The film finally opens here tomorrow and yet I can find no confirmation on a domestic release. (I had thought I had read Milan was releasing it.)

Amazon lists an import CD coming out on Nov. 12th with bonus tracks, but I'll be damned if I'll pay over $40 for it.

Anyone have any additional information on this?

I'm really keen to see this new de Palma film - anyone know when it's due to hit UK screens?

Sorry I can't help any with your actual query though James, but I don't know nothing!

Philipp

Sakamoto's score owes a lot to Ravel.

Great movie, just saw it!

I'm not as thrilled with DePalma as I was 25 years ago. Style over substance. Casualties of War made Oliver Stone look subtle. Mission: Impossible was bitter. Snake Eyes was ok though, but no great shakes. I skipped Mission to Mars on the advice of too many people I respect. The Detroit reviewer disliked Femme Fatale big time (one star) but the New York Times reviewer had good things to say about it. If I am going, probably better do it soon--I'd be surprised if it did any kind of box-office.

It is fun to spot of all his homages to Hitchcock AND to his own films, especially Body
Double.

Sakamoto’s score has its moments. The Bolero rip-off irritated me and didn’t, in my
opinion, match the visuals. De Palma always seems to like wall to wall scoring, and
Sakamoto provides this, sounding often like a pale imitation of Donaggio’s scores.
(And some Herrmann, especially Obsession.) I liked one melody, but I wish this movie
would have been scored by Donaggio. If DePalma is going to direct his composer to
write like this, why not hire the real guy?

I wonder why Banderas was in this film. Perhaps for his name? He doesn’t have a big
part, and not much is required from him. He seems to sense that. He is literally dwarfed
by Ramos, and their chemistry is flaccid and anemic. I don’t think he thought much of his
role and just walks through it.

This main character in this movie is Ramos, and I really wonder why De Palma hired her.
She can’t act. Does she fulfill some T&A fantasy for him? She can’t carry the film, but if
you’re into female eye candy, you’ll gain a few pounds.

Go to http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=13746 to read the review I'm talking about.

As for Sakamoto & the Bolero, that is obviously DePalma's idea. The film was more than likely temped with that piece and Sakamoto probably just wrote something very similar to match it. I didn't have a problem with the music. Perhaps the reason Donaggio isn't working with DePalma has to do with a scheduling conflict or a falling out. That I don't know. But I think Sakamoto has done some fine work on this film and "Snake Eyes." Face it, almost all the composers who work in this genre with DePalma end up paying homage to Herrmann.

With regard to Stamos, she isn't the world's best actress, but I found her fine in the role. Same with Banderas. The performances pretty much hinge on the twist to the plot, which make more sense in hindsight.

As for DePalma being "style over substance," that criticisim has been thrown at him for over 25 years. I don't see very many directors doing what he does. He SHOWS you what is going on and lets you put the pieces together. You don't have every little thing explained to you like you are 3 years old. You have to work a bit. I always enjoy his BIG set pieces, like the rescue of Gillian in "The Fury" or the museum in "Dressed to Kill." This film has a couple of those too and it's always fun to watch how these things are photographed and edited.

"Femme Fatale" isn't "Schindler's List," and it's not trying to be. But as a stylish, noir type film it's rather enjoyable. Beats the hell out of crap like "Jackass" and "I, Spy" that are raking in the dough these days.

Oh, and since this is a music site: THAT WAS BOLERO IN THE FILM. I certainly hope Sakamoto and DePalma aren't trying to say otherwise. I didn't quite catch an end credit to Ravel...but I was so eager to leave that theatre after the past disappointing few hours.

I can't speak for FEMME FATEALE because I haven't seen it but MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE was proof enough to see there's nothing behind the smoke and mirrors. I wouldn't mind DePalma mining the past and putting a new spin on it if the end result did something meaningful, but it doesn't.

Take technique: when Welles or Hitchcock did long takes, it increased tension, you felt it even if you didn't quite know why. Even when Altman tried it, it was reference that fit in with the film he was making, but when DePalma did it in the beginning of SNAKE EYES, it was a stunt, like "how long can DePalma hold his breath."

And I'd rather have DePalma reach for something original and fail rather than be the latecomer at the same tired table. But there is something else. Some stylistic guys like Leone or Lynch or Hitchcock in the past worked within genres but got in behind them to teach us something, provide a personal viewpoint. In DePalma and in Sam Raimi as well, there's nothing like this behind the stream of images.

In Hitchcock, the images and the narrative don't let up but, in between the compositions and the thriller plot, things open up long enough for ideas to get through. Sure there's climbing all over Mount Rushmore but there's also ideas about government and personal integrity: what bastards the CIA are, the equasion of wealth and the sinister, the change in Thornhill from a guy giving meaningless girls chocolates and stealing cabs from people to a guy who really cares about someone, and so forth. With Raimi or DePalma, the speed is faster, the story more complex, the attempt at set pieces stronger, but there's nothing behind it. Even commercials have more substance. Atleast commercials try to convince you that things should be easy or that you'll lose position and won't get laid if you don't buy products.

What's there to learn about things sewn into the fabric of FEMME FATALE? Maybe there is something, I can't say not having seen the film. But chances are it's "just a thriller".

And even if DePalma films look different from other films, that "originality" doesn't mean anything if there isn't anything to be gained but a sugar rush from watching his films.

Just because you can use the word postmodern with DePalma doesn't mean there's value in his work. I take it that DePalma wants to play with 40s noir elements here (having raided Hitch and Eisenstein and god knows who else for all he could get away with) right down to the "It's only a dream" ending of WOMAN IN THE WINDOW. There might be a kind of 'spot the reference' game to be played with the film, a kind of play with these forms that might be worth the look. He may have made a pact with the devil to make this film: ok, you get a lot of nude shots of a supermodel and I get to spin a few of my own tricks along side. Fine, but where is the audience in all this, not the stare at the girl audience but the regular I want a story and to be taken someplace audience. That audience isn't taken into account here.

Of course, I'm being prejudiced saying all this based on circumstantial evidence--I need to go see the film before I can say anything good or bad about it. I'm speculating. And if FEMME FATALE doesn't apply, I'm pegging other films and other works of DePalma.

Like the guys who crib scores, directors who do it to go through the motions of being a filmmaker just don't interest me. When something new, fresh, real, and important shows up it makes everything else smell like old fish.