En nombre de Caín

Despite the hordes of comments made about this film explaining where it 'went wrong', it appears a great deal of these reviews are from viewers failing to recognise the directors tongue in cheek intentions.

The film is a satirical thriller/horror that abides by the conventions of the genre, though twists them. Instead of concentrating on what the audience doesn't know and building up to a yawn-full climax, a cliché that Scream parodies, the film takes on the perspective of the psycho, presenting the audience with more information than other characters.

The obvious influences, or should I say homages, to Hitchcock show De Palma's respect for his predecessors, though it appears De Palma is also presenting us with a parody of Psycho, which is a reason in itself to watch this movie.

Along with other directors (Including Scorsese, Coppola, Spielberg and Lucas), Brian De Palma has been labelled as a 'movie brat', and I think this film is a prime example of a film made by this generation of filmmakers.

Despite the fact that he wrote a rather unintelligent script for his 1992 effort, director Brian De Palma's "Raising Cain" is still fast, funny, and, occasionally, very scary.

In order not to reveal too much and spoil this wild little roller coaster ride, all I will say is that John Lithgow plays or at least speaks for five very different roles(!)

De Palma isn't at his all-time best, but Lithgow proves that he is one of the great character actors of our time. Rated R. 95 minutes. 6 out of 10.

Raising Cain (1992)

*** (out of 4)

Jenny (Lolita Davidovich) believes that her husband Carter (John Lithgow) is the perfect man but what she doesn't realize is that his father messed with his mind a little too much and now his past is going to come back and haunt him.

Brian De Palma's RAISING CAIN was always a very disappointing movie to me because I felt it had so much potential but it never fully came out in the film. Director Peet Gelderblom would eventually re-edit the movie in a cut known as RAISING CAIN RE-CUT and director De Palma would praise it saying that this version is what he originally wanted to do with the film but he regretted changing his mind at the last second. Now this "Director's Cut" is available on Blu-ray and we can finally see this film for what it was meant to be.

I'm not going to give away any major spoilers but it should be said that the Director's Cut contains every frame that was in the Theatrical Cut. The only difference between the two is the way that they are edited and I must say that it's really amazing how much better the Director's Cut is. In fact, after viewing this version it becomes a complete nightmare why someone as great as De Palma would turn in the Theatrical Cut because it just doesn't play very well and a lot of the build up in the suspense department is just lost.

What is also more apparent in the Director's Cut is the flow of the film. If you're familiar with De Palma's work then you already know that he loves to keep a certain style and flow in his films and it's much more clear in this cut of the movie. The opening scenes really set you up for the thriller that is going to follow and I thought the entire movie played much better. It certainly helps build up the suspense as the madness of the Lithgow character slowly builds until he eventually breaks. The "clues" that De Palma gives off are a lot more shocking when they finally reveal themselves as well.

The one great thing about whichever version you watched was the performance of Lithgow. He's playing multiple characters here with multiple personalities and he perfectly brings them to life and really creates a rather creepy and mentally disturbing character. I thought Davidovich was a bite too light here but we get some nice supporting performances including the one from Steven Bauer and Frances Sternhagen.

Most people considered RAISING CAIN a major disappointment but I would ask, or beg, those people to give the movie another chances in the Director's Cut. It really goes to show how important editing is and how a bad edit of a movie can ruin it.

Lolita Davidovich runs into former boyfriend Steve Bauer and starts a steamy affair. Her husband John Lithgow has given up his psychiatric practice to raise their daughter, and she feels neglected as he devotes all his time to their kid. After a fairly bizarre series of dream sequences, she finds out her husband isn't who she thinks he is, kicking off an odyssey of psychotic twins, not-quite-so-dead fathers, murder, child kidnappings and split personalities.

I have seen this film a couple of times, and thought it was a brave attempt that didn't really work. I've now watched the new director's cut, and while it fixes some problems ... it still doesn't work. It fixes one major problem by not front-loading a lot of reveals about Lithgow and allowing more of the film to play out as a series of revelations. However, the first part that now focuses on Davidovich, is a fairly incoherent series of scenes of her suddenly waking up and pulling the rug out from under the viewer. Strangely, this cut seems to think that the viewer will be surprised by Lithgow's true nature, but really ... it so badly telescoped that I can't imagine anyone not seeing every surprise coming a mile away.

Truth be told ... many De Palma films relay on ridiculous plot twists and silly reveals, but they do so with style and elegance. This film ultimately fails because it substitutes weird, awkward staging and clumsy sequences where you expect elegance.

This movie is fine; there are some really great moments in it, but for the most part it just feels like a slightly above par thriller. If you're looking for something to watch on a rainy Saturday morning, this isn't a bad film to land on. Lithgow is great fun to watch, De Palma's homages to Hitchcock are great, and the editing in the director's cut is pretty unique, but overall this film runs over ground already well tread upon.