93 min
5.9
2017
USA
During the Civil War, at a Southern girls’ boarding school, young women take in an injured enemy soldier. As they provide refuge and tend to his wounds, the house is taken over with sexual tension and dangerous rivalries, and taboos are broken in an unexpected turn of events.
Overview
Reviews
Reno wrote:**The lust and the destruction!**
I neither read the book, nor seen the original film. It was a small slice of the American civil war. But did not focused on the actual war. A fictional drama that followed an injured soldier who sheltered in a girls school was looked after well by the stayed back teachers and students. While he was recovering, fallen in love with one of the women. But everybody else too had a little crush on him since he's the one man around. That causes a bump, following a twist in the tale, all comes to halt.
A simple and nice drama. Best picks for the roles. But Kristen Dunst did not sync-in with the rest of the girls. Nice clothings too, a perfect recreation of the mid 19th century. I enjoyed it, good for watching at once, but I bet those who watched both the version would go for the old one. Especially for Clint Eastwood. Though Colin Ferrell was not bad in this. Not the best film from Sofia Coppola compared with her others, definitely not worst either.
**7/10**
Gimly wrote:A well acted Civil War drama, but one that perhaps would have played better on the stage of a theatre than the screen of a cinema.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._
Martin Oaks wrote:**Talent is not inherited**
It is a shame that talent is not inherited as easily as a last name. I still cannot find a single reason to compare Sofia Coppola to her father. As the saying goes: "I'm not saying you have to beat it... just match it."
Many believe that the minimalist style of 'Lost in Translation' (2003) is a highly personal way of filmmaking. For me, that boring and bland movie was just the beginning of a mediocre and pretentious career sustained by her father's shadow. Even back then, she overused pointless shots and sacrificed narrative pacing in favor of pure aesthetics. Film after film, this director has destroyed every script she has touched, and with 'The Beguiled' she has done it again.
When Don Siegel adapted this novel in 1971, he achieved an impeccable work thanks to the sexual tension, the morbid nature of the characters, and a great Clint Eastwood. And now, in the hands of Francis Ford Coppola's daughter, the story becomes corny and pedantic. It is a disappointment that she eliminates the sensual and wicked side of the plot to prioritize a dark cinematography that pretends to be artistic. Furthermore, what she does with Nicole Kidman and Kirsten Dunst is unforgivable—two great actresses who are reduced here to mere puppets at the service of an overly vulgar film.
