Reviews

Much has been said about this movie as a homage (or slick rip-off) of Hitchcock's Psycho. Basically DePalma changes the various plot devices and set pieces in that classic (although the film has two shower scenes, the big murder occurs in an elevator), ups the ante in the violence, sex and perverseness categories, and drops a "whodunit" plot into the mix. POSSIBLE SPOILER: I found it to be more of a cautionary tale, as Marion Crane in this movie is not a troubled woman who rips off her bank, but a middle-aged, seemingly happily married, successful but sexually frustrated woman who flirts with her psychiatrist, tries to pick up a complete stranger at a New York museum, makes out with him in the backseat of a taxi (this is set in New York, after all) and winds up in his apartment. Is she asking for it in the elevator? You have to remember the film came out in 1980, four years before AIDS made the headlines. It came out the same year as Cruising, another New York set thriller that would probably have a hard time finding an audience today. In a way, these two films make a good double feature.

Seen today, Dressed to Kill has its moments (including a bravura sequence set on a subway--years before DePalma would master train and train-station set pieces in The Untouchables and Carlito's Way). Angie Dickinson does a wonderful job. Unfortunately I can't say the same for Nancy Allen, who DePalma employed in several films (she had the luck of being married to the man), but was better as a tough cop in RoboCop vs. scared, wise-cracking hooker in this film. Michael Caine also just seems to be going through the motions. The music is haunting, and all in all it's a tight, slick thriller, that frequently asks the audience to suspend their disbelief. The second in DePalma's non-consecutive series of Hitchcock tributes (and I'll call them tributes over rip-offs).

After two slick Hollywood films (well, maybe not---this is Neil LaBute we're talking about, and Nurse Betty is certainly not your typical Hollywood film), LaBute returns to the territory of his first films with this, another squirm-inducing drama about relationships. I mean squirm-inducing as a compliment; only one other movie made me pause the DVD player and walk around my living room during the running time--John Cassavette's "Faces." In this film, which is rather stagy (understandable as this was a play before a movie), the four main characters seem to be the ONLY people in the movie. The other people (at the museum, in Starbucks, and finally at the "art exhibit" at the end) seem to be frozen in space. No one else talks or moves. If that was not really the case, and the other people did move around, I certainly did not notice it, because the four main characters were so engrossing. All four were seriously flawed and LaBute, as he did in "Your Friends and Neighbors," digs into them. We see more than we want to see. But I found it fascinating. What's even more interesting to me is LaBute's background--brought up as a Mormon in Fort Wayne, Indiana, of all places. And the interviews I've read present him as an easy-going, dryly humorous and optimistic individual. But you certainly would not expect that after watching this movie, "In the Company of Men" or "Your Friends & Neighbors." POSSIBLE SPOILERS: Is what Evelyn does really art? That seems to be the main subject on the story board. Absolutely no. Everything has its limits, even art. Is Adam totally innocent? No. Most guys would have walked away the minute their girlfriend insisted on a nose job. And that final scene--I hate the term, but the guy has taken it to an extreme new level: "Whipped."

This is one distressing film. Any film that mixes elements from high school-set black comedies (Heathers, Ghost World) and blood-drenched dramas (Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, American Psycho) is not going to be a commercial blockbuster. I usually enjoy these types of movies but "May" was a little too much, even for my taste. SPOILER ALERT: The fact that May was just a little on the dysfunctional side, but rather appealing, at the beginning of the movie (she worked as a vet's assistance, so she could not have been THAT screwed up), and just goes over the edge completely by the end (to the point of stabbing herself in the eyeball, for God's sake), was just too extreme. I must admit that I found May to be on the cute side at the beginning, which makes her descent into absolute madness all the more troubling. Is it a bad movie? No. Would I recommend it? Yes, but only to those with absolutely open minds. It is a movie that cannot be categorized, although comments that it is a twisted update of "Frankenstein" are not too far-fetched.

I just would not know whether to use it on myself, or on the characters on the screen. This movie is awful. It is poorly written, badly acted and unbelievable from the get-go. It seems that our friends in South America may agree with me, based on some of the comments I've read. I really wanted to like this movie--some of the best reviews of the year, I think Tim Robbins is great, I enjoy most of Clint Eastwood's films as director (with the exception of another overrated pile of rubbish, Unforgiven). POSSIBLE SPOILERS: Sean Penn and Robbins' characters are supposed to be as close as brothers, so the finale by the river was just not believable. And what exactly was Laura Linney's character cause for her sudden amount of hatred towards Robbins' character? The inclusion of Kevin Bacon's and Lawrence Fishburn's characters were distractions, at best, and did not do anything for the story. Now I have no problems with downbeat movies that require an amount of thinking by the viewers (examples of recent movies in this category that I really enjoyed are Requiem for a Dream, The Ice Storm, and Happiness). But I don't enjoy movies that shamelessly manipulate the audience into caring about characters with no appealing attributes and are unconvincingly portrayed and caricatures at best. The "great" acting in this movie consists of the actors breaking down in tears every five minutes or so. And the Boston accents--just ridiculous. Especially Laura Linney's. So I'll close this by saying that, on the plus side, the direction is rather good (although I still prefer the understated direction Eastwood used in his recent movies like Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil and older ones like Play Misty for Me). I still have a lot of respect for the actors, despite their performances in this movie--but I'd like to see Sean Penn get nominated for something totally out of character for him (heck, I preferred him in I Am Sam over this). Save your money.