As I've mentioned in other film reviews, in the past decade or longer, Hollywood has had a fascination with remakes or reboots. Could it be because the subject matter is that amazing or could it be the fact that no originality needs to happen in order to maximize profit? Cynical? Yes! Potential truth to this? Yes! The main reason why I went to see "The Beguiled" was because the original 1971 version with Clint Eastwood and Geraldine Page was thrilling, tight and subtle which made this story shine. Did this version do the same? Not so much so.
The year is 1864 in Virginia. In this Civil War drama, an injured Union soldier, Corporal John McBurney (Colin Farrell) is found wounded and close to dead by a young girl, Amy (Oona Laurence) who is part of the nearby all girls Farnsworth Seminary run by Miss Martha Farnsworth (Nicole Kidman). As this soldier seeks refuge at this school to heal, his presence there soon poisons the relationships between the various women including Edwina (Kirsten Dunst) and Alicia (Elle Fanning) with sexual tension and dangerous rivalries. As things go from bad to worse, taboos are then broken in an unexpected turn of events.
Others to round out the cast are Angourie Rice as Jane, Addison Riecke as Marie and Emma Howard as Emily.
This was directed on target and with finesse by Marie Coppola ("The Virgin Suicides" '99, "Lost in Translation" '03, "Marie Antoinette" '06, "Somewhere" '10, "The Bling Ring" '13, "La Traviata" '17) plus shorts. This filmmaker is a consummate director. She simply knows how to bring to life every characterization, every situation to its fullest and she can do this using subtlety or with outright obvious intensions and pull it off well. Where I have the problem with this filmmaker is with her writing. As with her other writings, she simply was incoherent or choppy at best with her screenplays, so when this screenplay came along, she wrote it more professionally (it is a reboot), but she attempted to add to it and it would've been better just sticking to the original. As the old adage goes, "if it ain't broke, why fix it?". The 1971 version was much more subtle in its approach of the 'cat and mouse game' going on here, whereas this version was more in your face about it. Plus, what made the original more captivating was the fact you didn't see what was coming, whereas with this version, you obviously did considering it was a reboot. As with the original, it was definitely difficult to feel sorry for anyone in this film. They all had their respective issues and played them out with abandon. The selling slogan for the original version sums up the two films to a tee, "Who is really the captor and who the captive?", which should let any audience know that this isn't a one-sided story at all. Certainly Farrell and Kidman give spellbinding performances in this as do the supporting cast. This screenplay was based on the 1971 screenplay by Albert Maltz and Grimes Grice based on a novel by Thomas Cullinan.
If you liked the 1971 version of this, you will certainly appreciate this, however if you are a purist and basically want a word for word remake, this might deem a bit disappointing. I felt there was a need for more subtlety than what we got, but otherwise it wasn't bad. Certainly the basis of which Coppola was able to extract from could've only helped with the creation of her screenplay.
Out of 4 Stars: 3.5 Rated: R 93mins.
No comments:
Post a Comment