Home Movies - Wie du mir, so ich dir

"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!

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.

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

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.

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.