Glimmerubro It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

Numerootno A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Derry Herrera Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

BoomerDT Don Siegel's 1971 version was a taut gothic thriller, a tale of repressed sexuality as Clint Eastwood portrays a wounded Union soldier found behind enemy lines next to the property of girls boarding school. The presence of a virile man stirs the sexual hormones of the principals at the academy which included a middle-aged headmistress...whose sexual experience consisted of an incestuous affair with her brother, a 20ish virginal teacher, a slave, a sexy teenager and a 12 year old girl just hitting puberty. Clint's character quickly realizes how his sexuality is easily able to manipulate the women into what could be a very soft life while he is waiting to finish for the war to finish. Sophia Coppola's version has none of the sexual tension of the original with no real background or development of the characters. In the interest of PC the slave character is left out, as was the incest flashback. Colin Ferrell as the soldier isn't a fascinating presence as was Eastwood was and doesn't project the potential terror that Clint did. If you find this plot premise interesting do yourself a favor and view the original.

philip_kipling Watched it because I liked the first one with Clint Eastwood, very disappointed with this one.

pmgeorgini-255-674247 Ms. Coppola is an innovative, brilliant producer, director, and writer. I very much enjoyed her Marie Antoinette project, starring Kirsten Dunst, who was in this film, too. Her Lost in Translation film was amazing. She has done much for the film industry and for women. But I'm sorry to say that this remake of The Beguiled 2017 lacked substance and passion. Well, you can't win them all!The entire cast is very talented in their own right. I've seen most of these actors in other great films. One of my all time favorites is Colin Farrell. I was hoping for that same fire and strength that he exuded in many of his other great films. It just wasn't there or perhaps I couldn't see it through the very dim lighting. Sorry to say, this remake doesn't even compare to the 1971 film with Clint Eastwood. The lighting was so poor that I couldn't even see the expressions on each of their faces to determine whether their performances were good or bad. I see what Ms. Coppola was going for in this dated piece--natural lighting, candlelight and such, but that poor lighting was practically throughout the whole movie. At first I thought there was a problem with my SmartTV. But I stuck it out until the end. The characters, though isolated and backward, longed for excitement; longed for change; longed for love! Enter John McBurney. I could sense their loneliness and boredom, but there was no passion or even joy, for that matter! As for the so-called sexual tension--what sexual tension? So I'm really surprised that this movie made it to the cutting room much less to the theatres. No disrespect intended. Whatever else she pursues, I wish Sofia Coppola all the best.

robsworld-57884 My first review though to little, to late. This movie moved me after years of not participating to write a review. Total waste but waited and waited for anything. No redeeming value except maybe a lovely setting around a southern mansion that had me longing for something to tie it to. I have an expensive projector for my 108" screen so dark scenes can be problematic once in a while. This whole movie was in the dark! Ridiculous! Big budget actors that did nothing to come up to their acting skills. I blame the producer for thinking she had something special. No way.