User Reviews (235)

Add a Review

  • Brian De Palma's 'Femme Fatale' is pure movie-making. In fact, it is done so well you almost forget it is all close to nonsense. But who cares, 'Femme Fatale' is an exercise in style drenched in twists and turns. Instead of cheating De Palma gives us a lot of little hints, easily missed the first time you see it. Explaining the story could ruin a lot and is probably useless anyway.

    I can tell the film opens with a heist, probably one of the most erotic ones out there. Laure Ash (Rebecca Romijn-Stamos) is the one who goes away with a very expensive artifact betraying a whole lot of people. This event is what drives her the rest of the movie, but in what way I can not reveal. I can say that we move forward to seven years later and that Laure has changed her identity, more by mistake than on purpose. Another important thing I can tell you is that we meet a photographer named Nicolas Bardo (Antonio Banderas). He takes a picture of Laure while she is still Laure and he is the one who takes a picture of her seven years later, a photo that could spoil everything for her.

    I should stop talking about the story. You have to see it for yourself, collecting clues and try to make something out of it. I love a movie like this. 'Memento', 'Mulholland Dr.' and 'Donnie Darko' are other examples. Maybe you can figure them out, if that is the filmmakers intention, maybe you can not. But it is not so much the conclusion I enjoy, it is the ride that brings us there. De Palma does it in a terrific way with a lot of love for the movies.
  • You really have to admire Brian DePalma as a director. He's directed some of the finest thrillers in the last 30 years and even his misfires are interesting to watch like "Snake Eyes". I really enjoyed how well made this film is. If you don't like the story, thats your business. But this film is so finely detailed and shot that I put it in the same boat as "Mulholland Dr." and "Blackhawk Down". Interesting films that some viewers had mixed reactions to but the direction of these films was so expertly crafted that even the most ardent critics had to admit to the talent of the director. This film starts out at the Cannes Film Festival where a group of thieves are attempting to steal some diamonds off of a model by having Laure Ash (Rebecca Romijn-Stamos) seduce her in a lesbian encounter in the ladies bathroom. Things go wrong and Laure takes off with the diamonds. Seven years later Laure is married to an American diplomat and is in Paris with her husband when a papparazzi named Nicolas (Antonio Banderas) takes a picture of her. She doesn't want to be photographed because the former members of her gang are still looking for her. What I have just mentioned is just scratching the surface. This is a psychological thriller that has so many twists and turns that the casual film viewer will probably be in over their head. But this is a film that gives many hints along the way as you watch it. You have to pay attention to this film and one key scene takes place when Laure and Nicolas are having coffee in a cafe. Laure is sitting next to the window. Outside, a poster is being put up for a film called "Deja Vu" and the reflection of Laure on the glass is centered in the middle of the poster. DePalma uses many overhead shots to allow the viewer to get full view of certain scenes. Some viewers and critics have said they were disappointed with the casting but I admire the job that Rebecca did for this film. Okay, she's not Jodie Foster as far as being an actress is concerned but Foster couldn't exude sexuality like this if her life depended on it either. I thought it was believable that her character could manipulate Nicholas the way she did. How could he not? She was a combination of sexuality and vulnerability inside a very smart and devious mind. And for a film called "Femme Fatale" you had better find an actress that is smart and utterly beautiful at the same time. I found her performance to be bold and brave. DePalma uses each shot to send signals relating to the story. It sounds like a very difficult shoot because each scene has so much meaning. He doesn't have cameras following characters for nothing. Each shot has a reason. The details to this filming are enormous and difficult. DePalma again shows us the attention to details of his complex artistry. If your one of those shallow film watchers that only views films from the incredible mediocrity of Hollywood than your probably going to be lost watching this film. For the viewers that remember and care about risk taking when making movies, than you can appreciate the effort made by DePalma. If you don't like it, thats okay. But you should appreciate his effort and nerve as a director.
  • Mr. De Palma is not a critics' darling, and as such his latest, Femme Fatale, has come in for his usual roasting. Is it deserved? Not if you love a film that embraces the visual splendour and techniques that make cinema a unique art form.

    Femme Fatale sees De Palma returning to his forte: the suspense thriller. It is a welcome return considering his recent fare have seen him straying to more mainstream efforts - Mission to Mars, Mission: Impossible - that were shells of his virtuoso films of the late 70s and early 80s.

    The film leads off with a stunning 20-minute Jewel heist sequence that takes place during the Cannes film festival of 2001. Completely bereft of dialogue, a la Topkapi, Rebecca Romijn-Stamos's character has the enviable task of lifting a diamond dress from Rie Rasmussun in a bathroom encounter. His first original screenplay in 10 years, De Palma writes a tightly-plotted tale that certainly does not lead the audience by the hand, and the resulting twists it provides will allow different perspectives on the film's events with repeat viewings.

    Antonio Banderas - usually lost without cause if not working with Robert Rodriguez - does what he needs to do with efficiency; Romijn-Stamos, the Femme Fatale of the title, provides the eye candy. The acting is not top drawer, but it does not need to be: we're here to see an auteur in his element: De Palma delivers. Cinema is more than a stage with a camera - De Palma uses his camera and cinema technique to brilliant effect. Huge swooping camera movements, split-screen, slow motion sequences, no dialogue and an enveloping orchestral score; De Palma's signature is prevalent. And that is good: a director should never be an autonomous entity, happy to turn out derivative drivel that get the masses in and out - directors for hire are too commonplace in Hollywood today - and that is something that De Palma could never be accused of.

    Femme Fatale is a great example of a director working in a genre he loves and understands, and given the freedom to create. Total cinema? Its smell is sure intoxicating. Welcome back, Mr. De Palma.
  • magobbo13 June 2003
    As I read the comments I can't help wonder how is it possible nobody thought this movie is an essay on cinema as well as a re-read of De Palma's own creations and obsessions. The questions on the board suggest that almost nobody pay attention even to the plot. 21 years before, "Blow Out", De Palma's most transparent reference to cinema craftsmanship and the relations between cinema and reality, and, what is most important, to cinema as knowledge (or even revelation), merged from an almost hopeless vision of the world: at the end of the film, Jack Terry, the character played by Travolta, had found the truth, but the price he paid for it is loneliness and madness maybe (just like Hackman at the end of Coppola's "The Conversation"); revelation is for him a sort of curse as he lost his second chance (one of the director's recurrent themes) as far as reality made the grade with its web of lies and corruption. "Femme fatale" shows that De Palma get older and wiser: even though reality is as corrupted and plenty of lies as two decades before, his faith on cinema as knowledge (what is cinema but a dream?) is stronger than then. He also has change his point of view about women. This turn, that started with "Carlito's Way" and even more on "Snake Eyes", is evident here, as he shows his own change of mind through a character that goes from his old kind of female character to the new one. (And those who wonder about the snake, read the Bible --Genesis.) At the very beginning of the movie, Laure's reflection on the tv screen reunites she and Barbara Stanwyck as the summa and the evolution of the femme fatale kind of character. That "DOUBLE indemnity" starts a game of doubles along the movie. Later, when the character of Lily appears, there's a choice to be made: Laure (of course, the reference is to Preminger's "Laura" though the film pays clearer homage to Hitchock's "Vertigo") has to decide to became Phyllis Dietrichson or to became Lily. The "dream strategy" is full of risk; in fact, when a writer/director uses it as a solution, the task is condemned to failure. But De Palma uses it masterfully, because dream is not a solution but a way: there are ten minutes of movie left after it to give that "dream strategy" a new sense and a justification that any film ever gave. As I wrote before, that dream is built as a movie watch by both audience and Laure. But the collage made by Banderas character is also a movie: a frame by frame (or scene by scene) construction of a reality that is out-of-time of that reality. De Palma, at the end of the film, tell us: that is what cinema is made of -different scenes shot under diverse lights in separate times, joined under one look and put together to make sense. We, as spectators, are the ones that can contemplate that work finished, and this final revelation, as the one at the end of "Citizen Kane", ask us to be able to join the pieces and reach knowledge cinema can give. There is a lot to write about this movie; these are only silly notes compared to the type of study "Femme Fatale" deserves. For those who are not interested on analysing a movie and just want to know if they will have fun watching it, I can only say that you can enjoyed the movie, with its twists and its suspense, even if you don't notice what I am talking about. "Femme Fatale" is an underrated masterpiece. Long live Brian De Palma (even if he has to live in France).
  • Warning: Spoilers
    "Femme Fatale" is best understood as a game played by Brian De Palma and appreciated by knowing cineastes. It's not about story or characters, but about the construction and manipulation of art.

    Antonio Banderas plays Nicolas Bardo, a photographer who has turned his back on photographing celebrities. He now spends his time living in an apartment, making huge composite images by arranging tiny photographs. The Bardo character, in many ways, is Brian De Palma. At war with Hollywood storytelling (which is fuelled by celebrity) De Palma takes these multiple images and weaves them into a tapestry until a final image is made. The point is that the final image is not reality. It is the artists recreation and completely false.

    At the end of the film, Bardo completes his masterpiece by inserting a little white figure (of Laura, a name which itself alludes to Otto Preminger's classic) onto his wall. The figure doesn't belong, Bardo simply chooses to put it there. Thematically, "Femme Fatale" ends on the same note. Noir fatalism is thwarted by a completely arbitrary, totally ILLOGICAL and cosmically IMPOSSIBLE moment of editing whereby De Palma redeems his hero and kills off her opponents.

    Critics call this sequence implausible. But De Palma's point is that it doesn't have to be plausible. Bardo puts the white figure on his wall because he wants to. Similarly, De Palma ends the film as he does, because he wants to. He shows us Laura's fatalistic noir dream and then rescues her from it. He makes it clear that he is redeeming her and willing this positive ending into existence solely because he as artist, but more importantly, as noir God, has the power to do so.

    This flips the usual noir logic. If Kubrick's "The Killing" highlights the deterministic law of the universe (Clay's plan crumbling to pieces all because of a random poodle), De Palma's "Femme Fatale" highlights the power of the artist, able to do recreate a universe entirely devoid of cosmic law.

    This theme is also highlighted by the use of the name "Bardo", a Tibetan word meaning "intermediate state". A state between life and death. Over the course of the film, Bardo will be caught between life and death, as De Palma toys with killing him. Bardo's existence or artistic merit is down to an artist's mere whim.

    Everything else about De Palma is present in "Femme Fatale": the voyeur and his object, the representation inside the representation, the original and its fake copy, the doubled characters, key episodes built from multiple points of views, the elaborate camera work...

    Watch as De Palma's camera continuously misleads our eyes, giving the hidden predominance over the shown, until we are forced to separate in our minds the real from its representation and to connect the different pieces into a "sense". This technique comprises the film watching experience as a whole, and is what De Palma's films are essentially about, from Jack Terry's reconstruction of truth with the aid of montage in "Blow Out", to Santoro's investigations of a crime from partial testimonies in "Snake Eyes".

    This theme, the division between reality and image, has grown increasingly important for De Palma. The majority of his films are concerned about how we see and watch movies, the director obsessed with reminding us that information is not the same thing as knowledge.

    Consider "Snake Eyes", which opens with an unbroken tracking shot that essentially lays out the film's plot. The rest of the movie then becomes a demonstration of why everything we had seen in that sequence was a lie. Likewise, the opening sequence of "Mission: Impossible" showed us Tom Cruise's crew of agents being picked off one by one. We had already seen each of those murders, though, in nearly subliminal blips during the movie's credit sequence (information without knowledge). "Black Dahlia" and "Redacted" similarly deal with a search for truth amongst an image bank of lies.

    "Femme Fatale" begins with a long heist sequence. Throughout this sequence, allusions are made to "Snake Eyes" (the literal "serpent camera" and the object of the heist, a snake shaped piece of gold), De Palma effectively saying: "The camera is a snake and not to be trusted." Note too the film "Est-Ouest" showing as the heist goes on. Like "Femme Fatale", this is another stream-of-consciousness film with an unreliable narrator.

    And so the rest of "Femme Fatale" takes a "dream within a film" approach (foreshadowed in opening shot). Watch how De Palma sets this dream sequence up with careful details: the storm, the clock (the time 3:33 will appear on clocks throughout the dream), the water running, Laura sinking, and by having the actors from before her dream taking on different roles within it.

    These signifiers, and others, will emerge throughout the film, emphasising the surreal atmosphere of Laura's adventure. Everything becomes disconnected, dialogue makes no sense (at some points it's dubbed without even following the actors' lips!), time jumps back and forth etc etc.

    Indeed, during her dream (like "Mulholland Drive"), Laura herself will embody different female archetypes, all traceable in film history and particularly in De Palma's films. She's Kim Novak in "Vertigo" and also Melanie Griffith's prostitute of "Body Double" and so on and so on.

    The majority of De Palma's films have dream sequences. Even a "serious" film like "Casualties of War" ends with a character waking up on a train, realising that the whole film was a nightmare. Why does De Palma feel the need to insert this? My guess is that he doesn't want his films to be seen as "real". They exist in a wholly metaphysical space.

    8.5/10 - As usual with a De Palma film, critics and audiences rejected "Femme Fatale".
  • Warning: Spoilers
    `Femme Fatale' is Brian De Palma's latest foray into the challenging, but artful world of contemporary film noir. The genre is not new to De Palma's repertoire, but this one was a particularly difficult undertaking, due to its complex mix of cinematography, genre interplays, character profiles, and plot development. I have extremely mixed feelings about the film because where it succeeds, it does so extraordinarily well, but where it fails is too important to the overall quality of the film. I felt more saddened that De Palma, who wrote and directed it, didn't just choose less loftier goals and come out with a much stronger piece.

    The plot revolves around an alluring seductress, Rebecca Romijn-Stamos, who leads a life of crime, but leaves it abruptly and unintentionally when circumstances give her a new lease on life as a respectable married woman. All's well, till her identity is revealed when a two-bit paparazzi, played by Antonio Banderas, brings her past and present together again, making for an explosive interplay of human character and dramatic plot twists.

    I confess that the above plotline is grossly oversimplified, but I stop short of apologizing for it, because the plot itself is the least important aspect of `Femme Fatale.' Logistics are loose at best, but as the final scenes play out, the plot seems relatively unimportant compared to the much stronger elements of the film. The movie blends styles ranging from French independent films' European use of female personas and erotic sensuality, to American cult genres, such as Pulp Fiction or Twin Peaks, with its use of musical counterpoint. There are intensely mature scenes involving more explicit sexual innuendo, as well as sophisticated cinematic photography that plays with color, shadow and texture. Much of the production involved such intimate attention to this stylistic detail, it carries the film. Most well-versed film-goers are sure to appreciate and relish in the varied themes presented here.

    The characters in the film are compelling, although two-dimensional, through and through. At first, I considered this a weak point, but when the filmmaker's intentions of style and mood became more clear, I reluctantly acknowledged that stronger characters would have drawn the focus away from the film's more abstract aesthetic qualities. Noire films are often more about style than plot, and the characters are often frustratingly under-explained, not that I necessarily support this aspect of this otherwise fine genre. It's the `contemporary' part that adds the additional dimension of abstraction that demands less from the characters than what we think we want to see. This odd paradox is exactly why I felt the plot was too strong, despite its logistical problems. Had the sequence of events been even less important, I would have found it much easier to bathe in the visual, audible and other aesthetic qualities of the movie.

    To that end, `Femme Fatale' is clearly form over substance, which may not appeal to the more casual viewer looking for something reminiscent of previous De Palma mainstream blockbusters, such as `Mission: Impossible.' This film cannot be critiqued with a simple view, and I wish I had hours more to discuss its more intricate nuances, but even still, to recommend for or against seeing it is something I find more difficult than reviewing it.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This film was idiotic. Some people tell me I shouldn't dislike films if they don't make any sense. They tell me I should just enjoy the ride. Sorry, I can't turn my brain off. It is particularly important in a caper film that the film make some sort of logical sense.

    MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW

    We have to believe that the guys planning the heist at the beginning of this film are willing to risk a huge amount of money, not to mention their own personal safety, on the premise that a female photographer is absolutely certain to be able to lure a complete stranger into a toilet stall for a round of hot lesbian sex. Now it turns out at the end of the film that the stranger isn't a total stranger after all - but this is a big surprise to the guys who planned the heist. They actually planned the heist based on the premis that their photographer would absolutely, without doubt, be able to lure a stranger into a toilet stall during a film premiere.

    How stupid is that????

    And don't tell me I shouldn't expect logic because it's all a dream. That wasn't part of the dream. And here's another moment that wasn't part of the dream. We learn at the end that the woman lured into the toilet stall kept the real diamonds, but told the police they were the fake subsitutes. You think the police wouldn't want to examine whatever she had for clues?????

    Sorry, I can't turn my brain off -and this was an IDIOTIC film.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    If you've never seen Femme Fatale, this is probably not the review to use in deciding whether to see it or not. Usually I don't like to give away plot elements, much less give away a key point in the movie; however, to give an honest opinion on how I feel regarding this movie I have to reveal a critical point that the entire film rests on. You have been warned.

    SPOILER: I loved and hated this movie. I loved the vast majority of this film, even the use of the split screen (which typically irritates me in De Palma films). We're moving along nicely in this slick film, great on a technical level and interesting on a plot/character level to the point that I'll forgive the unprecedented degree of chance that the story rests on . . . and then . . . and then . . . De Palma basically gives me the middle finger by climaxing with my single greatest pet peeve of all time in all cinema – main character wakes up, and its only a dream. My jaw dropped and a stream of thoughts entered my head, utilizing language that would be inappropriate for an IMDb review.

    Dare I say that *that* moment was more disappointing than Uwe Boll's House of the Dead? At least Boll's film never resembled anything good, and never got me to the edge of my seat, I never got into that lousy film. But De Palma, Femme Fatale rocked! I loved the opening scene, the whole first heist, which for some reason resonated with a Kubrickian vibe for me (probably due to the choice of music over the action.) Kudos for taking your sweet time. It was appreciated.

    And never before had I loved and hated (in a good way) a character as much as I did Rebecca Romijn Stamos' character. She was so evil, but at the same time hilarious and fun with how she played Antonio Banderas', how she manipulated everyone around her. Let's not forget the dialogue between the two when they first meet - the hilariously awesome scene where Antonio has made it into her hotel room with the fake story of losing a 'floppy disk.' This film was so freakin' good . . . and then to be given an "It was all for nothing" dream ending? Leading up to the end of the film, I thought I might, just might, actually see a film where Laure gets away and continues to be a plotting evil little witch, or maybe she'd get what's coming to her and end on a downbeat, and I thought to myself, "I don't really like De Palma, but I have to admit if anyone has the artistic integrity and the balls to go against Hollywood formula and uninformed preview audiences . . . it is Brian De Palma." How is it gonna end? How are they gonna get out of this bind?! You're killing me with suspense De Palma . . . and . . . and . . . aw, crap.

    In the De Palma's defense, he was aware that the move would split his audience down the middle, and he did give numerous clues that it was a dream. I can't stress enough that the bulk of the movie worked so wonderfully in grabbing my attention, keeping my attention, and keeping me on the edge of my seat. In that respect, it is a damn good movie. Also in the film's defense, the degree of which the film worked really set up my expectations, but its resolution just happens to be my ultimate narrative pet peeve . . . .

    Ah well, as they say en français, "C'est la vie."
  • The_Void17 August 2004
    Brian De Palma made a return to the thriller genre in which he made his name after the gigantic blip that was Mission to Mars, which he suffered two years earlier. But is his return to the genre a hit or another misfire? Neither, actually; it's decent.

    The plot follows the escapades of a young lady that screws the mob out of a heist of diamonds, stolen during a thrillingly executed heist at the Cannes film festival. After assuming a new identity, she later returns to Paris where she must evade her past by any means necessary.

    Brian De Palma obviously has a talent for filmmaking; this is evident in the majority of his works, particularly the earlier ones. It's not as abundant in this film as it is in some of his others, but that flair is still shown to a certain extent. He does, however, seem to spend a lot of the movie piling on the style, when he would have been better served building character and giving the audience something to care about. Anyone that knows De Palma, knows that he is the man that "does Hitchcock". Here, he doesn't tribute Hitchcock, but rather the melodramatic noir thrillers of the 40's and 50's. This is clearly shown at the start of the movie from the shot where Rebecca Romijn Stamos is sat on a bed, watching the classic noir; Double Indemnity.

    Having only seen Stamos previously under heavy make-up in the delicious X-Men films, it was nice to see her here in a 'normal' role, especially as I was one of the people that saw her sex appeal, even under all that attire. De Palma teases the viewer with her at first; he keeps her face hidden behind various objects and camera movements, but when she finally appears; she doesn't disappoint; Rebecca is one beautiful woman. Especially when she dons that brown wig. Starring alongside Stamos, is Antonio Banderas. I like Antonio a lot; I rate him as an actor, and not just for his role in the spectacular Desperado series. However, he isn't at his best in this film. In a role that requires him to don a silly gay accent at certain points, Banderas doesn't quite look at home. Maybe it's just because I'm used to seeing him flying round shooting bad guys, but he struck me as being a little bored.

    It may or may not be a good thing that the film is done partly in French, as on one hand it makes it more realistic, and firmly places us in France; but on the other, we have to read subtitles in an American film, and when I watch an American film; I'm not expecting to read subtitles. Especially not ones that disappear before you have a chance to read them fully, as they often do here. Another thing about Femme Fatale is that it never manages to be as sexy as it pretends to be. Despite making almost full use of the lead's assets, it is ultimately more tease than strip. This could be seen as a nod to the classics to which the film owes itself, but for a film that states itself as being a 'steamy thriller', I was expecting slightly more steam.

    The film boils down a final and surprising twist. Throughout, the film keeps you guessing, despite being largely hinged on coincidence; and the twist does come as a surprise, but it is that awful, clichéd twist that everyone dreads. However, to De Palma's credit; he does almost make it good. To pull off a twist like the one in this film, the storyteller needs to be talented enough to not make the audience demand their money back when the movie finishes. When the twist first hit, my eyes were starting to role but credit has to be given to De Palma because even though the twist he's working with is silly, he manages to bring the film to a close which wraps it up, and does tie all the loose ends together. And although I'm still not sure if that was the right route for the film to take, it is well done.

    Overall, Femme Fatale is an enjoyable thriller that is bound to keep most audience members on the edge of their seats throughout. It doesn't echo the brilliance of Dressed to Kill, Carrie, Sisters or most of De Palma's earlier oeuvre in the thriller genre; but it is the best film that the man has made since The Untouchables, and is therefore recommended.
  • This was a lot better than I expected, which wasn't a lot. It turned out to be interesting thanks in part to the stylish film-making and the nice job it did in keeping the audience's attention.

    It got a few extra points for at least us males gaping at Rebecca Romijn-Stamos, who looked spectacular, but lost a few for some big credibility holes in the story.

    The film also would have been much better with a different male lead than Antonio Bandaras, someone who could speak English so people could understand him!

    With Brian De Palma directing, you get some stylish camera shots in here, so it's a good visual movie....a lot more than just girl-watching. It's a film you could enjoy multiple times, especially if you get a translator for Bandaras.
  • This was one of the best films of 2002. It belongs in the class of films that came out in 2001, like Memento, Donnie Darko, Vanilla Sky and Mulholland Drive. Those where all films that require the viewer to participate, use their brain and have a good time.

    Brian De Palma is a master filmmaker. One that has been manipulating audiences for over the last 30 years. The opening of this film is brilliant, with nearly 25 minutes of no dialogue scenes. Yes, there are lines given off here and there as the jewel heist is prepared and executed(it is cool that the heist is the opener and not the climax of this story), but really it is like watching a silent film. The attention to detail in the opening and all through out is what makes the film great, you will watch this over and over and catch something new on each viewing.

    Some have argued that De Palma is not an autuer, but indeed he is. He has his trademark long one takes, with the camera gliding around to create a universe that is almost real but still we are aware we are watching fiction. There is the common theme of duel perceptions and persona's burning bright in this film, much like in Carrie, Dressed to Kill and Blow out. That theme is best illistrated by his use of split screen. Also the slow motion is used to perfection here at critical times, unlike Micheal Bay who uses it to make things look pretty.

    This is a great film, yes, it takes some suspension of disbelief but that is why its a movie. If its your first De Palma venture you should check out his older thrillers, like Body Double and Blow out. He is a great movie maker that has influenced todays greats like David Fincher, Quinten Tarantino, Richard Kelly and P.T. Anderson in one way or another.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    As an example of how to convey information with a minimum of dialogue, this movie is absolutely outstanding. Its plot unfolds so naturally and gracefully across the screen that, as well as telling its tale with great efficiency, it also creates a wonderfully hypnotic atmosphere. Its story about a well-planned diamond heist involves double-crosses, blackmail and revenge as well as some reflections on the level to which individuals are able to control their own destinies and interestingly, it also includes a number of Hitchcockian influences such as voyeurism, doubles, confused identities and the disguise motif.

    Stylistically, the emphasis is on presenting the action with the kind of deliberate pace and fluid camera-work that together contribute so strongly to the dreamlike mood of the piece. This, in turn, makes some of the plot's stranger coincidences, apparently illogical developments and moments of deja vu seem far less incongruous than would have been the case, if they'd have been seen in a more conventionally-filmed movie.

    During the 2001 Cannes Film Festival, Laure Ash (Rebecca Romjin-Stamos) has a key role to play in a heist that's been planned by her gang-leader, Black Tie (Eriq Ebouaney) and posing as a press photographer at one of the premieres, sees a model called Veronica (Rie Rasmussen) who attracts a lot of attention because of the very revealing gold, serpent-shaped, diamond-encrusted piece of body jewellery that she's wearing. When Laure and Veronica meet in the ladies' room immediately before the movie's due to be screened, Laure is seen apparently seducing the model and during their encounter, removes the various pieces of Veronica's body-jewellery and drops them to the floor. Black Tie, who's hidden in the adjacent cubicle, then systematically swaps each piece for a fake replica in readiness for making off with the loot which is valued at $10,000,000. Things don't go so smoothly from this point on and culminate in Laure double-crossing her partners-in-crime and escaping to Paris with the stolen jewellery.

    In Paris, Laure is mistaken for a missing woman called Lily, who looks identical to her and so, after stealing her double's passport and plane ticket to New York, Laure takes the opportunity to escape to a new life in America. During the flight, she meets a wealthy businessman who she subsequently marries. Seven years later, when her husband, Bruce Hewitt Watts (Peter Coyote) is appointed as the American ambassador to France, Laure reluctantly has to return to Paris (coincidentally at the same time as Black Tie is released from prison). After a period during which she's able to keep a low profile, her cover is suddenly blown after freelance photographer, Nicholas Bardo (Antonio Banderas) takes a photograph of her which then appears in numerous publications and puts her life in danger because her fellow gang-members are out for revenge.

    The surreal series of events that follow illustrate further just how evil and manipulative Laure is and produce a dizzying succession of twists and turns that lead to the movie's entertaining and highly unpredictable conclusion. Intriguingly, during this part of the movie, it also becomes apparent that a number of things that had happened earlier, were not actually what they'd appeared to be.

    Brian De Palma's "Femme Fatale" is an immensely absorbing mystery thriller that features a woman whose characteristics are typical of the noir archetype and readily admits that she's "a bad girl, real bad - rotten to the heart". Rebecca Romjin-Stamos hits all the right notes as both Laure and Lily and Antonio Banderas is charming and humorous as her victim. The real star of the show, however, is the camera. The ways in which split-screen techniques, tracking shots and overhead camera angles cover the action are totally breathtaking and clearly the work of a filmmaker who fully understands and is inspired by, all the possibilities of cinema as a visual medium.
  • Since De Palma directed the debacle that was Mission Impossible, it seemed like a genius director has lost it all but this latest movie by the "new Hitchcock" is perhaps one of his strongest since "Carlito's Way" and the masterpiece "Body Double". The story itself is quite simple : during the filmfestival of Cannes is a bunch of diamonds stolen but then the fun begins...you really have to be attentive during the whole movie as every minute De Palma puts you on a wrong foot just like we're used to by the master of the black thrillers... An absolute must!!!!
  • Brian DePalma, say what you will, still maintains the power to shock. He's made stinkers like Mission To Mars and Snake Eyes, and you start to think he doesn't have the magic anymore. Then, he comes through with Femme Fatale, an almost silent homage to the "bad girl" film noir films of the 40's and 50's. He even reinvents the "twist" ending we've all gotten so sick of these past few years.

    His twist ending actually makes the movie better.
  • id24716 November 2002
    Just when you thought Brian De Palma had got as low as he could, along comes Femme Fatale, a film so bad it's quite brilliant. If you thought previous efforts like Raising Cain and Body Double reached new levels of absurdity, trust me they were just dress rehearsals for Femme Fatale.

    Any film which has in its opening moments a lesbian sex scene combined with a jewellery heist in the toilets of the Cannes Film Festival surely signals more bad taste scenes to come, and yes ole Brian doesn't disappoint. The longer the film went on the more the audience laughed, with dialogue usually reserved for porn films - " I don't want you to kiss my ass, just f*** it' - you know you're onto a winner.

    The final 15 minutes provided more laughs than any comedy for many a year, surely De Palma's career can only go in one direction, it can't get much lower than this - can it?

    I have to give Femme Fatale ten out of ten for all the wrong reasons - truly a classic.
  • First thing first: for those who love watching Brian De Palma films, this is a must-see film for you. Femme Fatale is one of Brian De Palma's greatest thrillers, along with Dressed to Kill, Carrie, Obsession etc. If you are not familiar with Brian De Palma films, it might be best if you watch some of his more conventional thrillers before watching Femme Fatale.

    This is definitely one of De Palma's more personal films to date, and as he both directed and wrote the screenplay for Femme Fatale, he has virtually complete control over the film. Every single camera shot has a meaning to it, and this film as many of De Palma's classic camera styles, such as split screen slow motion action sequences, long takes before a disaster occurs etc.

    A lot of the talent behind this movie also comes from the cast. Rebecca Romjin-Stamos gives a noteworthy performance as the bisexual seductive Laure Ash, and Anotnio Banderas excels himself as Nicolas Bardo, the retired still-obsessed professional photographer, who gets trapped in Laure-aka-Lily's seductive web. Other noteworthy performances got to Peter Coyote as Bruce Watts, and Eriq Ebouaney as the sinister and ruthless Black Tie.

    Generally, the screenplay for the movie is well-written and flows smoothly throughout the movie (except for the ending, which is a little bit strange. Those who have seen the movie would know what I'm talking about).Also, one there's one pretty major problem with the heist at the beginning, but you don't really notice it when you're watching(I only picked it up after my fifth viewing of it).

    Also,Femme Fatale wouldn't be the same were it not for the film's sweeping and riveting score, which sets the slightly mystical yet mysterious tone for the film.

    Overall, a top-notch De Palma classic, although no-lovers of Brian De Palma may not appreciate it in it's full brilliance
  • Warning: Spoilers
    WARNING: SPOILERS!!!! "Femme Fatale" is a frustrating movie.

    On some levels, it's very good; the "heist" sequence in the

    beginning is beautifully produced and holds your interest, but the

    middle third drags and the "twist" ending is not quite as "twisty" as

    we'd like. There are numerous clues throughout the movie that

    something is amiss -- watch the clocks -- but when the "surprise"

    is revealed, it seems tacked-on. Rebecca Romijn-Stamos is sexy;

    Antonio Banderas is adequate as the "guy caught in the web" and

    the overall feel of the movie has DePalma's usual faux-Hitchcock

    look. Not one of the great ones, but worth watching, especially if

    you like to look at scantily-clad babes! 7/10
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Spoilers herein.

    There's a huge subterranean battle raging for the soul of cinema, and it may be one of the most important things in this waking life.

    A huge contingent sees movies as illustrated stories or recorded plays. In this world, the acting matters. The characters are expected to draw us into attentive focus on some matter, usually related to archetypes, situational humor or sex. Because this is so character focused, disciples of this culture feed a celebrity priesthood. The camera is a recorder only. Most people in this world cannot believe there is a larger world of cinema.

    Another group sees film additionally as a whole new vocabulary for perceiving and reasoning about the world. It is part of a new evolution in how we think and live. It is more visceral and communal than books, and takes far less skill to master. In this world, it matters what the eye is, who the teller is, what the form of the vision is. Images matter. All, even the actors and story, are tokens moved by greater forces of world-creation. Its where our future lies.*

    DePalma has always been in this second camp, and is often reviled because he just doesn't care to cater much to the theatrically inclined. For him, everything is about who the watcher is and what he/she knows or fabricates. His best film prior to this was `Snake Eyes' which was all about the camera, moving `Rashomon' from the level of character to narrator/camera. The snake here is the fluid eye, possibly untrustworthy. But with this new film he has achieved a whole new level.

    In terms of story, his films have always been about other films rather than life. For some reason, people only recognize Hitchcock, but Eisenstein, Welles, Kurosawa and Kubrick are more prominent. Here, we have them all plus Antonioni. Oh, and Lynch.

    Lynch is the only other living mainstream director that works this way. His strategy is to have simple folding and to have one of those folds reflect the spookiness of our own minds and how we mess up his movie by the lack of control over our own nightmares. He invented the notion of making film archetypes into characters. `Blue Velvet' was about the Capra movie bumping up against the noir; and so was `Mulholland.' dePalma adopts this by creating two films. See how the second is lit completely differently. See how the camera moves completely differently. See how Laure is a wholly different person; even the makeup in the parent's house is radically different.

    But where Lynch puts surrogates for our own demons, dePlama makes room for lots of self-referential commentary on what he is doing.

    So we have indications of the film within the film:

    --The first shot of watching a movie.

    --The heist is at Cannes, involving that serpent eye, and incidentally employing a literal serpent camera. Moreover, that heist is overlain on the screening of `Est - Ouest.' If you've seen that, you'll get the bait-switch and lying narrator joke. (And you'll also get the Bolero reference.)

    --The MacMurray character is a photographer who has given up celebrity photography. (See how the battle between the two film types is literally reflected?) He now spends his time making composite images. A fine point: note how the coloring of the pieces (of two types) are shown in the ending composite.

    --The girl being watched by the photographer who is watched by the security guy who is watched by the doublecrossed heist comrades.

    We have lots of folding:

    --The two futures

    --The two `identical' woman

    --The two lovers

    --The two screens

    And of course along the way we get the jeweled serpent eye, the camera. And no one in Hollywood has a more fluid eye, a more curious stance than dePalma. Incidentally, it drives me wild when people call this noir just because the camera is unnatural (and, I admit, because there is the venetian blinds shot). But this is something larger, it subsumes noir, because we WATCH the noirish elements.

    (*This battle for the soul of the mind is mirrored by wrestling match between avatars of the Microsoft and Apple/Linux worlds, which is why all the computers in this film are Macs.)

    Ted's Evaluation: 3 of 4 -- worth watching (may be elevated depending on what else appear this year, as I only allow two fours per year.)
  • The thief Laurie Ash (Rebecca Romijn-Stamos) steals the expensive diamond jewel called 'Eye of the Serpent' in an audacious heist during an exhibition in Cannes 2001 Festival. She double-crosses her partners and is mistakenly taken as Lily, a woman who lost her husband and son in an accident and is missing since then, by an ordinary family. One day, while having bath in Lily's bathtub, Lily comes back home and commits suicide. Laurie assumes definitely Lily's identity, goes to America where she marries a rich man, who becomes the Ambassador of USA in France. When Laurie returns to France, her past haunts her.

    "Femme Fatale" is a confused movie and the flawed plot presents many points not well-explained. For example, why should Laurie leave the safety of living in USA, having a fortune from the robbery (and maybe from a divorce from a rich man), and comes back to France, where she could feel jeopardized by her past? Certainly It would not be to stay with her "beloved-husband" in Paris. Therefore, there is no plausible explanation for her return to Paris. Further, divorces are common in America, so it would be very easy to her to resolve her problem. In addition, this situation of double life has been successfully explored in many movies, like for example by David Lynch in "Lost Highway" and "Mulholland Drive". The use of a classic scene (in this movie, 'Double Indemnity') is also very common technique. I would expect much more than that for a Brian De Palma film but in the end it is entertains. My vote is seven.

    Title (Brazil): "Femme Fatale"
  • Mac Styran1 February 2004
    Warning: Spoilers
    I can't believe that I just wasted 100 minutes of my life watching this drivel.

    Bad music, bad acting, bad camera, BAD BAD BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD story.

    Plot holes? No, there simply WAS NO PLOT.

    *MILD SPOILERS*

    And as much as I like twists ... the end twist is simply fraud.

    Not that it promises anything in the first place though.

    *End of Spoilers*

    DO NOT WATCH.

    YOU'LL REGRET IT. HONESTLY.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I have some questions. As I watch this movie I'm going to write this. 1. Why is there a cat in the security area of the theater?

    2. Why is the chick with 10 million worth of jewels and gold on so stupid that she lets another woman not only strip her but also cut the gold thread,which obviously can't be fixed, and is the only thing holding her "costume" on?

    3. Why is the chick in camouflage wearing the exact same clothes with the exact same hair cut 7 years later? And why is the guy wearing the exact same blood stained tux shirt, I know he just got out of prison, but can't he get another shirt? Wasn't the shirt held as evidence and why wasn't he given a deal to get out of jail early by turning on the people who he was working with?

    4.And so he gets out of prison and throws the chick into the truck, without interrogating her or getting any info from her first which really doesn't matter because he sees the real girls photo on a poster across the street. Luckily, even though he just committed a murder he has enough time to see that poster because he's not worried about looking around for cops or witnesses or getting away quick?

    5.What world do you live in that you can believe that a woman that hot can be walking down the street in those cameo shorts without every guy on the street totally staring and willing to come to her rescue when those two guys grab her and throw her into a truck? Or at least grab the guys who did it? Are we really suppose to believe that nobody saw anything? Why doesn't Antonio get a picture of them throwing her into the truck?

    6.She just happens to meet her twins parents and be taken in to their house and the twin just happens to kill herself and leave a passport and a plane ticket which just happens to get bumped up to first class.

    7.Why was Antonia Bandito's character so intent on taking the photos of two women talking outside of a church?

    8.Those bad people? It's one bad person and if she's married to the "the richest man in the world" and looks like she does, why can't she just find another bad person to take him out? Although I did like the line "Bad people read papers too."

    9. If she wants 10 million and she's married to "the richest man in the world", ever heard of divorce? I hear it pays well.

    10. An American French ambassador's wife of the "richest man in the world" doesn't have 24 hour security?

    11.They have sex with their clothes on and Ainthony Bentdildo turns out to be a forty second man? I know I'd want to spend a bit more time with her. At least forty five seconds.

    12. What kind of professional killer doesn't shoot someone before they throw them over a bridge? Anybody remember the last scenes from the Batman TV show? Holy freaking nude hot chick Batman?

    13.OK so why did I have to watch a stupid dream sequence? What's the point of watching a movie where everything that happens is written off as not being of any value? Everything you just watched is all beyond any criticism due to the fact that it's not real? Lame.

    14.So two guys just got killed and the photographer isn't trying to get a shot, instead he's trying to get some pussy? Well... that sounds right.

    15. What's up with the Conan music?

    16. Why Why Why was this made? A big waste of time. Oh, Oh oh I have to add this one, what was the deal with the two gangsters having the guy in their car and him slamming heads and making like he was about to get away and then it just switches into them on the bridge running behind Romajin-Stamos and slapping her head and then throwing her over the bridge? And then shes in the water naked? What was that all about? A way to sell more posters and hand lotion? Was that a landing strip/pinstripe shave on her bush? I prefer a triangle myself, but then I don't sleep with supermodels.
  • One of the best movies of the year, great story, excellent cinematography, everything is right, great and glamorous. Well, that's the good ol' DePalma, or maybe something that's slightly better than anything he's done before. But the real revelation is DePalma's new bad girl. Rebecca Romijn-Stamos looks the part of a femme fatale - she's easily one of the most beautiful women these days in the world of the silver screen. She reminds me of Catherine Zeta-Jones, only as it turned out, Romijn-Stamos can _actually_ act! Mrs. Stamos has some serious potential in the movie world. I won't be surprised if she'll be the next "Sharon Stone" kind of famous hottie of this decade. 9 out of 10, a must-see
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Scopophilia is Greek for 'love of looking;' Brian DePalma, like Dario Argento and Hitchcock is always looking. And so are his characters. In the opening of 'Femme Fatale' (2002), Laure is watching Billy Wilder's 'Double Indemnity' (1944). She and her 'gang' are about to steal a fortune in diamonds at the Cannes Film Festival, from the girlfriend of film director Regis Wargnier (playing himself, his film played Cannes that year). The plan is for Laure to successfully seduce her in the bathroom stall while Wargnier's 'East-West' plays on the big screen. Now, it strikes me that as 'meticulous' as the plan sounds, it is really fraught with potential failure! Will Laure's seduction happen on cue? Will security take a leak on cue? (The last five minutes of the film make you realise the seduction was a dead certainty… ). What saves it is the bravura filmmaking. The heist shows a technical wizardry that reminded me of the best bits of DePalma's 'Mission: Impossible' (1996).

    He has made remarkable use of the split-screen technique before, but never has it been so self-reflexively and personally deployed as it is here. To slowly introduce the technique, during the heist he uses 'natural' screen dividers, such as toilet stall walls, to divide the screen. This results in later, when he actually does split the screen that the divide doesn't seem so gimmicky or jarring. Twenty minutes in and the blonde Laure has performed a double cross. We then cut to a rainy day as Nicolas watches from up high on his balcony; he is a photographer (Laure was impersonating a photographer at the heist), and he snaps Laure who has donned a dark wig, and will in more than one way become Lily. About half an hour into the film DePalma begins to caress, or is it 'lull' us with running water, ticking clocks, Pino Donnagio music (but by Ryuichi Sakamoto), and then a sudden crack of thunder sends us the message that 'something else' is going on here as Laure is in the bath at Lily's parents' house and in walks 'Lily,' upset and crying on the day of her funeral, the overflowing fish tank is a big clue… As Roger Ebert correctly assesses; "This is a movie about watching and being watched, about seeing and not knowing what you see."

    Seven years after the heist, (so therefore, based on when the film was released, we are now in the future!), Laure unwillingly returns to Paris; she is 'Lily' and married to the American ambassador. The "Déjà Vu 2008" poster that decorates a telephone booth outside Nicolas' apartment may seem like a simple wink to the audience, but the use of the painting "Ophelia" (1852), by John Everett Millais, in the poster points to Laure's trouble with water. In Argento's own 'Trauma' (1993), and Argento fan Chang Youn-hyun's film 'Tell Me Something' (1999), the Millais painting is used as similar visual shorthand. And mentioning Argento, DePalma again uses the surprise reveal from Argento's 'Tenebre.'

    A classic 'femme fatale,' Laure packs a gun and uses her awareness of men to devour them and spit them out. She turns very nasty in the scene on the bridge, and Nicolas becomes acutely aware of her intentions. The film becomes very dark indeed, with them going to a bar not dissimilar to 'One Eyed Jacks' in David Lynch's 'Fire Walk With Me' (1992), where all the patrons are men wearing black; apparently not a gay bar, but more a nest of thieves. In the climax on the bridge, Laure is thrown in the river, having finally been tracked down by her double crossed cohorts; but look, once she is in the water she is nude, born again, she has a second chance.

    Arguably the most personal film DePalma has made since 'Body Double', 'Femme Fatale' is nowhere near as dark a film (the Argento within is harder to find, but it is there with an outsider investigating, seeing and not seeing). It comes complete with a typically frustrating DePalma denouement… I suppose he is allowed to use dream sequences, Aeschylus' invented them in 'The Persians' in 472 BC.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This is the film that caused me to give up on Brian De Palma completely. He has disappointed me with half-good movies (Carlito's Way, The Untouchables, Raising Cain) for some time. I didn't think anything could be worse than "Wise Guys" but he certainly managed new lows with Femme Fatale.

    I'm not one who thinks Rebecca Romijn-Stamos can't act. She does a pretty good job on her TV show and has turned in some nice guest performances. I think she's better at comedy though and while there are certainly ways to inject Films Noir with wry humor any attempts at doing so in Fatale failed miserably. And the huge flaws in Femme Fatale only highlight what shortcomings Romizjn-Stamos does have.

    Some of the unbelievable developments in the film can be explained by the fact that the main body of the movie is a dream sequence like Romijn-Stamos being dropped from several stories through a glass ceiling and landing on a pile of cushiony insulation material that just happens to be there. But her just happening (at least I think it was coincidence. The film is very short on clarity) to obtain the new identity of a woman who is her exact double and ending up being found by friends or family (again unclear) and left alone in the woman's apartment is as hard to accept as Antonio Bandera's come-and-go accent. I never did figure out if he was playing an American or not.

    Certainly the doppleganger bit could be an accepted premise on which the film could have been predicated. Instead it was a contrivance as phony and unacceptable as that handy pile of insulation.

    There was one element that was the hardest to swallow in a film that was full of them. How is it that in a film that features a European leading man and was largely filmed in Europe with a lead actress who must have spent considerable time there during her modeling days was said actress allowed to very clearly call the beverage EX-presso?

    I laughed almost as hard at that gaffe as I did when, in The Principle, Jim Belushi pronounced the title word as "prince-a-bul".

    If anyone has ever wondered how a commercially successful director has gotten five "Razzie" nominations for "Worst Director" a viewing of Femme Fatale will explain all.
  • I'm an huge Brian De Palma fan but that doesn't in my opinion mean that he can just get away with everything. "Femme Fatale" is definitely style over substance but is just style enough to save this movie? Absolutely not.

    Biggest problem with this movie is the script. It's unnecessary difficult to follow at times, including the ending. On top of that the story just isn't interesting enough. Also the main character is an huge failure. I'm not blaming ex-model Rebecca Romijn-Stamos her acting skills for this, I simply blame it on the script. Her character never becomes accessible or interesting and remains difficult to understand and follow throughout the movie. Antonio Banderas is simply miscast, the role simply doesn't fit him. Thankfully there also are some well casted parts in the movie. Peter Coyote is always good in a movie. It was also great to see Gregg Henry in a De Palma movie again, even though his role in this movie was quite pointless. Another strong piece of casting was the beautiful Rie Rasmussen who in her small role perhaps leaves the biggest impression of the entire movie.

    It may sound weird but I still enjoy watching this movie, despite me rating it poorly. Like I said before I'm simply a big De Palma fan so there still is plenty to enjoy for me here. The beginning of the movie, 'the Cannes festival heist' is extremely good and memorable and has De Palma his style written all over it. De Palma can build the tension in a movie like no other director can, even though the whole sequences reminded a bit too much of the other De Palma movie "Mission:Impossible". To be honest De Palma never has been the most original director in the business but the scenes are simply always constructed so well and are so highly memorable that you'll always forgive him for not being terribly original.

    However in this case style alone is not good enough to save this movie. The movie leaves a messy, confusing impression afterward, which is simply due to the poor written story that 'tries too hard to be difficult' at times.

    For De Palma fans it simply still remains a must see but everyone else can better skip this one, or should stop watching after the 'Cannes' opening sequence.

    4/10

    http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
An error has occured. Please try again.