Based on 94 votes and 39 reviews
I found this movie lacked a good story line. Slow and boring.
The drive to redefine everything in feminist terms marches on, so now we get yet another needless remake; this time from Sofia Coppola. The source material is idiotically betrayed and the film is a wrong-headed and poorly shot bore. Must-miss!
expected more with the actors that are in this movie, very boring
Completely stupid. Would be nice if they used some lighting, couldn’t see the actors faces whenever it was an indoor scene
This is what happens when a director is not as bright as the author who wrote the book she's basing her movie on. Coppola completely missed what the book was about. This movie is an appalling adaptation and I feel sorry for the actresses who were involved. Corporal John McBurney was made into a sympathetic character! And the women were witches, how does a female director misinterpret a story so that women look bad and the evil man looks good? From a book written by a man to illustrate that men are tricky and you can't believe everything they say? What a travesty.
Miss Martha should have been played by Kathy Bates, as this movie had a Misery-esque quality to it. The movie is OK, but it's nothing over-the-top by any means. I mean, Colin Farrell was acting as an American Northern soldier during the US Civil War, but he did not even try to change his Irish accent which was rather odd.
Excellent acting by all cast! Beautiful sets with very moody cinematography that captures the precarious situation that the house occupants are in! I think the female viewpoint that Sophia creates works so well with this script!
Miss Martha should have been played by Kathy Bates, as the movie had a "Misery-esque" vibe to it. Long and mostly boring though, unlike Misery
Not much happens in this show. Even the death scene almost put me out of my myself.
Written & directed by Sofia Coppola ... well done! Southern plantation scenes just dripping with female sexual need. Interesting counterpoint to wars fought by men ... women left to their barren lives, waiting in limbo for the men to return. Implication? When the men do return they will find that the women have changed -- no longer any tolerance for male b.s. Much, much better than, the Clint Eastwood/Geraldine Page movie of 1971 ... interesting to compare them though.
Fine actors but they could do nothing for this film. Slow paced, repetitive shots and dialogue, plot outcome was a no brainer, very dark cinematography. Overall a huge disappointment.
Waste of time and money. Dont watch it
The plot for The Beguiled was great as was all of the actors. However, I saw many missed opportunities to add depth and realism to the movie.
Save your money. Watching paint dry would be more exciting. Just seems like another poor film choice for Nicole.
Good actors but lack of drama, no depth of story, not sinister nor suspenseful. Boring. I expected more, got far less.
Shallow boring storyline expect better from these well known actors would not recommend movie is a waste of your time and money
Having seen the original from 1971, I was impressed how Sofia Coppola turned the story around to be completely from the women's point of view. The original was very Civil War soap opera with sexually repressed/demented head-mistress Geraldine Page. I found this new version far more interesting because it wasn't all bodice-ripping. It showed the slow-burn of the three sexually aware women all jockeying for the Union soldier's affection and attention. The question of whether what happens to him is done on purpose or truly to save his life is done on purpose. The audience is forced to come to an opinion and this changes the story at the end. I liked that the film was quick and to the point and although many thought it dull and boring, that's just a sign of the times when people want instant gratification and don't want to "think" about the underpinnings of a story. This film worked so well on so many levels, for me. If you're patient, give this film a try.
The accents in this piece were all over the place..."southern" Australian, Irish.... it was a little embarrassing. Cinematography was lovely. Acting was good and the storyline was interesting as well. Probably not going to win any awards, but certainly worth seeing :)
Sofia Coppola is no Don Siegel.
It was OK, not as good as the original.
I preferred the 1971 version. I found the photography so dark that I had trouble making out some of the details - like can someone adjust the brightness!!! I like Colin Farrell but Clint Eastwood really had it in the original movie.
Not for everyone but quite sinister
It was even more dismal and disturbing than the original movie.
I enjoyed it, but it needed more can't explain it. I wouldn't mind seeing what would of happen when the Yankees showed up after winning the war.
The characters were all dressed up, but the movie went nowhere. The characters were great. The story was great. The plot was incomplete. I was so disappointed in the way the story just dumped its viewers off towards the end, and kind of abruptly ended what was going to be a very promising movie.
Quite very interesting movie from start to end, great performance all actors, love the details, lighting, emotions, women reaction, coping with stranger and managed to handle situation especially living behind isolated gate cut from outside world. Movie with some humor that you will enjoy, worth seeing!
It's a very slow movie or not much happens. There is a flagrant lack of depth in the story and in the characters. This movie is not for me.
Great movie! You have a bit of everything, horror, drama, flirting, laughter. A bit slow but fabulous acting.
This movie was much too slow paced for me. The plot lacked a climax, the characters lacked depth and the performances were just ok. I am not sure why this film has received the notoriety it did because I would not recommend watching this film even on a lazy rainy Sunday.
I liked it. Would see it again.
The performances of these veteran actors were great, especially from Nicole Kidman. The sense of danger and ultimate resolution was a bit quick and without consequence.
A lesson in why not to toy with a woman's affections! Spoilers! Prior to seeing the film I had been under the impression that this was a film about a man who takes advantage of the kindness and adoration of a group of women and girls during the civil war. The women and girls then scheme to keep him in their home and dependent on them but when he spurns them, they plot his death. While it has a similar idea it seems Sofia Coppola approached it from both sides. You wonder, did she really do that to his leg because he didn't go to her room? Or was it really because his leg was too badly broken and John was dislusional from pain? While I did enjoy the film, I felt there was something missing which seems to be a sentiment shared with a few of my fellow movie goers. I think a scene where Martha makes a move on John and he refuses her (whether it be because Edwina is watching or because he's not interested) or where John makes amends with Amy at the final dinner and she attempts to stop him but it's too late. Or John and Edwina making plans and her during the aftermath of dinner. Just something.
Movie was short and very slow.
The latest film from Sofia Copolla is a slow burning, tension filled drama that holds many surprises. The cast turn in very strong performances and the beautiful cinematography transports us to the southern states in a way that makes you fell the heat and humidity. A film that is well worth seeing.
Cast did excellent work and there was a subtle humor throughout the film that compliments the style perfectly.
Great performance by the cast. I really enjoyed this movie!
I really enjoyed this movie and the title of is very fitting! It starts one way and ends so very surprisingly. The acting was amazing and the costumes and details were perfect. I highly recommend this movie.
Really liked it