The Beguiled (2017)

When a preview begins with "From acclaimed director...", it sets itself up for high expectations. When the next two words are "Sofia Coppola", most people's reaction would rightfully be "huh?".This "acclaimed director" is also the "acclaimed screenwriter" of this cinematic disaster. The screenplay is horrendous. The dialogue is strained and minimal. Characters are not developed. I found myself pitying Kidman and Farrell for having to report to work for such an inept director. Coppola evidently feels that suspense is built by endless shots of trees and the house in mist. Her overuse of this amateur device made me think that at any moment a commercial voice-over would declare "Virginia is For Lovers". And in true Coppola cliche fashion, so many scenes are so weakly illuminated. Straining to see whatever was happening, I actually screamed at my TV, "light the damn scene!".Other than skipping this movie, my advice to Coppola is to get out of the business. You're a disgrace to screenwriters and directors who would have done far better than you with this material. And stop believing your own hype.

Don Siegel's 1971 version was a taut gothic thriller, a tale of repressed sexuality as Clint Eastwood portrays a wounded Union soldier found behind enemy lines next to the property of girls boarding school. The presence of a virile man stirs the sexual hormones of the principals at the academy which included a middle-aged headmistress...whose sexual experience consisted of an incestuous affair with her brother, a 20ish virginal teacher, a slave, a sexy teenager and a 12 year old girl just hitting puberty. Clint's character quickly realizes how his sexuality is easily able to manipulate the women into what could be a very soft life while he is waiting to finish for the war to finish. Sophia Coppola's version has none of the sexual tension of the original with no real background or development of the characters. In the interest of PC the slave character is left out, as was the incest flashback. Colin Ferrell as the soldier isn't a fascinating presence as was Eastwood was and doesn't project the potential terror that Clint did. If you find this plot premise interesting do yourself a favor and view the original.

This film does have a distinct visual appeal to it, as well as overall solid performances. However, the underlying tension that Coppola I think was going for doesn't really materialize. Instead the viewer is left with feelings of frustration because we know what we're supposed to be feeling, or what we think we should, but the director just can't make it happen. In part this is due to her going for style in place of substance, when these need not be mutually exclusive.

I don't watch new movies often bc I have a baby and am exhausted. But I thought I'd treat myself tonight on HBO Now. Oh my God! What a waste of my time! No character development AT ALL. Why did Colin Farrel leave Dublin? Was he a gardener? Why is Kirsten Dunst fluent in French and wants to get as far away from the school as possible? Why is Elle Fanning such a fluzy? What happened to Nikole Kidman's previous life? This was all such crap. I should've turned it off-but was waiting for the answers to my questions. Then all of a sudden, it was over. Didn't even include cool music soundtrack that Coppola usually pairs. Sucked donkey balls!