Home Movies

After two highly successful commercial ventures in Carrie and The Fury, Brian DePalma apparently decided he needed a little fun and frolic. So Home Movies was made using the talents of a lot of people who appeared in DePalma projects.

Home movies is like a film casserole where a lot of his film students got to step to the plate and take their best shot. Roughly speaking the film centers around Keith Gordon the younger brother of Gerrit Graham. They are the sons of Vincent Gardenia a philandering doctor and Mary Davenport his clueless wife.

Graham is set to marry former hooker Nancy Allen. He's rather full of himself and also a latently gay individual. But he's the eldest and chosen one and Gordon is the nerdy younger brother who spends his time filming some of the private moments of the family, a little cinema verite for his film professor Kirk Douglas.

Watching Home Movies I got the impression I was not being let in on an inside joke. And I rather resented the situation.

It all seemed like a colossal waste of time for all involved. The name players must have owed DePalma big time to appear here.

Nebbish teenager, with squabbling parents and a megalomaniacal older brother, is mentored by a professor at Now College to stop being invisible and become the star of his own life. Hot property Brian De Palma filmed this low-budget movie alongside his filmmaking students at Sarah Lawrence College, perhaps in an attempt to reconnect with his roots as an independent maker of revue comedies (if true, the film could surely use Robert De Niro and Allen Garfield to give it a lift). There's no wit or sting in the writing (credited to six people, working from De Palma's original treatment)--it's all just a lark, a flagging, in-jokey experiment. It might have been easier to watch had the exteriors not been so dark and the interiors so muddy; the picture is a visual insult. Nancy Allen is a plus as a tootsie who gets to know her rabbit, and Pino Donaggio contributed an eclectic score. * from ****

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

The story about how "Home Movies" was made make it a very unusual film! Brian De Palma was apparently teaching a film class and he got his students to make this movie....with the help of a few established actors, such as Kirk Douglas and Vincent Gardenia. Originally, I don't think it was intended as a film to be released to theaters and it had a minimal budget. But somehow as they made the film, they were able to get some stars and the budget skyrocketed.

Because it was an experimental film, the story was made using 20 different students as directors. As a result of this and the other non-professionals making the movie, it comes off as rather disjoint and strange. But again, the movie was NOT intended to be a typical movie...more an odd experimental one. So despite it's many shortcomings I really don't want to attack it or put it down for its limitations. Plus, several actors in the film went on to some starring roles, such as Nancy Allen and Keith Gordon.

This is a movie more for the curious than for anyone wanting to see a traditional movie. If you are curious, it's on YouTube and can be viewed for free.

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.