Filme fraco, o roteiro é ruim, esse filme é quase igual a Maria antonieta só que esse filme é mais chato e mais ruim, o filme não traz nada de interessante, nem a porra do nome do filme é legal, vai toma no cu, essa Sofia coppola não faz um filme foda vai se fude.

Unfortunately this was a random pick on a random night. I can't get back the last hour and a half watching a bunch of teenage girls swoon over a crippled man. The story was dry and left a lot to be desired. The actors should fire there managers for even considering this script. Sigh....

It seemed a little boring in the surface, but it managed to get me ---just a little--- invested in it. More than most of Sofia's films, with the exception of her masterpiece (...Translation)

The solid acting from the excellent cast assembled for this film is unable to save it from itself. There is a clear line of ridiculousness that is crossed, despite the naivete of both the characters and the time period. There are moments where you can't help but think to yourself 'Really? She's obviously smart, but she's so desperate for love that she's falling for this nonsense?'.

Horribly boring story.. it had so much potential too... I dont understand the hype with Sophia Coppola

A subpar remake what can you expect from a rich playgirl who bought her way into Hollywood

such a good movie!!!! <3

The original 1971 version of this film was great and can't be remade in my opinion, but I still entered this experience with a clean slate and I'm sorry to say that I was unimpressed. Sofia Coppola is capable of beautiful work ("Marie Antoinette" and "The Virgin Suicides"), however this film was so dark and lit so poorly that I could not tell what was going on no matter how I adjusted my 온라인카지노추천. I thought it was just me at first, then I read other reviews saying the same thing and I can't believe it was even approved. I don't like to leave negative reviews, but the people involved need to do better because a film lit this poorly is unacceptable.

The trademark Sofia Coppola production values are there, but some of acting is a letdown as is the story at times.

Pretty movie, but even though it's 1h30min, it feels slow, and though well-told story with some top actresses and actor, it felt less than memorable. Ultimately, there wasn't much of a point to it and the ending was fatally predictable. And yet, it wasn't a waste of time - good entertainment.

Captivating & wonderfully cast. I love a movie that is dramatic and captivating, but no one is the "bad one," and no one is wholly innocent. It's rich. Great film.

Gostei. Me surpreendeu. Achei que ia ser mais um filme comum...não é obra prima mas é muito bom!

I found this film to be quite atmospheric and I was intrigued to find out more about the wounded soldier who is taken in (Corporal McBurney, played by Colin Farrell). The film is almost entirely in very dark settings, so its best to watch it with curtains closed, or you may struggle to see all of whats going on, on screen but I thought the script was good and it somehow made it feel more mysterious and atmospheric overall. I liked how the teacher, Miss Martha (played by Nicole Kidman) reacted/responded to the new found occupant of the house, the way she used the situation to make her students reflect on what they may have learnt from the situation and so on. I suppose its partly about trust - trust and secrets. Its an intriguing and atmospheric watch - one that I'd recommend to others.

Right off the bat in adapting the 1966 novel/1971 original film version, Sofia Coppola decided to take out the segment in one of the earliest scenes where Corporal John McBurney (originally Clint Eastwood, here Colin Farrell) goes in for a kiss with a 12-year old girl. Good start, good start. Coppola takes an original property dripping in sexual innuendo and pivots to a slightly more feminine perspective, recruits top-notch acting talent, frames each shot with an eye for natural lighting and physical performances, and goes full Kubrick with the penchant for authentic period details (at least in aspects such as costume design; she caught flak for her removal of an African American character out of a sense of 'protecting' her younger audience, which seems deliberately inauthentic). While she succeeds in capturing the heady atmosphere that she was aiming for, the real limiting factor associated with The Beguiled is: was it necessary? The adaptation adds a degree of technical sophistication and visual composition that the 1971 Don Siegel version could not have hoped to, but fails to take advantage of any novel perspective on the part of its female characters and in some ways even seems to sanitize and simplify them, despite strong performances (from Kidman in particular). First time viewers are likely to find quite a bit of entertainment value in the emotional manipulations that our characters undergo (and the cinematography from Philippe Le Sourd certainly doesn't hurt), but returning fans might just ask what the point of going down the same route again was when the original adaptation remains surprisingly serviceable and subversive. (3/5)

At least in the early acts, Sophia Coppola's version of this story more genteel and civil than Don Siegel's scandalous 1971 film. And Colin Farrell's character is more gentlemanly and respectful than Clint Eastwood's was. But Coppola's "Beguiled" still morphs into a horror movie in the last acts. The last 20 minutes of this film are incredibly creepy. Farrell's character mentions the "art of castration" when he's throwing a tantrum after his unfortunate incident. Siegel said that his film was about women secretly wanting to castrate men. Makes me wonder what the underlying message is here. In ay event, this is an unforgettable and disturbing film, beautifully filmed and acted.

I like dark weird films for the record. But this kind of missed the mark. There was little real emotional contrast or suspense. The southern gloom was so pervasive in the whole film it lost its intended impact, oversaturated. The story and characters felt a bit hollow. Anti climactic ending but not in the good way that leaves you feeling haunted, just kind of bland. I do wish more historical context were part of the film as well. I wanted to like this, but it didn't work out. It maybe could have been executed differently with a much better outcome.

Slow, dark, continuous negative overtone. Film noir in color. Not that the acting was bad. In fact, all the contrary. Solid acting but what a boring story. Don't even waste your time...

This movie was a whole lotta meh.

How did this get made to begin with? Why did Nicole Kidman and Colin Farrell sign up for this snooze fest? How did this not go straight to video? So many questions.

John McBurney (Colin Farrell) is a Union soldier during the Civil War who is found wounded outside a small boarding school in Virginia. Taken in and tended to by the headmistress and the students, he soon becomes a focal point for the sexual interests of the women in what becomes a battle of gender politics. As always, director Sofia Coppola has a firm grasp of her material and patiently lets the inevitable battle for McBurney's affections play out. The exteriors are beautifully shot in natural light, but the same natural light tends to muddy the interior shots making the characters, at times, difficult to identify. It's an interesting remake of the original Don Siegel film from 1971 and worth watching for fans of Coppola's other films.