Unless you buy that
theory, Passion is a
disaster. Some scenes
are as stylish as you
might expect from
DePalma, but the
mystery is
uninvolving, the
script is trite, the
enting is lame and
unsatisfying, and the
character details are
uninteresting. (And
how many times is
DePalma going to drag
out the "it was just a
dream" cliche what was
already shopworn in
the 1950s?)
Surprisingly, given a
cast of name
performers, the acting
is truly sub-par.
Rachel McAdams tried
to break out of her
goody-goody rom-com
image by playing a
manipulative and kinky
career woman with a
sadistic streak, a
role which she chose
to attack with an
over-the-top
sensibility which
would have embarrassed
Joan Crawford. If
McAdams was lacking in
the subtlety
department, Noomi
Rapace more than made
up for it by being so
subtle that she
basically only used a
single facial
expression: the
glassy-eyed deer
caught in the
headlights. Most
people, including me,
once thought that she
was an excellent
actress based on her
performance as Lisbeth
Salander in the
original Dragon Tattoo
trilogy. It turns out
that she was just
fortunate enough to be
cast as a character in
her range, someone
uncomfortable with
human interaction,
socially awkward,
limited in emotional
response, and possibly
autistic. That
particular range was
magnificent to portray
Salander, but has
limited value in roles
that require
normality. I don't
know whether she is
really that
inexpressive, or is
simply incapable of
performing in English.
Perhaps she didn't
understand the lines
and was just mouthing
them phonetically. To
make matters worse,
McAdams and Rapace
seemed like Meryl
Streep and Daniel
Day-Lewis compared to
the guy who played the
two women's common
love interest, who
seems to be a
re-animated corpse,
and a rather obnoxious
one at that. He did
some "drunk" acting so
cartoonish that Dudley
Moore would have
advised him to dial it
down a notch.
This is a re-imagining
of a recent French
movie which I have not
seen, Crime d'amour,
which featured Kristin
Scott-Thomas as the
cold, manipulative
boss and Ludivine
Sagnier as the
beleagured naif who
works for her. As I
read about that
casting and thought
more about the film, I
wondered how much
better the DePalma
version could have
been if Noomi Rapace
and Rachel McAdams had
simply switched roles.
Granted, the age
dynamic of
Scott-Thomas and
Sagnier could not be
replicated, but it was
not replicated with
the existing casting
(Rapace and McAdams
are the same age), and
the switcheroo would
have allowed both
women to do things
they are good at.
Ultimately I don't
know whether to blame
the actors or the
script, but it's safe
to say that the main
characterizations fail
the Gene Siskel test.
You would not have
dinner with any of
these characters.
Almost everything
about them is dull,
and the little that is
not dull is obnoxious.
You would not want to
spend a minute in the
elevator with any of
them, let alone the
time required for
dinner or the 90
minutes it takes to
watch this film.
Rotten
Tomatoes: 25%
