Dear Brian De Palma,the first 20 minutes of Femme Fatale were enthralling. The film has one of the most original heist sequences ever, what with the sumptuous and luxurious visuals from the Cannes film festival, lesbian scene and the epic score by Ryuchi Sakamoto. The plot was both ingenious and utterly ridiculous. I wonder whether you stole the premonitory dream idea from Night of the Following Day. You could have done a lot more with it. Rebecca Romjin Stamos's character is one of the best archetypes of the nympho-maniacal and cunning femme fatale. The film is a visual pleasure with the repeated use of deep focus, split screens and slow motion. You are second only to Hitchcock when it comes to choosing stunning females. Stamos is one of your most beautiful heroines, it is unfortunate that she did not become a bigger star. Antonio Banderas gets to show his acting chops especially in the scene where he acts gay. Peter Coyote was underused. I wonder why. The film was not just style, it had substance too.Best Regards, Pimpin.(8/10)

I have no trouble re-watching De Palma's movies a 2nd time. Because the dialogue is not the point of his movies, but what is how the camera work is telling you. And if your concentration level was low the first time you saw one of his movies, for whatever reason, you should see if again. To see what you didn't see the first time Femme Fatale is no different. The title alone quietly whispers "cliche" in the back of your mind. And the opening "tiolet stall scene" at Canne (besides the joke) is not too promising, with Bolero blasting in the background. But it's uphill from there.I wasn't sure the casting of Antonio at first, but I guess he's not the "point", but just being the pigeon instead. There are again like another other De Palma film, amazing sequences. Like the photographic sequence around the church, the bathtub sequences, and the near ending slow mo with wedding, meeting and car accident tying things together.Oh, yes, there is the setup and the double cross. The sex on the pool table and so on. But it is how everything is shot, like a dream, here and there, like a TV movie, here and there. Somehow, makes me seem to recall seeing certain scenes somewhere, kind of despise it, and adds (maybe unintentional) campiness to cover the ingenious underlying scheme of the last act.Maybe it's like this : While the Cohen brother's movies gives me a sense of perfect execution (even Big Leobowski) - in that dialogue is perfect and not wasted, scene well planted, acting to the genre. They engage the intellect more. De Palma's movies flows like a butterfly and sting like bee. That is it moves more fluidly engages something underneath your mind. Not your emotions but not your intellect either. Your psyche?

This is a heist movie, and what you see isn't always what you get. Director Brian De Palma, a Hitchcock imitator is good at illustrating this misdirection; indeed anyone who has seen a Hitchcock thriller will be able to recognize some similarities. Unfortunately, character development is at level zero, and while that may be okay for the heist scenes, it renders the bulk of the film boring.I really can't say much about the plot without giving anything away, but I will say that the heist scenes are interesting, and generate a little bit of tension. However, with all the gloss and glamor evident, it still feels pretty trashy.I can't say much about the acting either, again not to give anything away, but also because none of the actors have much to work with. The actors are okay, but Rebecca Romijn-Stamos's part could have been better cast. She does however show a lot of herself and seems pretty comfortable doing it, which these days, says a lot (and severely limits the casting choices).This could have been a much better film had we had some vested interest in the characters. As it is, it's just bunch of nice looking scenes with a lot of trick mirrors.

DePalma makes another attempt to channel Hitchcock and comes out the loser.This film starts off with a heist sequence which, despite its huge implausibilities, turns out to be the best part of the movie despite being lumbered with a score which is trying (and failing) to be Ravel's Bolero. It then descends into a "plot" which intertwines the threat of payback for betrayal with various goings on involving a paparazzo, before pulling a whopper of a plot twist out of nowhere (so huge that it it is tantamount to conning the audience) before wrapping up with a showpiece sequence which would have been effective had it not been predicated on the tosh which precedes it.Within this mess DePalma lobs assorted Hitchcockian motifs and themes - the blonde woman, identity games, man in the wrong place at the wrong time, minor events having major effects, man framed for crime he didn't commit etc. - and dresses them up with assorted Hitchcockian directorial flourishes.Sadly, none of this suffices to compensate for a plot which is so massively flawed (and for which the director - who also wrote the movie - must, one fears, take responsibility).Rebecca Romijn battles valiantly with a role in which her character's motivations change seemingly by the minute (her character changes from a rogue to a decent person by the end, a fundamental change for which the rationale appears to be the aforementioned plot twist) and where she is required to deliver dialogue in three different languages, which she does fluently. Peter Coyote turns up, collects his cheque, and departs. Antonion Banderas looks as confused as his character, and well he might.This is a poor effort, trying hard to be a classic in the Master's style, and failing miserably.