Why I spent nearly two hours watching this terrible film, I don't know. I guess it's just because I kept telling myself, "it's got to get better, it's got to get better." Well, it didn't; even the nude love scenes are boring.
Where to begin? Let's start with the acting. I liked Anne Parillaud in "La Femme Nikita." I suppose her face was just as inexpressive there, but at least it was an action film and her body was expressive, spending a lot of time doing gymnastics and hand to hand combat. In this film she sleepwalks through her role, or roles (we can never be sure). Perhaps she took an excessive dose of Botox, because her facial muscles seem paralyzed. William Baldwin is slightly more expressive; at least he is able to manage a smirk, but that is his only facial expression.
I must acknowledge that the idea behind the film is a clever one, and perhaps in the hands of Hitchcock or Chabrol, a good thriller might have been made. Instead, in the hands of the monumentally untalented Mr. Ruiz, we get a somnolent film that proceeds at a snail's pace and borders on incomprehensibility. Many have said that the film is a ripoff of, or parody of, or tribute to Hitchcock. There is some truth to this, but I think the film whose central idea it really steals is "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari," which debuted in 1919! At least the Caligari-like twist at the end gave the film a sense of wry humor, and for this I'll rate it one point higher than I otherwise would. 4/10
Where to begin? Let's start with the acting. I liked Anne Parillaud in "La Femme Nikita." I suppose her face was just as inexpressive there, but at least it was an action film and her body was expressive, spending a lot of time doing gymnastics and hand to hand combat. In this film she sleepwalks through her role, or roles (we can never be sure). Perhaps she took an excessive dose of Botox, because her facial muscles seem paralyzed. William Baldwin is slightly more expressive; at least he is able to manage a smirk, but that is his only facial expression.
I must acknowledge that the idea behind the film is a clever one, and perhaps in the hands of Hitchcock or Chabrol, a good thriller might have been made. Instead, in the hands of the monumentally untalented Mr. Ruiz, we get a somnolent film that proceeds at a snail's pace and borders on incomprehensibility. Many have said that the film is a ripoff of, or parody of, or tribute to Hitchcock. There is some truth to this, but I think the film whose central idea it really steals is "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari," which debuted in 1919! At least the Caligari-like twist at the end gave the film a sense of wry humor, and for this I'll rate it one point higher than I otherwise would. 4/10