'Dressed to Kill'
Brian De Palma's 1980 movie focuses on a killer who first stalks a sexually frustrated, 50 something, housewife (Angie Dickinson) and then a prostitute (Nancy Allen) in a pretty tepid and conventional, but highly regarded thriller.
I say "highly regarded", but I'm at a loss, somewhat, to see why really. It's a fairly straightforward yarn and only those with a barely functioning brain would miss the central "surprise" of the film's story. However, it does have a certain fascination to it and my attention was kept throughout. It's kind of like a lot of those 70's/80's Italian Giallo movies. There's a heightened sense to everything that's going on and it all feels very unreal, but they're just not that good in the end. Watchable, weird, but ultimately unsatisfying. But, this is a general thing for me where De Palma is concerned, who's a director I've never truly warmed to. Even with his films that I consider to be his best, like 'Casualties of War', 'The Untouchables' or 'Carlito's Way', there's always something that sticks in my craw. 'Scarface' is, probably, the only film of his that I can say is great and free of the worst of De Palma's inherent flaws as a film maker and I disliked that movie for a long time.
'Dressed to Kill', like so much of De Palma's output, demonstrates these flaws amply. Some of the film feels so amateurish, it's difficult to believe that it gets a pass from a lot of folk. However, at other times, it comes off as very accomplished, proving that De Palma can put out good work. The scene in the subway, where Nancy Allen's character is pursued by the killer, is very well staged and shot, even if it is sort of scuppered by the introduction of some ridiculous gang members. Likewise, the cat and mouse antics of Angie Dickinson's character and a stranger she's attracted to in the art gallery is very well done, and elsewhere, Keith Gordon's character has some interesting things to do as well. But, these scenes are all offset by several sequences are rather laughable and a simple (even simplistic) story that's all but telegraphed to all the audience members that aren't asleep at the wheel.
5/10
'The Hunt'
Lambasted by President Trump, who I reckon hadn't even seen it or knew what it was actually about, and given a rough ride by most critics, 'The Hunt' is neither awful, nor good and instead occupies that middle ground - that huge area of middle ground - which is average fare. It's a fairly mediocre "people being hunted" movie. A kind of subgenre of a subgenre. Although what that genre is exactly, I don't know. But there seems to be a number of those types of movies out there, from 1932's 'The Most Dangerous Game', to 'Battle Royale' to 'The Hunger Games'.
After a brief setup, 'The Hunt' drops us into the action and we follow a number of people - the "deplorables" - who wake up, gagged, in a field. Pretty soon, it becomes evident that they are the quarry of some people who don't wish them well. A crate in the middle of the field they wake up in provides them with weapons to use as a defence. But, it's clear that they are at an extreme disadvantage. Inevitably, one character steps up to the challenge and decides to confront their tormentors.
If you've seen any of this type of film before you'll know where it's going after 15 minutes, and while that in itself is ok, it's the heavy handed political satire that lets the film down. Simply put, it's just too on the nose to be likeable and if it was only handled a little smarter or in a more subtle way, the film would have been a more successful result.
To its credit, there is some enjoyable darkly comic moments sprinkled here and there and a couple of nice unexpected turns. But, it never rises above it's "OK" status.
5/10
'The Invisible Man'
A 2020 update of the classic H.G. Wells story that's been put on the screen (large and small) in nearly every decade since the Claude Rains Universal classic from 1933. The basic story of invisibility remains the same here, but everything else has been changed and in some ways for the better too. The focus of this particular iteration is not really on the invisible man, but on a different character. Cecilia Kass (Elisabeth Moss) is the girlfriend of a talented optics engineer, Adrian Griffin (Oliver Jackson-Cohen), who treats her abusively and from whom she wishes to escape. She does so one night and subsequently finds out that Adrian has committed suicide as a result of her exit. However, strange things start to occur and she becomes convinced that her beaux might not be so dead after all.
'The Invisible Man' in its 2020 form is very much a departure from its former incarnations. But, it's a smart update that has its own reasons for existing and isn't just another remake that only stands on the shoulder of a former giant, like so many remakes and reboots do. There's enough here that makes it its own story, and in that respect there's a lot to recommend. It's also helped too by a great starring performance by Elisabeth Moss, whose physical expressions are a definite boon to the production over all. However, while she is sympathetic as a put upon unfortunate, she doesn't drown in a pool of her own victimhood, but instead becomes a heroine worth getting behind as she takes it upon herself to tackle the situation that presents itself to her.
As a fan of the 1933 film, which is the best movie adaptation of Well's story, I was a bit hesitant about this modern update. But, after a while, it won me over. It's not perfect by any means and it's probably a tad over long, but it's still a decent film in its own right. However, whether it revives the flatlined Universal "Dark Universe" attempt at a franchise remains to be seen.
7/10
|
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by MinionZombie
Therefore it's a tragedy, not a celebration.
Bookmarks