Home Movies

Most of the reviews on this film are rather brutal. I think you're overlooking the context in which this film was made. This film was made by film students with De Palma overseeing. It's not like it was a pet project of his, which is how most of these reviews frame the film. In the documentary "De Palma" he goes into great detail about this. It was really about letting his film students learn on the job. So of course it's not "The Fury." It is, however, a nice accomplishment for a bunch of film school students. And I personally think the unpolished aspect of it adds charm and intimacy. Nancy Allen is as radiant as ever, and there's some decent albeit left-field comedic references. Not every film is going to be a Hollywood blockbuster, and I don't think that's a bad thing. Take this film for what it is, and enjoy.

Brian DePalma's "Home Movies" is a genuinely strange film. It is hard to believe that DePalma made this. It doesn't have the superb technical credits that you come to expect from him. It doesn't have a logical story (for DePalma that is). And it doesn't have the big budgets DePalma's films are accustomed to ("Sisters" has a budget of 500,000 bucks; this film was made on a few thousand)

What it does have is a goofy charm that most Hollywood comedies lack these days. The story is nonsense, but that's a good thing in this case. And the low budget is appropriate because it suits the story. Most of the cast are from other DePalma films, of which I'll let you know.

The film stars Kirk Douglas ("The Fury")as The Maestro (the video title), a teacher who films his life constantly. He attempts to have his prize pupil Keith Gordon ("Dressed to Kill")do the same, but he has problems of his own. The object of his affection is Nancy Allen ("Dressed to Kill", "Carrie", "Blow Out"), a hooker who has too many vices for her own good. The problem? She is attached to Gordon's brother (wonderfully played by Gerrit Graham, who appeared in most of DePalma's early films and just about stole "Soup for One"), who is a nut.

All this is established within the first 25 minutes or so and the film's success depends on all of the surprises DePalma sets up, so I won't reveal any more. Some people might be turned off of "Home Movies" possibly due to the content, but more probably due to the visual style. Today's audiences are accustomed to gloss and if they don't get it, they protest. If you are one of those people, I just want to say three words: SHAME ON YOU!!!!!!!! How dare you criticize a film just because it doesn't look glossy like Hollywood product does? "Pi", a film I admired highly, had the same dilemma. Made on a shoestring budget, the film's grittiness helped it more than hurt it and the same goes for "Home Movies".

DePalma shoots on 16mm and makes the film look like someone's home movies, which is appropriate since the Kirk Douglas character is constantly filming his own life (and others). Also, give DePalma credit for helping his students get a first credit (the film was made as a class project for Sarah Lawrence College). Robby Benson did a similar thing in 1990 with "Modern Love" and was heavily criticized, despite the fact that it was a good, strong film. "Home Movies" isn't as strong as his more accomplished thrillers, but it is a very entertaining movie that had me smiling most of the way. And how can you hate any movie that casts Gerrit Graham as a slimeball?

*** out of 4 stars

"Home Movies" is an anomaly for a director who had already made top-quality pictures like "Carrie" and "Phantom of the Paradise." Stylistically, it's reminiscent of his earlier "Greetings" and "Hi Mom," except that those movies are brilliant social commentary, but this movie falls flat, with just a few good laughs at the end.

De Palma could blame his student crew, but De Palma takes credit for the story and the directing, which are clearly the weakest elements of the movie (along with the acting and lighting). The credits say it was shot on a Panavision camera - what a waste!

Perhaps the movie's only pleasure is how incredibly young Kirk Douglas looks - I kept double-checking the credits to see that it was really Kirk and not Michael. But unfortunately, his story element - the "wrap-around" - is by far the worst part of the story.

Also, the "Artiflx" DVD version of "Home Movies" looks like a home movie - blurry, dark, with video noise and ringing. The "official" version is hard-to-get and expensive. Save yourself the trouble and don't get either!

I gave this movie three stars on the prodigy of its actors and director, but without that context, this would be a one-star movie - at best!

This little-known De Palma comedy (made right between some of his biggest hits like "Carrie" and "Blow Out") is notable as one of the earliest films to anticipate the "reality show" phenomenon, but otherwise it's mostly just a curio for his followers. His direction has less flair than usual (there IS one great shot from inside a popcorn bucket!), and the script, apparently written by seven (!) people, is all over the map. But the biggest problem is that it's not very funny. Saved, somewhat, by the sweet chemistry between Nancy Allen (at her prettiest) and Keith Gordon; De Palma obviously sensed that he struck gold there, and paired them again in the next year's "Dressed To Kill". I don't know, maybe see "Home Movies" as an appetizer for that one. ** out of 4.

The bulk of the crew on Brian De Palma's Home Movies were his college students, but if you asked me where it looks it the most it's hard to say. De Palma decided to make it a challenge in as much that he thrusted these kids (one of whom Mark Romanek) into their first real foray into film-making, but he also lessened some of the possible stress on the situation in two ways: he took some of the same freewheeling, seemingly improvisational approach that he took with his early satires (the great Hi, Mom and the decent Greetings), and he also made it a silly comedy based around his obsessions and personal history. It's a send-up of self-made stardom, adultery, male dominant control, and the craftiness in the craft of film-making, and it's very funny.

But to say how funny it is or why would have to reveal too much of the plot, which I'd rather leave open ended for those who might find this in their local video store's obscure picks. All I'll say is that Kirk Douglas plays the Maestro (introduced by a hilarious lot of egotistical opening titles), teaching a class about how he faltered in getting a young man, Dennis Bird (Keith Gordon) to move on from being just an "extra" in his life to being the star of his own making. Gordon's Dennis is the youngest in the Bird family, which includes an adulterous doctor father, a weepy and half-crazy (and half all-for-attention) mother, and a brother, James (the scene stealing meat-head played by Gerrit Graham with the same tenacity as in Phantom of Paradise), who teaches a summer class on Spartanism to a bunch of impressionable youths. He's also getting engaged to Kristina (always gorgeous Nancy Allen), but there's some trouble and friction in their possible "socio-economic contract".

Meanwhile, Dennis meets the Maestro while acting as a Peeping Tom up in a tree, and becomes an amateur filmmaker. Now, as this all sounds, it's a little stuck together in cheap style and rough edges, which adds to its charm. It's made almost as if De Palma knows it's something of a fluke, and just wants to get his students as enthusiastic as possible about the process; it wouldn't be as much fun having them on, for example, Casualtues of War. And as one of De Palma's experimental comedies, it provides for the director, through a better than expected script from his pupils, to express some of his nuttiest scenes, including some scenes where Kristina has to unleash the "rabbit", and the running gag with Gordon dressed in black face and an afro sneaking around at night. It's not anywhere near a great comedy, but for what De Palma was after it's a success.

In short, it's a low-key hoot, and De Palma fans looking for some ridiculous and crazy gags and character development won't be disappointed.