Dressed to Kill

Dir: Brian De Palma

1980

**

The problem I have with Dressed to Kill and with many of director Brian De Palma's films, is that I'm never too sure whether they are meant to be taken seriously or not. Dressed to Kill has been described as an exercise in style, rather that narrative but can't get behind that way of thinking. If you want style and a good story, with genuine thrills and a little bit of camp horror then why not watch a classic Giallo like The Bird with the Crystal Plumage, The Cat o' Nine Tails or just watch an Alfred Hitchcock - one of the later ones of his career if you have to. When Alfred Hitchcock was told that Brian De Palma intended Dressed to Kill as an homage to his movies, he responded “You mean fromage.” You can see why he would have been more insulted than flattered. Dressed to Kill looks and feels like a spoof of a Hitchcock film, it's impossible to take seriously and in all honesty, it doesn't even look that stylish. It's trash. Now, I like a bit of trash now and again, just as long as it know exactly what it is. De Palma has made some of the best thriller/horrors of all time but he has also made some of the worst, it's hard to really understand where he is coming from, whether he's been generally lucky or genuinely unlucky. There were a couple of great scenes worthy of an Argento classic, they are let down by the nonsense that generally follows but they're still there and they are worthy. Angie Dickinson is pure ham-sandwich, intentionally so but too thick for my blood. Michael Caine doesn't really have that much to work with, it's hard to say whether he was well cast or not as pretty much anyone could have played the part. Nancy Allen (Brian De Palma then wife) adds a much needed spark to the story after the rather samey first chapter, I feel she was somewhat forced into certain scenes against her will (she has said as much since) that I didn't like but she is definitely the best thing about the story. I saw the ridiculous conclusion from a mile away, it has dated horribly and even in 1980 the idea was not of the best tastes. I hate it when Hollywood gets psychology wrong, it's almost offensive now looking back at it. I don't consider the film the macabre masterpiece it is considered to be by the hardcore De Palma fans, indeed I find it laughable. If that's what you want and if that's what you love then I can see why you'd consider it a great film, but the reality is that it takes itself far too seriously when it is in fact utterly ridiculous. The structure of the film is also incredibly similar to his other films, Dressed to Kill's structure being almost identical to his 1980 classic Carrie. I get the appeal but it's not for me and I don't think its a film you can sit on the fence with, it has its moments but on the whole I found it pretty charmless.

Passion

Dir: Brian De Palma

2012

*

I love Brian De Palma, I really do, but at this point in time it had been almost twenty years since he'd directed a truly great film (Carlito's Way), although I still enjoyed the rather silly Snake Eyes and Mission to Mars. It had been nearly six years since his last film and the synopsis of Passion really did sound like he was going back to doing what he did best. Unfortunately, this film feels like it was made by someone who had the intention of parodying a Brian De Palma thriller, rather than looking like the real deal. My goodness it's awful. Every scene, no matter where it was set, was lit with striped shadows, as if sunlight was constantly coming through open blinds, like that's enough for it to have been a noir thriller. It really is a case of Fisher Price attempting Giallo and even though the hard-core De Palma fan declared it was something only his truest of fans would understand, I think even the rosiest of rose-tinted glasses can't overlook just how amateur the whole thing is. Unless of course I have misunderstood films of his such as Dressed to Kill and Body Double as being cheesy tongue-in-cheek sex comedies? I am well aware, I think, of De Palma's uniquely abstract and oblique shifts in tone that made him so popular in the first place but this is an older director failing to match his previous work, I know how cruel that sounds, and I do love De Palma, but I'm afraid it's the truth. 2006's The Black Dahlia had De Palma written all over it but even then, he limped out a just below average noir-thriller that was all looks and no substance. He has a cult following, I get why people like him, I like him, but there is nothing of merit to this film, not aesthetically, not in performance and certainly not in script. Rachel McAdams and Noomi Rapace are good actors but you wouldn't know it from their performances here but then they don't have much to work with. I realize the film is an adaptation/remake of Alain Corneau's 2010 French thriller Love Crime but I can't help but think something has been lost in translation and the different ending certainly isn't an improvement, in that it makes no sense at all. It's contrived, ridiculous, unconvincing, dated, laughable and god-awful in every way possible. It's like a Mills & Boon romantic thriller brought to life but a million times worse than it sounds.

Scarface

Dir: Brian De Palma

1983

*****

Brian De Palma (director) and Oliver Stone's (writer) crime classic is loosely based on 1932's Scarface staring Paul Muni and produced by the two big Hollywood Howards; Hawks and Hughes. It was based on the rise of real life gangster Al Capone but changed the names for obvious reasons. Stone's rewrite for De Palma's remake updated the story and made the main character a Cuban Refugee instead of the son of Italian immigrants. Al Pacino had wanted to make a period remake of the original for some time and legendary director Sidney Lumet came up with the idea to have the crime boss start out as a refugee from the mariel boatlift of the early eighties. After the economic collapse of Cuba, 10,000 Cubans came over to America with the agreement of Fidel Castro and Jimmy Carter, while most of the refugees had honest intentions of a better life, there were also some who took advantage. Many criminals saw it as an opportunity and indeed many of the prisons were emptied by the Cuban government and shipped over. It is fair to say that the film didn't help Cuban-America relations and there are many unfortunate stereotypes but this more of a reflection on the popularity of the film and a generalization thought of from an audience. There were no malicious intentions and to be fair most of the criminals in the film are American. Lumet and producer Martin Bergman disagreed with much of Lumet's script which was far more political and was more about the American government’s involvement in the drugs trade. Stone and De Palma were hired soon after and were said to be persuaded within just a couple of phone calls. Stone was actually battling his own Cocaine addiction at the time and even moved to Paris were he knew it would be much harder for him to get any so he could finish the script.  Even though Pacino had fought for the film, his friend and rival Robert DeNiro was offered the part first before turning it down. Steven Bauer was cast without an audition in his role as Manny as he was noticed by casting directors in the waiting room and seen as perfect for the role, beating John Travolta who was at that point first choice. Michelle Pfeiffer was Bergman's first choice, while Pacino and De Palma actively fought against her casting, preferring Glenn Close, Geena Davis and Carrie Fisher among many others. Bergman put his foot down and Pfeiffer was cast, which I'm sure wasn't in the least bit awkward during filming. While I think there are many actors who could have played her part just as well, Pfeiffer played it perfectly. F. Murray Abraham is brilliant as a sleazy shoulder-padded Hench-man for Robert Loggia's all too trusting mob boss and Paul Shenar was perfect as Alejandro Sosa, a notorious Bolivian drug lord. Harris Yulin is also great in a minor role as a corrupt narcotics detective but my favourite cast member of all is Arnaldo Santana, the awkward Hench-man who you can't help but feel sorry for. The film did well at the box office but was met with scathing reviews. Even now, there are some who claim it is over rated and mistaken as being a great gangster movie. I disagree, I believe it is one of the greatest gangster movies. Looking at at it now in retrospect, it's the ultimate 80s gangster movie. It's very clever, of its time and with an edge that still rubs some people up the wrong way today but its influence is vast. Many of its scenes are now classics and many of the lines are infamous ('Say hello to my little friend'). It's brilliantly acted, certainly one of Pacino's best and the direction is sublime. The script is top notch and the soundtrack is hugely underrated and one of my favourites. You detest the villain but still want him to succeed all the same, a perfect tale of greedy, power and the delusion of grandeur with plenty of political symbolism for good measure. It's epic.

Mission: Impossible

Dir: Brian De Palma

1996

***

The original TV series Mission: Impossible ran from 1966 - 1973 and had a brief revival from 1988 - 1990 when it was brought back by the studios using reworked scripts that never saw the light of day from the original series due to a screenwriters strike taking place at the time. The original series had a few reoccurring characters but only two that lasted the entire seven seasons. The idea behind the IMF was that it was a secret team made up of people with various skill-sets that would overturn dictators, crime lords and generally evil bad guys. New characters were picked occasionally but regular groups settled throughout the seasons. Some of these characters were played by actors of such calibre as of Sam Elliott, Leonard Nimoy, Barbara Bain and Martin Landau who would play spies with talents such as mechanical and electronical knowledge, weight-lifting, acting, make-up and modelling. It is safe to say imagination was needed to enjoy the show but it was lots of fun and it had a big fan following. The 1980s incarnation was slap-dash and didn't bring anything new to the idea. The formulaic episode structure of the original series was largely copied, unsurprising as it used old scripts but occasionally the formula would be broken and a major character would be killed off. Anyone who has seen the revived TV show will forgive Tom Cruise of any changes made in his films from the original. In fact, the 1996 big screen adaptation keeps many of the core ideas. There is a big element of disguise that played a big part in the original, each member has their own skill-set and is chosen accordingly and further agents are hired when needed. Both the 80's show and the 1996 film feature the same original team member. While the 80's show stars original series actor Peter Graves as Jim Phelps, who was a regular from season two until the show's cancellation, the film stars Jon Voight instead. Brian De Palma's all action espionage thriller doesn't ever really connect with the two previous Mission: Impossibles but they could still be linked, it's up to the views discretion in many respects. It was decided that the majority of the characters should be new and unrelated to the original, a wise decision in my opinion. Let's face it, the original idea is good but not great, it needed a rework. Why not create something new I hear you cry? Well in all honesty, apart from the cool sounding title, Mission: Impossible is all about the theme tune and whether or not you chose to accept it. Brian De Palma and Tom Cruise certainly did and it was a huge success. Personally I thought it was seriously over the top. The mid-nineties was awash of dodgy action films and Mission: Impossible is close to being one of them. It has, what are now considered, some classic scenes but looking back, it also has a lot I'm sure actor and director probably regret. I'm right down the middle. I didn't like it much in 1996 but it has grown on me somewhat.

The Bonfire of the Vanities

Dir: Brian De Palma

1990

**

I liked Brian De Palma's neo-noir style in his adaptation of Tom Wolfe's The Bonfire of the Vanities and the cinematography is among some of the most underrated of all time in my opinion. However, pretty much everything else is horrible. I'm a sucker for cheesy 90's films but The Bonfire of the Vanities misses every single target it aims at. I didn't love the novel but after all the various changes in story and in the characters, it's a masterpiece in comparison. Tom Hanks, Bruce Willis and Melanie Griffith are all cool in my book but all three were woefully miscast. I don't think their acting is entirely to blame, they were each paid to do what they did best in 1990, it's just that what they did (which was very popular at the time) just didn't match the characters. Before Bruce Willis was cast, both jack Nicholson and John Cleese were offered his part, suggesting that they really didn't have a clear vision of what the character should be. The tagline was 'An outrageous story of greed, lust and vanity in America' but it really wasn't any of these things. F. Murray Abraham even had his name removed from the credits. The big problem is the films take on the racial issues raised in the book. It should have been quite a dark satire but the changes made it into an awkward and juxtaposed mess of convoluted and contrived ideas. A lack of focus, lack of control, lack of confidence and a brattish Bruce Willis were said to be the reasons behind the film's lack of success, which is a real shame as second unit director Eric Schwab produced some of the most beautiful visuals ever committed to film. The fact that he probably shouldn't have been given the money or opportunity to experiment as much as he did goes some way in suggesting the mess the production was in but for that opening scene, the time-lapse scene over Manhattan and the Concorde landing at sunset scene, it almost seems worth it. Almost.

The Fury
Dir: Brian De Palma
1978
****
Brian De Palma's 1978 cult favorite The Fury is a unique sci-fi horror that jumps from one genre to another without damaging the stories integrity. It starts out as what appears to be a political thriller, Kirk Douglas appearing as a former CIA agent hiding out in the far-east. After a double cross from an ex-colleague and old friend (played by the brilliant John Cassavetes) it transpires that he has been hiding his son from the American government who want him for his psychic abilities. The story then branches between Douglas' Peter Sandza search for his son, another psychic (played by a young Amy Irving) discovering her powers and that she has a mental link with Sandza's son and an ex-lover of Sandza who works for a psychics clinic and ultimately joins the story together. The film's structure is a little muddled but it still works, retaining the unpredictability, thrill and suspense delivered within the films first five minutes. It's far from perfect but there is something a little disjointed about it that I quite like although it is easy to see how people may have felt disappointed at the time considering De Palma's now classic horror Carrie is far superior and came just two years before with similar themes. I would argue that The Fury's ending is just as great as Carrie's though and was clearly an inspiration for David Cronenberg's Scanners (1981).

The Black Dahlia
Dir: Brian De Palma
2006
**
Unfortunately the criticism that this film has received is deserved. It is pretty boring and just plain laughable at times. I really wish I'd read the book first as I've heard it's quite good, I've even got it on the shelf but this was on TV and I thought I'd give it a go. It's no LA Confidential that's for sure. Josh Hartnett does no wrong as such but he doesn't really do much at all, same goes for Aaron Eckhart too I'm sorry to say. Hilary Swank started out well but then turned into the most stupid character of all time, Fiona Shaw is hilarious as her mad mother, turning would should be a gritty drama into a pantomime and Scarlett Johansson spends the entire film trying to play a good actress instead of actually acting well. I believe she thinks all she has to do is pout, indeed, when in doubt...
By the time the film ends and you already know 'Who done it' but you're past caring (or believing). The story deserved better, not Brian De Palma's best work.

Hi, Mom!
Dir: Brian De Palma
1970
****
A great document of its time, Hi, Mom! is a welcome follow up to Greetings. Greetings was experimental and touched on radical new ways of thinking but it wasn't perfect. Brian DePalma decided to extend and polish the experiment somewhat with Hi, Mom! and I for one am glad he did. Going with voyeurism and self-realisation as themes, DePalma and co produce some classic American cinema as well as interesting historical document. The 'Do you know what it is like to be Black' scenes are amazing. Radical but also funny as intended. A must for fellow Cinephiles!

Greetings
Dir: Brian De Palma
1968
****
Greetings is one of those American films where we first saw the influence of European cinema in the States. It's very much an American classic but it's kind of a cross between a Jean-Luc Godard film and an episode of The Monkees. It also has an element of British sex comedy about it too, although this seems a little edgier. It's great to see such experimental cinema work, where with many of the films of that decade are either filmed on poor quality film, are psychedelic drug-fueled nonsense or just lost and forgotten about. It's a little unfair that Robert De Niro gets top billing, as Gerrit Graham is really the lead and great he is too.