Passion (2012) Poster

(2012)

User Reviews

Review this title
128 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Not that passionate
IndustriousAngel3 July 2013
This is just an OK film which means it's a bit disappointing from a director who has a reputation. It works as a - not very thrilling - thriller, and Noomi Rapace does a good performance. Plus the film delivers some intense scenes and good photography in front of very cool, emotionally empty sets.

What doesn't work so good: It starts as a kind of 21st century version of an 80s erotic thriller, but never gets erotic. In fact, the title is ridiculous, because it never even gets passionate - everybody tries to be in control and nothing happens instinctively or out of reflex. (The slow, controlled ballet sequence strengthens this impression). Also, Rachel McAdams is good at bitchy, but I couldn't believe in her as a tough enterprise lady. And finally, the twist, when it finally came, was exactly what was hinted at ...
48 out of 62 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
It's OK
utgard1410 November 2013
Watchable De Palma time killer that borrows heavily from the director's earlier works...which in turn borrowed heavily from Alfred Hitchcock. Whole lot of borrowing going on. Still, that has little to do with judging how entertaining the film is and more about judging its artistic value.

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

Still, it's an entertaining enough movie. Not De Palma's best but far better than his last two films.
34 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
very much a DePalma movie
lee_eisenberg14 January 2014
I had grown disappointed with Brian DePalma throughout the 1990s and 2000s. The man who gave us "Phantom of the Paradise", "Carrie", "Dressed to Kill", "Scarface" and "Carlito's Way"* suddenly turned to overblown stuff like "Mission: Impossible", "Snake Eyes" and "The Black Dahlia". So it's a little bit of a treat to see "Passion". It's not as good as his early work, but the tension between the main characters is definitely what I hope for in one of his movies. In fact, DePalma tricks the audience by getting them to think that it's a clash-of-egos story...before the real plot line sets in. Far from her perky roles in previous movies, Rachel McAdams plays a scary executive. The viewer practically wishes for Noomi Rapace's character to do something nasty.

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

*For the record, I didn't think that "Bonfire of the Vanities" was that bad.
29 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The narrator goes mad
chaos-rampant20 June 2013
DePalma's first film in five years is purely for the fans, a throwback to his sensual thrillers of old; Sisters, Obsession, Dressed to Kill. So right off the bat, this probably excludes the majority of casual viewers who will find this too messy and too illogical to be of substance. Younger viewers who simply pick this off a website, will probably see the visual tricks he pulls as weird, lame stabs on ordinary technique.

The problem is that DePalma has not changed as a filmmaker, it's the film norm that has absorbed and extended so much visual language that was considered somewhat radical in his time, so when Tony Scott films are marketed as ordinary action, of course he'll seem far less sophisticated. Same thing happened with Hitchcock near the end, when guys like DePalma where coming out.

But oh what sweet, sweet DePalmaesque inanity this is!

What DePalma is saying is always in the camera. He seems to say: this is a movie, the result of illusory placement of the eye, so why not go wild on placement? Also: the eye, by its very nature, causes narrative dislocation. He is intelligent, not in what the dislocations mean but in the fact they are shown to be at work, which now and then fool as depth in just the same way they fool the characters.

You'll see all sorts of fooling the eye here. The car crash in the company garage, first filmed as dramatic with lachrymose piano cues and the second time as comedy. Scenes filmed with dutch angles and unusual shadows to register as dream but they are real. A split-screen that lies about its timeline. A scene set-up to be viewed as hallucinative dream but it's a flash back. And later we know it was an untrusted narration.

Many others will make a more streamlined, more exciting thriller, but no one is so committed to expose cinematic illusion like DePalma. He doesn't hit deep, because the illusion is not wrapped around character but around plot, that is always the tradeoff with him. A tradeoff I am willing to make, because I can find more introspective filmmakers elsewhere. There is Wong Kar Wai, Shunji Iwai. Lynch, who brings illusion alive.

But then you have an ending like this. It is utterly nonsensical as story, but the narrator has fooled us so much we'll fool ourselves thinking it's more than madness.
92 out of 115 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
unintentionally hilarious.
Greenzombidog2 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Advertising execs stab each other in the back over their careers and a an average looking cockney scrub in this mediocre pantomime thriller.

Rachel Mcadams is given the opportunity to prove she is more than just a rom-com princess in the role of the manipulative boss lady to Noomi Rapace's Ad campaign creator, an opportunity she squanders. It's not entirely her fault though with such a terrible script to work with there wasn't a lot she could do. Noomi Rapace is dreadful, for me she hasn't yet been convincing in an English language role and she is just either wooden or over the top in this. The plot twists are visible with your eyes closed and nothing will be a surprise. The only thing that kept me watching were the laughs and this isn't a comedy. Some of the dialogue is so stupid I just kept feeling my jaw drop.

When Rachel Mcadams tells a tragic story from her characters childhood and her and Noomi Rapace are just sat there sobbing it actually made me laugh because the acting was so terrible and the words they were saying were so poorly written. Add to this the amount of times you get one of those suddenly waking up from a dream moments (a cheap movie trick thats overused) that the film becomes a bit of a mess. So much of this is poor even down to the add campaign that triggers the war between these two women. Their clients are in such raptures over this dreadful idea that it's ridiculous. Also the rough looking guy they chose to play the love interest adds another comedy element to it. Why would these two attractive successful women be tearing each other apart over this guy?

I'm sure I read on some of the advertising that this was supposed to be an erotic thriller. There were no erotic moments in this film anywhere. I think someone pulled a dildo out a drawer at some point and there was a lesbian smooch thats all the eroticism you get I'm afraid.

I can't believe this was directed by De Palma. I have enjoyed many of his films in the past and I hope this is just a blip and not the shape of the things to come
113 out of 171 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Very puzzling ending
Pinouchipop17 February 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I found it very good, but the ending very puzzling. I felt "I tought I was an intelligent person, but it seems I am not enough to understand this"...

I d'ID not get the bit about the twin and then waking from yet an OTHER dream, while the lesbian lover was still lying dead on the floor...

I searched for an explaination, here, but did not find any. Am I dumb? I did'nt get the last bit.....
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
All style, no passion
avenuesf17 June 2013
Hard to believe Brian dePalma has sunk this low. The film is boring, dreadfully scripted, and looks like a long perfume commercial. Real people just don't dress and look like this; DePalma seemed to be heading toward this stylized, air-brushed Playboy magazine look when he made "Dressed to Kill," and it's gotten progressively worse with each film, except "The Untouchables." "Passion's" script starts out to be about two female executives vying for the same account, and then goes off in five different directions. He toys with gratuitous lesbianism in some segments, which might have been bold and sexy in the 70's and 80's, but now just comes off looking dated and embarrassing. The film's 100 minutes could easily have been pared down to 20 and it would have been more interesting and less ponderous. A real disappointment.
106 out of 161 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Cross between a late-night made-for-cable movie and a European art film
film5414 September 2012
Saw this one at the Toronto International Film Festival, it's a cross between a late night made for cable movie and a European art film. The cinematography is great, lots of inventive shots. Actually, nearly every shot is a winner. The musical score can

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

None of it is meant to be taken too seriously. The Anyone who liked Basic Instinct, Fatal Attraction or De Palma's own Dressed to Kill will be into this movie.
54 out of 100 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Ridiculous Remake - Watch "Crime d'amour" Instead
claudio_carvalho27 April 2014
"Passion" is a ridiculous remake of the great French thriller "Crime d'amour". The screenplay uses the same storyline and has minors but significant modifications when compared to the original movie that spoils the movie. The scene of the murder of Christine in the original movie is unbeatable. The police investigation of the evidences is very poor in this remake. The conclusion is awful. The decadent Brian De Palma still uses split screen technique but without any brilliance. The two lead actresses of the original movie, Kristin Scott Thomas and Ludivine Sagnier, are wonderful and their duel is engaging. However, Rachel McAdams never convinces as an executive and looks like a vulgar woman. My vote is two.

Title (Brazil): "Passion"
36 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A problematic entertainment, but manageable
Rodrigo_Amaro14 August 2013
What was that, anyway? An exhilarating suspense carried with style but lacking in content or an intriguing whodunit that seems to live and breathe with sensuality but it's just a giant tease to cause some stir in the audience? De Palma's awaited return "Passion" has him returning to his days of "Dressed to Kill" and "Sisters" with a touch of "Basic Instinct" (this one directed by Paul Verhoeven) but failing in all accounts to look like any of those. Not only the man is out of ideas by remaking this (the original is a French film), he's also completely lost and confuse and the latter spread fast among us viewers so accustomed to see him completely in charge of what's he doing, always referencing the master of suspense and trying some innovations.

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

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

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

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

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

"Passion" lacks of sensuality, eroticism and excitement; its only advantage is to be a little more bold in the kissing department. In the end it's just a minor suspense, almost embarrassing considering who's involved and it's time for him to move on to another direction, trade of genre once and for all. It generates interest, a little entertaining but nothing we can be passionate about. 6/10
17 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
May as well watch the French original
greenjeep9261 March 2014
DePalma must have made this on a lark as it was pretty weak. Some of the shots are stellar, classic Depalma, especially with the use of streaks of bright color on Christine and some of the angles and hard shadows. The casting of Rachael McAdams as Christine was a huge mistake as it is impossible for anyone who saw the original Love Crimes to not compare her to the French Christine. McAdams' character was too young and girly, lacking the poise, command and sophistication required for a person in a position of Christine's. This movie moved too fast and did not explore the psychology of the characters with the necessary patience nor did it pace the plot properly. Noomi Rapace was good, but this is no surprise. Do yourself a favor and see the original, as the acting is far more superb, and it is casted and paced much better. It will not be ruined one bit by seeing Passion beforehand.
17 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Fantastic movie!
Med-Jasta20 March 2020
I am a De Palma fan as much as I can be. He's got a bunch of misses out there but the hits hit hard. Passion brought the great De Palma quality that we haven't seen in a long time. Felt Hitchcock without ripping off Hitch.

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

The plot develops very nicely and you don't really know where it's headed. Nice to see a movie that was actually well crafted. No camera tricks or anything really flashy. De Palma uses his years of experience to put the camera in the right place and cut at the right time.
13 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Diabolical & Lurid Noir
larrys312 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Brian De Palma's latest is his version of the 2010 French film "Love Crime", starring Kristin Scott Thomas and Ludivine Sagnier, and directed by Alain Corneau. I found De Palma's movie to be a diabolical and lurid noir enhanced by fine performances. I looked back in my reviews and saw that I gave "Love Crime" the same rating as this new version.

Rachel McAdams is superb as Christine, the vicious and conniving sociopath, who's into kinky sex, and will let no one stand in her way when she desires something, either in her office or personal life. She's the boss of a branch of an international advertising firm.

Noomi Rapace portrays Isabelle,, Christine's top Account Executive at the company. When Chrisitne takes credit for a popular new advertising campaign that Isabelle and her assistant Dani, also strongly portrayed by Karoline Herfurth, had created, Isabelle retaliates by posting a youtube version of the ad (which goes viral) taking proper credit.

This sets off a "war" between Christine and Isabelle that will escalate into all kinds of sabotage and eventually murder. I should mention also that a sub-plot here has Paul Anderson, as Dirk, who has embezzled 5 million euros from the firm and who's playing sexual games with both Chrisitine and Isabelle, at his own risk it turns out.

Unfortunately, I thought De Palma's ending here was confusing and marred the film somewhat for me. I can see by most reviews that this movie is not for everyone but I found it to be, overall, an engrossing and erotic journey that kept my attention throughout.
12 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
silly spite and pointless rejoinders
eumenades3 July 2013
Have you ever wondered how it is possible to identify a rubbishy movie within the first 20 seconds of dialog? It is simply amazing how fast a crap script writer can get fatuous nauseating inane notions across in such a short time; something that should surely be speculated upon in film schools during the first semester. And we sure have one here: silly spite, pointless rejoinders, phony regrets, token-lesbianism, sleazy egoism; all in one pointless, plot less string of malicious banalities that makes melodramatic 50s B movies look like literary fiction. Have you ever wondered why, even when given a million dollar budget, movie makers will waste such an opportunity on a string of clichés and bland story development that would embarrass your thirteen-year-old daughter and bore your cat? It is surely a wonder. And a wonder that movie audiences would put up with such drivel and not walk out.

Well, I did. And it took me an hour to recover my composure.
55 out of 94 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What an awful movie
philipnagle18 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Terrible movie. Cant believe how bad this was. Its very rare that I leave the cinema mid way through a movie but for this I willingly made an exception. The acting was really bad, the script was horrendous, really bad! I only joined IMDb.com so that I can write a review of this movie - thats how bad this movie was! I thought that there was a very disappointing performance from Noomi, I thought she would be better. I thought Paul Anderson was also completely bad too and his name deserves a special mention for how awful his performance was. Some completely ridiculous bits in the movie which beggars belief as to how it was accomplished. Such a pity that Brian De Palma was involved in this movie, I'm sure there was lots of squirming at the premiere when it became apparent how bad this movie actually was...
48 out of 88 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Shade You Became
tieman6426 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Brian DePalma's "Passion" opens on the vulgar lid of an Apple computer. We then pulls back to reveal the equally vulgar Christine (Rachel McAdams) and Isabelle (Noomi Rapace). Christine, made up to resemble Tippi Hedren in Hitchcock's "Marnie", is an advertising executive. Isabelle's her assistant. In traditional DePalma fashion, both work with and sell images. They're seated in an antiseptic living room – corporate minimalism meets IKEA chic – every corner white, bland and soulless. The film's title, "Passion", then appears before dispassionate furniture, behind which are paintings, each with nymphets fawning over a third character. After complimenting each other on their "excellent taste", Christine and Isabelle spit out "organic wine" in disgust. To these two, nothing tastes better than plastic.

Enter Dirk (Paul Anderson), Christine's lover. Narcissistic, Christine forces Dirk to wear a mask of her own face whilst having sex. Later it becomes apparent that Christine has sexual relationships with an army of men, all submissive, some wearing dog collars and masks. "I'm tired of being admired," she admits, "now I need love!" The act of watching and admiring is itself the basis of an advertisement Christine and Isabelle are working on. With customary DePalma self-reflexivity, this advertisement involves a camera eye watching as spectators watch and admire it. Equally salacious is the name of Christine's company: Koch Image. Kinky.

Several "love" triangles develop. Christine wants Isabelle, her assistant, as does Dani (Karoline Herfurth), Isabelle's assistant. Bouncing between them is Dirk, everyone's plaything. These jealousies lead to a game of escalating savagery which, new for DePalma, unfolds amidst an environment of glittering fetish objects, the totems of a material and ego-driven culture. The film itself is based on Alain Corneau's "Love Crime", but DePalma's changed Corneau's central relationship. Corneau's plot hinged on a simple mother/daughter, old/young, dominant/submissive relationship. DePalma, however, paints Isabelle and Christine as equals, sisters, doubles, lovers, both the same age and both equally competent, intellectually and professionally.

This being DePalma, "Passion" is obsessed with eyes, cameras and voyeurs. Isabelle and Christine battle over ownership of a camera-phone advertisement, it's a sex tape recorded with a camera-phone which leads to Isabelle's plot to kill Christine and it's a camera-phone which will later incriminate her. Each act, then, hinges on the ownership of a camera, and the power that comes from being either watcher or the watched.

"Passion" is condemned for a last act dream sequence in which Dani is murdered, but the "dreams" start much earlier, possibly as early as "Passion's" first act. At the very latest, things break down roughly forty minutes into the film when, at 11:49, Isabelle overdoses on pills after being publicly humiliated (by CCTV footage). What follows is a series of sequences in which Isabelle kills, or fantasises about killing, Christine. She then wakes up at 12:49 and is sent to a jail cell. When she wakes up she's still in her bedroom, however, and its 11:49. She then goes back to sleep, at which point she's once again in prison. Moments later, it's 11:04. In other words, Dani's murder isn't the only murder which "doesn't necessarily occur".

DePalma's films have always "obeyed" dream logic OUTSIDE their overt dream sequences. Here we have repeated references to the myth of Medusa and "The Afternoon of a Faun", a poem by Stephane Mallarme about a faun who wakes up from his afternoon sleep and fantasises, whilst awake, about several nymphs who are "tinted by passion". This nebulous, dreamlike poem takes the reader through different levels of consciousness, until the lines between reality, dream, and memory become indistinguishable. The ballet (and Claude Debussy orchestral) of this poem occurs during DePalma's film (during Christine's "murder", no less), and portrays a man awaking from sleep and watching a nymph who in turn becomes aware of a watcher who is about to slay her.

This symbolic slaying within the ballet then becomes Isabelle's "decapitation" of Christine outside of the ballet, one of several of DePalma's references to the Medusa myth (a literal Medusa appears in Isabelle's cell). In this myth, Medusa, one of three sisters, is decapitated to protect and free a woman named Danae. The character of Dani, incidentally, does not appear in Corneau's film, and is entirely an invention of DePalma's. Other symbolic moments abound: the black screen before the ballet becomes the screen hiding the watcher of Christine's murder, women's shoes reappear, a police detective "forgets to apologise" after Isabelle insists that he "wont stop apologising", a phone which will "incriminate" is hidden where a scarf "which will prove innocence" was hidden etc etc.

DePalma's films often find women abused by the foot-soldiers of patriarchy. Ignoring "Carrie", "Passion" is the only DePalma flick to dwell on woman on woman violence. Significantly, both "Carrie" and Hitchcock's "Marnie" feature a daughter who wants to break free of a mother. "Passion" charts a similar course, with each of its three females at different points embodying the maternal role. The split screens in "Carrie", which occurred when our hero undergoes a kind of inter-subjective split (and social split), occurs again in "Passion", DePalma's screen splitting at the precise moment Isabelle is "split" into both good girl and bad, one a doe-eyed observer, the other an active killer.

"Passion" finds DePalma re-teaming with composer Pino Donaggio. Donaggio offers one good song here ("Perversions and Diversions", evocative of "Body Double's" "Telescope"), but it's woefully underused by DePalma. The film opens with a reversal of "Femme Fatale's" (another film with dreams signalled by clocks) opening and ends with a repeat of "Raising Caine's" climax, itself lifted from Argento's "Tenebrae".

8/10 - Burnt by the reception to two of his best films ("Dahlia" and "Redacted"), "Passion" finds DePalma returning to familiar, less ambitious territory. See Olivier Assayas' "Demonlover". Worth two viewings.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Twisted Story Told Without Passion
themissingpatient20 July 2013
Brian De Palma returns with a remake of a 2010 french thriller, Crime d'amour (Love Crime), now renamed Passion. It stars Rachel McAdams and everyone's newest favorite actress, Noomi Rapace, who we all feel in-love with for being the original Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. They are work colleagues and we witness the beginning of what becomes a rivalry between them that spirals out of control until one of them is left dead.

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

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

Passion is a fun, twisted little story that is told without any real passion. A low-budget we can look past, this just feels cheap.
12 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
It's not only bad. It's worse than Joe Eszterhas bad.
Valmont7422 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
What ever happened to Brian De Palma, the great film maker who gave us contemporary classics such as Carrie, Dressed to Kill, Blow Out, Body Double, Scarface, The Untouchables and Carlito's Way?

Did he make a pact with the Devil to gain success in the '70s and '80s, and now he's got to pay the price? Or did he ask his friend Francis Ford Coppola for career advice?

Brian De Palma's career started going south with Snake Eyes and Mission to Mars and was cemented with the all time low Femme Fatale.

Well, that was until the complete mess that is also known as Passion (2012). This film is utter rubbish from start to finish and I felt bad for Noomi Rapace who really tries to do the best with the terrible script she's been handed.

The story, if one can call it such, focuses around two business women. One is sleeping with the other one's boyfriend, the other get back at her by messing with her career-wise etc. I will not go into spoiler territory, but it feels like De Palma loses his way completely in the third act and desperately tries to evoke some of the style he used in the '70s and '80s but he misses his goal completely.

Passion (2012) isn't even "so bad it's good" like the hilarious '90s work of Joe Eszterhas (Showgirls (1995), Jade (1995), Sliver (1993) - in that order), nor remotely charming in it's cluelessness. It's just an all-around stinker.
13 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Great movie, with a twist!
ajwinslow-13 February 2019
Great movie, could have been more suspenseful but had a nice twist at the end. I've been a Brian DePalma fan since the early 80's. He seemed to channel his inner Alfred Hitchcock this time, especially at the end. Rachel McAdams, Noomi Rapace and Karoline Herfurth work well together, I'd like to see all three in something else in the future.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Please, lets go home.
jartuka20 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I like Brian de Palma, but this movie is actually one of the worse movies that I have seen in the Cinema these last years. Why? Of course there are worse movies but at least they don't sell the trailers like these ones are going to be awesome. Passion was sell with a "sexual" and "Passion" content and when you arrive to the movie you cannot wait to have one of these words, and you finally go out of the room without having any of them. Basically there is more mysterious and sexual content in Showgirls or Bound that in this movie. If you want to enjoy your "Brian de Palma feeling" (if you have it) don't watch this movie or your idea about him will change. I just want that these type of scripts stops to pop up in this Industry because seriously, they will kill the idea of enjoying a movie and the only thing that we will feel is (when is this finishing? I want to go home).
27 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Brian de Palma gets back to what he does best
brchthethird14 November 2014
Despite being tonally inconsistent and silly at times, it's a (somewhat) welcome return to form for De Palma, even if his Hitchcock-aping doesn't really take effect until the last act. Structurally and tonally, one can divide this movie into three parts: The first is kind of like a dramedy (suggested by the soundtrack), the second is more of a melodrama and the third (and final) act goes into full WTF mode as De Palma pulls every trick in his admittedly small book and tries to get the viewer to question the reality of everything they see. As such, the movie isn't really that effective until this section, with most of the prior dialogue seeming sophomoric and shallow, much like the relationships and characters in the film. Still, this movie is worth watching for that final act. It's style over substance, but it's got quite a sense of style.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
De Palma one more step down the ladder
engelst21 July 2013
I've always been annoyed with Brian De Palma, because he so blatantly plagiarized Hitchcock, without ever developing a style of his own that could survive without constantly borrowing from the master. Nonetheless, De Palma did direct some decent movies, my favorites being Dressed to Kill, Body Double and Scarface.

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

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

Direction: sloppy, disinterested, too linear Camera: cheap, TV-ish Acting: appalling, especially Rapace is shockingly bad, robotic and not believable Story: run-of-the-mill B-movie
23 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The culmination of DePalma's career
SJinSeaTac22 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I watched "Love Crime" about two years ago and I agree with most critics that it is the film version of "Damages." I just finished watching "Passion" (French bluray version) and....wow. What DePalma has done is not reinvent the wheel, but taken what he knows and meshed it with a well received French film from 2010. After all, his formula, dating back to "Carrie" has always worked for him. And in "Passion", he is back in all of his bloody glory.

Isabel has an amicable relationship with her boss, Christine. Both work at a large corporate public relations firm in Germany. Christine has her eye on the cushy executive job in New York, but poor poor Isabel does all of the work that Christine passes off as her own. She reassures Isabel that taking credit for her work is all part of the business. But as the film plays out, we start to see that Christine is manipulative, conniving, and though she explains that her actions are all part of the job, there is always an angle for her. And Isabel buys into what Christine tells her- at least you are led to believe she does. Or is she even MORE manipulative than Christine? You will have to watch the movie to find out.

Isabel gets frustrated by being pushed down and finally goes over Christine's head by releasing a new smartphone advertisement she developed onto YouTube before Christine comes out with her own version. Needless to say, the claws come out shortly thereafter and Christine takes to humiliating Isabel, and engaging in destructive conduct to have her fired. But then a twist comes, and someone dies. Horribly. Who did it. Again, you will have to watch to find out. Because even if you have seen "Love Crime", you might have your doubts while watching it.

DePalma proves to be the master of the erotic thriller once again. Not since "Femme Fatale" have we seen his return to the modern murder mystery/thriller. Basically, what you have in "Passion" is a shot for shot retelling of "Love Crime" with some minor changes and a classic DePalma ending accompanied by Pino Donagio's "Dressed to Kill" score blaring, with actions speaking for the characters instead of words. Minor changes have been made, and for the better. The ending is a twist where as in "Love Crime" the killer is immediately revealed. The subplot with Isabel's sister has been taken out and further developed into Isabel's assistant's character, who is now a woman, and love-struck, too. And there are two entirely new subplots that work to support the ending of the film, and let's just say that DePalma's "Sisters", where he started his career in this genre back in 1973, is in full effect towards the end.

DePalma does something here that I absolutely think works for him: he combines all of his major successes in film of the past 40 years into the climax. Remember what I said about not reinventing the wheel? Well not to spoil it for you, but think "Sisters" meets "Raising Cain" meets "Dressed to Kill" meets "Body Double" meets "Blow Out" by the end of this. Yes, all of the nastiest bits of violence, dreams within dreams, doppelgangers, asphyxiation, voyeurism, and maybe a little borrowing from the Wachowski's movie "Bound." But just a little ;)

This movie is DePalma's life work rolled into one. His fans will be happy to know that DePalma is back, and better than ever.
25 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not that passionate, but not that bad either
bowmanblue3 October 2014
Don't be mislead by the title, or the fact that it is a remake of a French film called 'Sex Crimes.' There's not much sex and even less passion. However, it still makes for an enjoyable thriller. Oh, actually, it's not that thrilling either, but it is still okay - honest! It's about a nasty female boss (Rachel Adams, who may just be a tiny bit too young to pull off running a huge company, but we'll ignore that for now) who takes advantage of her assistant (Noomi Rapace) and, before long, they're at war. You may see some of the pitfalls that the characters have to face coming - some are derived from their own bad judgement, plus the film delivers enough intense and well-directed scenes, making the most of the emotionally empty sets.

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

Probably more a 7 than a 8, but I enjoyed it. Others may find it a little on the dull and lifeless side.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A hirsute oddity
danny-fr-mail13 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I won't be able to write anything about the acting, since I was unlucky enough to view this movie dubbed in French (the dubbing is below terrible). Nonetheless, the rest of the movie didn't make me want to rediscover it in English.

If the technique is interesting, tricking the viewer with old school methods and making us believe the movie was shot 20 years ago and infusing an Hitchockesque aftertaste to the picture - notably with a daring split screen scene which is as pretty as it's confusing- nothing else will salvage this work.

Characters are hollow, their motivations, development, goals, are blurry at best, plot twists appear to be both random and predictable (quite an achievement), as well as far fetched, twisting the narrative into confusing curves. I fail at understanding what the movie is trying to tell its audience. Is it all about going mental in a stress prone environment? Is it a digression about the madness of modern corporate culture? Does it mean that lesbians are crazy?

The final scene is either a gaping plot hole or an hallucinatory phase, which still makes me wonder not only who did what, but WHY they did so. In the end it's this big 'WHY' which breaks the whole movie, undoing the little cohesion kept by the characters' already uncertain motives.

In the end, this film is an oddly pretty yet completely disheveled creature.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed