ads

Slider[Style1]

Style2




(Review originally written at 30 May 2007)

I think that this movie is more in European movie-making style than most of its other Hollywood movies from the same genre. It has a different way of storytelling, different more straight-forward characters and dialogs and of course sex and nudity. I think that director John Dahl feels more at ease with directing movies more in an European kind of style than in the typical Hollywood-style. It's maybe also the reason why none of his movies ever became a commercial success, though his movies definitely have quality.

Nevertheless, for a genre movie this movie was just lacking too much to consider it a completely successful one. For too long the story just moves on and happens without a clear indication at what the direction the movie is heading to. Maybe I was just expecting the movie to be more fun. The movie is now more of a serious crime/thriller with some slight comical undertones, that are mostly notable in some of its characters. But nevertheless, I feel that it's a big miss that they didn't made the movie any more fun by for instance adding some more plot lines, with different characters, all trying to hunt down Bridget Gregory/Wendy Kroy, for whatever reason.

Now instead there isn't always enough happening and developing in the movie. It doesn't make the movie the most tense, exciting or even most original one out of its genre.

The story on its own is quite good and interesting, in which a manipulative, beautiful, intelligent woman is trying to trick a man in killing her husband, of whom she has stolen close to a million dollar of him. It's interesting to see the manipulative and intelligent woman at work, by throwing in her looks and sexual-abilities, to get what she wants. It's a real femme fatale.

It really helps the movie that it has such as fine, strong, leading femme fatale, played by Linda Fiorentino, who definitely fits the role. It's not necessarily her acting but its more her character that makes the movie work out. It's sort of suiting for the '90's, when lots of strong female character-roles arose. The other roles in this movie are limited down too much to my regret. Bill Pullman is good in this movie but he basically is only in the beginning and end of the movie. J.T. Walsh gets also extremely underused in a way too small role, that seemed like a fun one with more potential to it.

This movie also seriously made me think about something. The movie made me realize that the '90's just wasn't the decade for movies, when it comes down to style. I'm talking about visual style but also definitely about the costumes and hair. It's all pretty bleach and style-less, especially the early '90's, if you compare it to any other random decade of movie-making. But oh well, who knows. maybe in 50 years from now people shall praise this movie for having a typical great '90's style!

Good enough movie but just not the must-see I heard it was.

7/10

Watch trailer

About Frank Veenstra

Watches movies...writes about them...and that's it for now.
«
Next
Newer Post
»
Previous
Older Post

No comments:

Post a Comment


Top