peaks, with its use of musical counterpoint. There are intensely mature scenes involving more explicit sexual innuendo, as well as sophisticated cinematic photography that plays with color, shadow and texture. Much of the production involved such intimate attention to this stylistic detail, it carries the film. Most well-versed film-goers are sure to appreciate and relish in the varied themes presented here.
The characters in the film are compelling, although two-dimensional, through and through. At first, I considered this a weak point, but when the filmmaker's intentions of style and mood became more clear, I reluctantly acknowledged that stronger characters would have drawn the focus away from the film's more abstract aesthetic qualities. Noire films are often more about style than plot, and the characters are often frustratingly under-explained, not that I necessarily support this aspect of this otherwise fine genre. It's the `contemporary' part that adds the additional dimension of abstraction that demands less from the characters than what we think we want to see. This odd paradox is exactly why I felt the plot was too strong, despite its logistical problems. Had the sequence of events been even less important, I would have found it much easier to bathe in the visual, audible and other aesthetic qualities of the movie.
To that end, `Femme Fatale' is clearly form over substance, which may not appeal to the more casual viewer looking for something reminiscent of previous De Palma mainstream blockbusters, such as `Mission: Impossible.' This film cannot be critiqued with a simple view, and I wish I had hours more to discuss its more intricate nuances, but even still, to recommend for or against seeing it is something I find more difficult than reviewing it.
Too sophisticated for most American Audiences
j_mongoose28 May 2003
Warning: Spoilers
[Major spoilers in Review]
Unfortunately, most American audiences will probably not appreciate this thriller as a dark, edgy thriller sans explosions, loud sound-track, and dream-sequence.
But the film is worth viewing several times to pick up the plot twists and subtle recurring themes: such as falling and running water. Then you'll notice characters (such as the husband) in earlier and inconsequential parts that is later placed in her dream engram.
For those who enjoy film noire's, you'll appreciate the classic "double endemnity" playing on a tv screen as the opening credits roll and segues into the opening scene. It's a nice parallel between that movie and the one that the viewer is watching.
Nicely done
Unfortunately, most American audiences will probably not appreciate this thriller as a dark, edgy thriller sans explosions, loud sound-track, and dream-sequence.
But the film is worth viewing several times to pick up the plot twists and subtle recurring themes: such as falling and running water. Then you'll notice characters (such as the husband) in earlier and inconsequential parts that is later placed in her dream engram.
For those who enjoy film noire's, you'll appreciate the classic "double endemnity" playing on a tv screen as the opening credits roll and segues into the opening scene. It's a nice parallel between that movie and the one that the viewer is watching.
Nicely done
Great opening sequence; downhill from there
FlickMan22 December 2002
Warning: Spoilers
WARNING: SPOILERS!!!! "Femme Fatale" is a frustrating movie.
On some levels, it's very good; the "heist" sequence in the
beginning is beautifully produced and holds your interest, but the
middle third drags and the "twist" ending is not quite as "twisty" as
we'd like. There are numerous clues throughout the movie that
something is amiss -- watch the clocks -- but when the "surprise"
is revealed, it seems tacked-on. Rebecca Romijn-Stamos is sexy;
Antonio Banderas is adequate as the "guy caught in the web" and
the overall feel of the movie has DePalma's usual faux-Hitchcock
look. Not one of the great ones, but worth watching, especially if
you like to look at scantily-clad babes! 7/10
On some levels, it's very good; the "heist" sequence in the
beginning is beautifully produced and holds your interest, but the
middle third drags and the "twist" ending is not quite as "twisty" as
we'd like. There are numerous clues throughout the movie that
something is amiss -- watch the clocks -- but when the "surprise"
is revealed, it seems tacked-on. Rebecca Romijn-Stamos is sexy;
Antonio Banderas is adequate as the "guy caught in the web" and
the overall feel of the movie has DePalma's usual faux-Hitchcock
look. Not one of the great ones, but worth watching, especially if
you like to look at scantily-clad babes! 7/10
Style to Burn
Scottie-39 November 2002
Brian De Palma's "Femme Fatale" is a very twisty erotic thriller. His
best films ("Dressed to Kill," "Blow Out") channeled the spirit of
Hitchcock, and this one joins that list. This is a movie buff's dream,
packed with references to other great thrillers ("Double Indemnity,"
"Rear Window," "Vertigo," and several others I won't name), and
made with fantastic technique. I could sense that De Palma had
an absolute blast making this movie. There are split screens,
slow-motion, lengthy tracking shots, gorgeous crane shots... he
uses just about every trick in the book in service of a story that will
keep you guessing right up until the end. This is bravura
filmmaking, and great fun to watch.
best films ("Dressed to Kill," "Blow Out") channeled the spirit of
Hitchcock, and this one joins that list. This is a movie buff's dream,
packed with references to other great thrillers ("Double Indemnity,"
"Rear Window," "Vertigo," and several others I won't name), and
made with fantastic technique. I could sense that De Palma had
an absolute blast making this movie. There are split screens,
slow-motion, lengthy tracking shots, gorgeous crane shots... he
uses just about every trick in the book in service of a story that will
keep you guessing right up until the end. This is bravura
filmmaking, and great fun to watch.
good naked women, bad plot
roxboyd15 February 2004
The overall movie sucked a big one, but how can you care about the plot when Rebecca Romijn-Stamos is stripping. Her and the other girl making out in the bathroom would have been good enough to film for two hours and calling it a movie, but no. They actuallly had to act out a plot. That is what made it bad.
A masterpiece
magobbo13 June 2003
As I read the comments I can't help wonder how is it possible nobody thought this movie is an essay on cinema as well as a re-read of De Palma's own creations and obsessions. The questions on the board suggest that almost nobody pay attention even to the plot. 21 years before, "Blow Out", De Palma's most transparent reference to cinema craftsmanship and the relations between cinema and reality, and, what is most important, to cinema as knowledge (or even revelation), merged from an almost hopeless vision of the world: at the end of the film, Jack Terry, the character played by Travolta, had found the truth, but the price he paid for it is loneliness and madness maybe (just like Hackman at the end of Coppola's "The Conversation"); revelation is for him a sort of curse as he lost his second chance (one of the director's recurrent themes) as far as reality made the grade with its web of lies and corruption. "Femme fatale" shows that De Palma get older and wiser: even though reality is as corrupted and plenty of lies as two decades before, his faith on cinema as knowledge (what is cinema but a dream?) is stronger than then. He also has change his point of view about women. This turn, that started with "Carlito's Way" and even more on "Snake Eyes", is evident here, as he shows his own change of mind through a character that goes from his old kind of female character to the new one. (And those who wonder about the snake, read the Bible --Genesis.) At the very beginning of the movie, Laure's reflection on the tv screen reunites she and Barbara Stanwyck as the summa and the evolution of the femme fatale kind of character. That "DOUBLE indemnity" starts a game of doubles along the movie. Later, when the character of Lily appears, there's a choice to be made: Laure (of course, the reference is to Preminger's "Laura" though the film pays clearer homage to Hitchock's "Vertigo") has to decide to became Phyllis Dietrichson or to became Lily. The "dream strategy" is full of risk; in fact, when a writer/director uses it as a solution, the task is condemned to failure. But De Palma uses it masterfully, because dream is not a solution but a way: there are ten minutes of movie left after it to give that "dream strategy" a new sense and a justification that any film ever gave. As I wrote before, that dream is built as a movie watch by both audience and Laure. But the collage made by Banderas character is also a movie: a frame by frame (or scene by scene) construction of a reality that is out-of-time of that reality. De Palma, at the end of the film, tell us: that is what cinema is made of -different scenes shot under diverse lights in separate times, joined under one look and put together to make sense. We, as spectators, are the ones that can contemplate that work finished, and this final revelation, as the one at the end of "Citizen Kane", ask us to be able to join the pieces and reach knowledge cinema can give. There is a lot to write about this movie; these are only silly notes compared to the type of study "Femme Fatale" deserves. For those who are not interested on analysing a movie and just want to know if they will have fun watching it, I can only say that you can enjoyed the movie, with its twists and its suspense, even if you don't notice what I am talking about. "Femme Fatale" is an underrated masterpiece. Long live Brian De Palma (even if he has to live in France).
great director
boodani4 February 2003
sexy women, complicated turn of events, violence and good camera work.. this is definitely a brian de palma movie. Although his previous work is much better, my all time favorite is still scarface, this movie is one of his best lately. Kuddos to the lesbian scene(the best thing in the movie)! Rebecca Romijn-Stamos isnt a great actress but fits nicely in the role, although i prefer the character more in the begining. In fact, the movie is great in the begining.. its a very good sequence, but as the time goes it tends to lose its glow and become not so great. Antonio banderas i wont even comment because i hate the guy and the supporting actors just do their job. The story is nice, but has predictable "surprises". really the only thing in this movie which is above average is the director. This movie has excellent camera work. Overall, average movie, good director= $$$ out of $$$$$
A classic of its kind...
id24716 November 2002
Just when you thought Brian De Palma had got as low as he could, along comes Femme Fatale, a film so bad it's quite brilliant. If you thought previous efforts like Raising Cain and Body Double reached new levels of absurdity, trust me they were just dress rehearsals for Femme Fatale.
Any film which has in its opening moments a lesbian sex scene combined with a jewellery heist in the toilets of the Cannes Film Festival surely signals more bad taste scenes to come, and yes ole Brian doesn't disappoint. The longer the film went on the more the audience laughed, with dialogue usually reserved for porn films - " I don't want you to kiss my ass, just f*** it' - you know you're onto a winner.
The final 15 minutes provided more laughs than any comedy for many a year, surely De Palma's career can only go in one direction, it can't get much lower than this - can it?
I have to give Femme Fatale ten out of ten for all the wrong reasons - truly a classic.
Any film which has in its opening moments a lesbian sex scene combined with a jewellery heist in the toilets of the Cannes Film Festival surely signals more bad taste scenes to come, and yes ole Brian doesn't disappoint. The longer the film went on the more the audience laughed, with dialogue usually reserved for porn films - " I don't want you to kiss my ass, just f*** it' - you know you're onto a winner.
The final 15 minutes provided more laughs than any comedy for many a year, surely De Palma's career can only go in one direction, it can't get much lower than this - can it?
I have to give Femme Fatale ten out of ten for all the wrong reasons - truly a classic.
W O W
jaredd2 February 2020
First I have to say is: Stamos let this get away? What's wrong with that guy? In this film Rebecca Romijn will catch your screen on fire, guaranteed.
I really don't understand the low rating on this film. It really is VERY good in almost every metric that you might use to review it. A solid product and very entertaining throughout.
I really don't understand the low rating on this film. It really is VERY good in almost every metric that you might use to review it. A solid product and very entertaining throughout.
Not great but good try
Penoyer127 June 2003
A director of this caliber should have done better. Nice idea but the devices used in this film were far too obvious. One saving grace of the film is that the female lead is truely smoking hot and does a nice job of acting the role, but the mechanics of putting the movie together felt too much like a film school project (clearly an "A" but still a project). Overall, worthwhile but a little disappointing given the potential here.
WOW ... that sucked
Mac Styran1 February 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I can't believe that I just wasted 100 minutes of my life watching this drivel.
Bad music, bad acting, bad camera, BAD BAD BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD story.
Plot holes? No, there simply WAS NO PLOT.
*MILD SPOILERS*
And as much as I like twists ... the end twist is simply fraud.
Not that it promises anything in the first place though.
*End of Spoilers*
DO NOT WATCH.
YOU'LL REGRET IT. HONESTLY.
Bad music, bad acting, bad camera, BAD BAD BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD story.
Plot holes? No, there simply WAS NO PLOT.
*MILD SPOILERS*
And as much as I like twists ... the end twist is simply fraud.
Not that it promises anything in the first place though.
*End of Spoilers*
DO NOT WATCH.
YOU'LL REGRET IT. HONESTLY.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
