This was like a film students final project.

This is like a film school students final project. Or so it felt. It was unpolished from the acting to the lighting to the awkward split screen views that really didn't help the story at all. But worse than that was the screenplay.

I don't write reviews on IMDB because I think I know more than everyone else. I've only written two others and in both those cases it's because I read the other reviews and found that there was something I could add to the discussion that was not mentioned beforehand. I took note of several intelligent reviews in which the reviewer felt that the style of not-completely-making-sense was a sign that this was an artistic venture that should raise it above straight narrative. One reviewer made a strong argument comparing this work as a homage to Hitchcock, Eisenstein, Welles, Kurosawa, Kubrick, Antonioni, and David Lynch. Wow that's a lot of borrowed style. But the man I want to focus on in this case is David Lynch.

Lynch is a master of making movies without a straight narrative that on the surface seems to make little or no sense at all. But inevitably his movies spark intense discussion in which sense suddenly surfaces from what appears to be extreme chaos. That is an enormous sign of a master, being that the film sparks discussion. I firmly believe that Lynch has gotten to a point where if he made a movie in which every performance was bad and the screenplay was terrible we'd sit and wonder if he did it on purpose just to make a statement. Brian DePalma does not have the same mastering over the strange and nonlinear method of storytelling to pull off the same feat. So in this case terrible performances and bad screenplay can't be ignored. Sorry. Though I digress, this is not the focus of my review.

(In the three paragraphs below there are slight spoilers. I'd say I'm not giving away much that the movie poster hadn't itself.)

The first 8 minutes of the film were extraordinary. They had the camera focused on a television playing the most dramatic scene of <i>Double Indemnity</i>. This long shot of Rebecca Stamos watching the classic noir film went a got way toward reminding me how masterful <i>Double Indemnity</i> was and supplied me with points for which <i>Femme Fatale</i> failed. The whole premise of a "femme fatale" type character in all the old noir films as well as newer masterpieces such as <I>The Last Seduction</i> involves a woman who is sexy smart and manipulative. For the audience to believe in the film the woman must be convincing. The actress must be convincing. There has to be at least one single point in which the viewer would think, "yeah I'd kill for this woman too". That is indeed not the case for a film which pays homage to all of the "femme fatales" in cinema history.

Mrs. Stamos is an attractive woman. Her body is well sculpted and her smile is picture perfect. If that were all it took to create a "femme fatale" then the male population of earth would be doomed. But as it is that is not the case. A "femme fatale" needs brains and personality in vast quantities. Brains for the whole manipulative plotting points and personality to enrapture her prey. Sex alone is not enough. In this film the screenplay involved Mrs. Stamos using a lot of sex and little personality. In a key scene where Mr. Banderas' character is on the verge of doing something smart and simply walking out on her (at which all her plans would have completely fallen apart, how no one involved could see this is beyond me.) he is instead held at bay by a luke-warm striptease of partial nudity and a unrealistic sense of jealousy. Barbara Stanwyck did not have to resort to such methods in <i> Double Indemnity</i>. In fact her main manipulation point was in convincing her prey that she <b>loved</b> him.

Now I am not ignoring the fact that all the classic noir films featuring the femme fatale did not imply that said femme fatales offered and engaged in sex on a regular basis. I recall both Lauren Bacall and Martha Vickers in <i>The Big Sleep</i> were called "wild girls" and were on more than one occasion hinted as being sluts. And yes they used sex in an effort to manipulate males into doing what they pleased. But that was not their only weapon in their arsenal, which is the case for poor Mrs. Stamos' character in this film. Yes, yes you can point two or three minor points where she did something "smart" and I could overwhelm those points with methods I would have used to spoil her plans and save myself if I were in Mr. Banderas' position. Hardly a formidable femme fatale in any case. This I blame on the screenplay.

(In the three paragraphs below there are major spoilers. Please read if you have already seen the film and are curious as to what discussion points may be considered. )

As for the film technique I am not one to tell a director what method is best to use in what situation in the telling of a story. Such decisions are up to a director and his style. If every director had the same style then cinema would be very boring indeed. If every director were only allowed to use on style then there'd be no room for artistic refinement. So I'll never say, "this movie was good, but it just wasn't DePalma’s style!" Type casting isn't a danger just for actors, but directors and cinematographers and others as well. With this said I believe this director’s method of storytelling in this case is not the most effective for the message he wanted to deliver. Does it sound like I have just contradicted myself? Maybe, but I come to this conclusion based solely on the fact that I didn't buy any of it. I didn't lose myself to any of it. I did not feel any of it. I am the audience, and I was not convinced by it. I was not drawn into it. It failed. It's that simple. The poor lighting, the split screen, the plot points, it didn't work.

The major plot point being "this is all a dream". I interpreted this as being DePalma’s setting us up for a comparison of life styles. The black garter wearing femme fatale who strips and lures men into attempting to rape her or the all white clad good girl who gives lockets to men to sort of but not really give to their daughter. Like the extraordinary film <i>Run Lola Run</i> the audience is allowed to experience life through multiple arcs based on what decision she makes during a single moment. If she makes a selfish one she dooms herself to a life of fear and dooms several others to death and despair. If she makes a selfless one we are to believe that she lives the opposite life.

In both cases we watch 7 years pass with only a sentence at the bottom of the screen reading "7 years later". I have no choice but to believe she was looking over her shoulder in both instances really though you get the sense that in her seconds go around she was more comfortable in life. Also in her second go at it you see how her giving the locket to the truck driver has given her a big karmic payoff. This seems to ignore the bad things she did before the big decision moment. Where's the karmic retribution for that? I suppose we can assume that those 7 years she continued to do a lot of nice little things such as the locket event, thus converting herself to a good girl who deserves the 4 million dollars she gets for stealing the 10 million dollar brazier. Well I'd better steal something now and be a good boy from that point on. It just didn't work for me. Many other reviewers on IMDB mention how the ending "feels tacked on". I don't think it was, but I do feel that there is significance in the tacked on feeling. It reminds me of the student films I was a witness to and made myself where narrative mistakes such as that sort of pacing happened all the time. But Mr. DePalma is not a student; he's the man students look up to. I look up to. Yes, more is expected.

----------------------

I took note that some of the posts that suggest people who don't like this film or don't recommend this film for viewing are "intellectually challenged". It made me laugh. Thanks.