Critics’ reviews

Femme Fatale (2002)

11 reviews from 11 publications. Critics’ score 74: 8 positive, 2 mixed, 1 negative.

Back to our review of Femme Fatale

74
Positive
8
Mixed
2
Negative
1
Los Angeles Times
6 November 2002 · Manohla Dargis
90*

The critic calls the film an exuberant, blissfully entertaining thriller and one of the smartest, most pleasurable expressions of pure movie love from an American director in years, praising its visual majesty, high-octane jolts, and transporting qualities.

Read the full review →
The AV Club
8 November 2002 · Scott Tobias
90*

The critic calls it a brilliant thriller that turns criticisms of being showy and derivative into strengths, creating a rich, meta hall of mirrors full of humor, suspense, and eroticism. He notes it as a return to form financed outside Hollywood, condensing De Palma's career obsessions for fans.

Read the full review →
Film Comment
17 July 2019 · Michael Koresky
85*

The critic finds Femme Fatale to be De Palma’s queerest film, with its awareness of sex and identity as performances creating exhilarating layers of game-playing and self-reflexivity. The sinuous, virtuosic 20-minute opening heist sequence stands out for its distancing effects and eroticism of cinephilia.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
23 March 2003 · Ed Gonzalez
85*

The critic praises De Palma's film as a work of pure aesthetic rapture with sinuous camera movements and dreamlike water imagery that rewards repeated viewings. He highlights the director's self-reflexive use of split-screen, dualities, and correction of noir tropes through the lead performance.

Read the full review →
Time Out
3 May 2011 · TCh
80*

This elegantly dreamy film is as rich and strange as anything De Palma has made, outrageous, provocative and fun with a twist that may alienate half the audience. The visuals are often breathtaking and Rebecca Romijn-Stamos makes a poised anti-heroine.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Ian Johnston
70*

The critic notes that this low-budget Euro picture marked a return to form for Brian De Palma despite straight-to-video status. De Palma uses split screen, narrative twists and a strong score to turn neo-noir conventions on their head, focusing on themes of identity and perception; the film is gorgeously shot and nicely noir.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
6 November 2002 · A. O. Scott
70*

The critic finds the convoluted thriller may not suit viewers seeking narrative coherence or plausible emotion, but highlights its formal dexterity, visual inventiveness, and ability to deliver exhilaration and surprise through style and set pieces.

Read the full review →
Variety
29 April 2002 · festival review · Lisa Nesselson
70*

The critic describes it as an extravagant suspense cocktail of wacky and lascivious ingredients that goes down fine, praising Rebecca Romijn-Stamos's performance as a confident predator and the stylish, off-kilter proceedings full of De Palma themes, while noting it may frustrate those preferring straightforward intrigue.

Read the full review →
Screen Daily
8 May 2002 · festival review
60*

The film is an enigmatic European art-movie disguised as a Hollywood thriller, with formal brilliance but an over-the-top storyline and emotional froideur that limits mainstream appeal. Buffs will find it an intriguing addition to De Palma's canon.

Read the full review →
/Film
31 January 2022 · Nick Bartlett
65*

Despite its poor reputation, the film is presented as worth revisiting for its visual storytelling, noir and giallo homages, and archetypal characters that allow De Palma’s style to shine. It is called his best work since 2000, though unfocused compared to his peak films.

Read the full review →
The Playlist
28 August 2013 · D+/C- · The Playlist Staff
30*

The critic finds the film undermined by a ridiculous twist ending that renders most of the story a cheat, along with weak characterization and plotting. Some credit is given for occasional salacious fun and the sheer watchability of its absurd storytelling.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate