Thanks for the memories!

Lack of good storyline.

The movie is surprisingly subdued in its pacing, its characterizations, and its go-for-broke sensibilities.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

The rivalry between the manipulative boss of an advertising agency and her talented protégée escalates from stealing credit to public humiliation to murder. Three minutes into this film were enough to be honest, the acting by Noomi Rapace was all over the place, the way that the movie starts it's stupid especially the one where a chick licks another chick. Then there's this video that they try to do with the whole phone thing and that was even more retarded. What makes this even more sad it's the fact that it was directed by the same man who directed the first Mission Impossible movie starring Tom Cruise. Personally if you like movies and any of this actors do yourself a favor and don't see it. (0/10)

From the minute this starts, something is just wrong, it simply isn't believable, just really really lousy.I watched it because I wanted to see what happened, but had guessed the outcome by the end. The characters are supposed to change, switching from seeming good to evil, but it just comes off confusing and ridiculous. There are many unexplained things in it, such as the finding of the phone, sudden appearances of characters, changes in behavior. It's really a terrible mishmash, leaving one of the cheapest, worn out explanations right until the end.It also looks somehow low budget, like it was made quickly for TV. This is the worst production I have ever seen Rapace in. McAdams is very beautiful and you can almost believe her as a manipulative boss, but she essentially falls short as well. The two of them completely lack chemistry. Not recommended.

I love Brian De Palma. "Scarface", "The Untouchables" and "Carlito's Way" are some of my favorite movies and I always enjoy the cinematography in his movies and especially his use of the steadicam. Having said that, I can't say he made anything great in a very long while.The movie has beautiful clean cinematography (although a bit too static at times) and sets. However, it's slow and I find it very boring. The score in the beginning of the movie is not less than rip-off of Jon Brion's fantastic score to "Magnolia (1999)".The movie picks up and starts to be interesting after the middle... only to make no sense at the end (not even after reading the comments on IMDb). Too bad.

"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.