O Estranho que Nós Amamos

Para um longa-metragem duma hora e meia tem um enredo pouco denso. A bem interpretada moderação e inocência (quer dizer desejo sexual adormecido) de Kirsten Dunst de época vitoriana; e outra grande criação de Kidman como chefe da casa são as únicas coisas que chamaram a minha atenção aqui. Havia muitas cenas durante as quais a metade da sala (incluindo eu) se riu. Sofia esqueceu-se de que o espetador contemporâneo não é um dos protagonistas do seu filme, do tempo dele. Se justificasse um remake para um público contemporâneo, Guillermo del Toro deveria tê-lo feito. E com uma boa dose de ketchup. (25/05/2017)

The Beguiled is a gentler, more sensual and more sophisticated take on Thomas Cullin’s novel than the film made by Don Siegel and Clint Eastwood in 1971. In the original film, the ruin of men was represented by jealous and vengeful women who were incapable of suppressing their lust. Therefore, I understand Sofia Coppola’s decision to rework the same subject matter so that the result would not be a film expressing male paranoia about female hysteria and in which Southern belles are defined solely by their sexuality (or lack thereof). Coppola dispensed with the broader historical context and replaced it with a timeless narrative about the battle of the sexes and girls coming of age. Similarly as in The Virgin Suicides and Marie Antoinette, she confines her female protagonists to a golden cage, which provides them with certain privileges but also prevents them from freely expressing their individual interests. This confinement is manifested also in The Beguiled in the disregard for the outside world, corresponding to the point of view of privileged white girls who are only interested in their own needs. Despite its seeming one-dimensionality and superficiality, The Beguiled is a layered, subversive and humorous film with an ambiguous message. 85% (14/07/2017)

OK, gorgeous pictures, almost tableau vivant, fantastic natural lighting, charismatic cast, but I have to ask: WHY? There is a nice word for that - everything in this film is "underwritten". Characters and a story that moves forward through sharp reversals in the mood of a single male character. I get that Sofia wanted to change the perspective, but she failed. Deceived / Deceived / Deceived are too empty to offer material for subversion. In the end, it was best described by an American spectator who, when leaving the Cannes Palais de Cinema, said: COMPLETELY USELESS. I agree. (27/05/2017)

I love the acting of both the excellent Nicole Kidman and Colin Farrell, but even the young puppy Elle Fanning has something going for her. I was expecting a more steamy psychological and erotic experience which the last half hour politely encouraged, just a shame they ended it so quickly. It was watchable, but could have been better. 60% (01/10/2017)

An hour-long wait for a peak that definitely isn't worth an hour-long wait. Lots of stolen glances, genuine curiosity, and suppressed emotions do all the heavy lifting for plot development that struck me as belonging in a different, significantly less successful film. The answers to the questions that interested me the most remained hidden behind silent female characters. Sofia Coppola is definitely losing her uniqueness. (20/11/2017)

Kirsten Dunst has been in films under the direction of Sofia for two decades and each film is a delight. Now, for the first time, they've invited Nicole to join them. The result? A wonderful visual experience told at its own pace, with only diegetic music. (11/08/2017)

Sofia Coppola has always relied on emotion rather than historical epic, and this personal story of a woman's motivations and feelings is no different. The running time, the story, and the protagonists, dominated primarily by Nicole Kidman and Kirsten Dunst, are in line with this. Colin Farrell's character has it all together in the middle of the film and then starts making incomprehensible and illogical (screenwriting) mistakes, which, given the leisurely build-up of the story, feels like a punch in the gut. Otherwise, the cinematography is great, as it should be in a historical drama, but one can't help feeling that some of the main characters' interactions feel like Coppola made this film with a nineteenth-century style. (01/10/2017)

O filme original de 1971 não é um milagre, mas ainda assim é muito melhor feito. É muito mais rico em termos do enredo e da descrição de personagens, e contém muito mais tensão, conflito entre personagens, e uma tensão sexual mais ousada. Mesmo o final teve um ponto de partida melhor trabalhado. Na nova versão, a diretora falhou, sobretudo, em realizar o filme mais do ponto de vista das suas personagens femininas, o que era provavelmente a intenção, e depois em trazer para os dias de hoje a sua atmosfera de um antigo internato de raparigas prudentemente conservador, em que apareceu subitamente uma tentação proibida sob a forma de um homem bonito, o que provavelmente é porque o público confunde o filme com uma comédia negra e reage a ele com risos. A história é superficial e escassa em comparação com a versão original do filme, as motivações dos personagens não são suficientemente claras, e nem o elenco das estrelas não joga na primeira liga. (11/07/2017)

I didn't find the film worth a second watch. It was a truly unconventional take on the war between the North and the South. I wasn't bored, but I came pretty close. The plot definitely needed livening up. The only performance that stood out for me was Nicole Kidman’s, the others were just too bland. (01/02/2018)

Sofia Coppola made a visually captivating film in which there is not much to criticize in terms of styling, costumes and sets, helped by the actors who played their parts well. I especially liked Kirsten, who I thought was beautiful in the background, although she almost seemed dumb, which doesn't feel right for her, but she played it well. However, I’m not the least bit surprised when it comes to Nicole. (05/10/2017)