I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

The loose story to this one centres on a power struggle between an advertising executive and her assistant. It begins with the boss taking credit for her aide's popular advertising idea and events escalate from there until things become deadly.There is no doubt that the story-line in this film lacks a bit of direction, with the mystery/thriller plot thread coming out of nowhere in a film which had been a sort of melodrama up to that point. But to be honest I am quite forgiving of this because as far as I am concerned this is a Brian De Palma movie that unashamedly sources his thrillers of old and, as such, is a wilfully artificial story propped up with lots of cinematic style. I always enjoy De Palma in full-on style-over-substance mode and, even better, he is that rare director who actively admits that that is his prime objective. I think we get a little too much 'substance' and not enough style in our modern movies, so I for one am always up for a bit of De Palma action. In this one there is beautiful cinematography from the start with the piece de resistance being an extended split-screen sequence where we see events unfold at a ballet performance while sinister events play out at the home of one of the lead characters. And the ending sequence truly is trademark De Palma - camp, erotic, violent and completely over-the-top. It's all great fun basically. The two lead actresses Rachel McAdams and Noomi Rapace are commendably game throughout and ultimately, I found this stylized, hyper-real thriller rather a lot of fun to be perfectly honest.

Creative gal gets screwed over by corporate gal, and bloody revenge comes knocking in a black giallo glove.Haha! Why? I had this on my watchlist for ages, but I forgot why and spent the entire film trying to figure out my motivation. Just like the plot. I suspect because I'd seen Rapace do something interesting and I hadn't heard of her before.Hard to believe a highly praised story could ferment into something so ... rocquefort. This version is like watching a daytime soap from Texas, but with great photography.The actresses are beautiful and perform well, but the ducking and diving of the plot is laughable. It does promise to make style deliver psychological substance, yet at every point it tries to swerve around the pit of ludicrousness and falls all the same.Most annoying was the music: creamy saxophone and swelling strings just made it a TV experience.I better watch the original.

Why? Anybody can explain how this mind-boggling, brain-eating, sense- devoid, style-galore, acting-non-existent, dross galore, vapid, cloudy, senseless, silly, corny, dud, stupid joke of a film ever made it onto big screen? De Palma was never my favorite, here he proved to be The epitome of a terrible bad tats once again. Acting? I love both gorgeous Rachel McAdams and Noomi Rapace, they're sweet, cute. talented ladies. Here - no acting, no style, no deep feelings, no nothing. They play so unbelievably bad that my jaw dropped. The plot? Nothing. Just many good settings and no action, no suspense, no tempo, no twists, no real idea. It seems that the script was being written just in course of making the film and thus it delved into some idiotic hues of comedy, thriller, some vapid erotica and some silly long, overblown frames with long look into the camera, false pretensions and senile jokes. Erotica? Nope, even such two beautiful ladies did not attract us here, they are both cold, stiff, playing like amateur teens on a prom night. Music? The worst case just like when something kinda tragic is about to occur, a loud burst of pathetic strings goes Booom! Bah-baaah! Silly. This is probably The worst film I saw in 15 years, I feel so miserable and also wanna laugh - wow, such awful blobs still happen. Never watch this. Never.

"Passion" was not as good as the original "Love Crime" movie. The story was the same but "Passion" added some surrealistic touches that really made no sense. The original "Love Crime" starred Kristin Scott Thomas and Ludivine Sagnier playing the roles that Rachel McAdams and Noomi Rapace reenacted in "Passion". Ms. Thomas was believable as a glamorous cut-throat executive where Rachel McAdams seemed like a high school mean girl in comparison. Noomi Rapace was decent playing the Ludivine Sagnier role, in fact maybe a bit more believable, though not as much of a babe. I never got into the story that Rachel McAdams was anything but a catty girl, not some powerful executive. Maybe it was because the age difference between the executive and the assistant was greater in "Love Crime". Much of the dialog in "Passion" was stilted and flat. The story by itself was powerful but the telling of it in "Passion" seemed so amateurish, as if there was no confidence that the story could hold the audience's attention so other aspects had to be added to improve it. Those added touches made no sense and the ending was just confusing. "Love Crimes" told the story straight out and the performances held it together. I wanted so much to like "Passion" and in the end I was disappointed. "Love Crime" was a far superior movie. I rate "Passion" a 5; "Love Crime" an 8.