Saludos infernales

This film doesn't really have any storyline to speak of. Basically it is an episodic comedy-drama, set in New York in the late 60s, revolving around three friends as they try to avoid being drafted into the Army and sent to Vietnam, while experiencing various elements of the late 1960s counterculture.

The film uses a a style very reminiscent of the French "Nouvelle Vague" films, such as hand-held cameras, on-screen captions commenting on the action and speeded-up film.

The film is probably most well-known today for marking an early appearance by Robert De Niro (here aged 24) as voyeuristic amateur film-maker Jon Rubin, and for being an early film from director Brian De Palma.

The film is, luckily, worth watching for much more than this though. It is an interesting snapshot of it's times and, although very dated, it is often quite funny. The main problem is that the film hasn't aged very well and there's no structure to it, many episodes by far outstay their welcome.

Definitely an interesting commentary on the state of youth and society in the mid sixties. At times down right hilarious, this comedy does can be boring. Not for everyone. Interesting installment from Brian Depalma, the director of Carrie, his unique style indeed makes for an interesting film. Deniro's portrayal of a developing voyeur is one of the few comedic roles that I have seen him do so well. A movie worth watching for anyone interested in film making, as many techniques are quite interested.

Damn amusing comedy largely centered around conversational humour. Champion script writing with some of the most amusing scenes you'll ever see. It is unfortunate that this film is so under-rated (and more often not rated at all) as it is a unique look at a group of characters, so perfectly defined by the great cast in their early years, who come up with some delightfully idiotic ideas and live out these ideas with such confidence it is really quite disturbing. John Rubin is of course the best character, and seeing Robert De Niro perform his "Cancerous elements" scene is easily one of the greatest scenes ever captured on celluloid. Most worthy of a sequel, which by chance is almost as good as its predecessor. Highly recommended.

The above ironic comment was made by Howard Thompson of The New York Times when this Brian De Palma film was first released. Turns out Mr. Warden never made another movie while De Niro...anyway, besides being one of the earliest works for De Niro and De Palma, this was also the first movie to get the X rating after the Motion Picture Association of America created its rating system. Warden, De Niro, and Gerrit Graham play three New York buddies with the latter two showing Warden various ways to avoid the draft. Warden is also trying to get dates using the computer pick method. Graham is obsessed with the Kennedy assassination conspiracy, in fact, when he mentions one potential suspect, the name is always bleeped out. And De Niro is an aspiring filmmaker who tricks ladies to take off their clothes on film in the name of "art". The entire movie has an improvisational feel and meanders from scene to scene with an unevenness that shows how experimental De Palma was during his early years. Gerrit has some highlights when talking to the camera but De Niro shows how into characterization he really is when either pretending to be a right winger to someone on the steps of an army recruitment building or being nonchalant when someone offers him a stag movie. Not everything works but Greetings is very much worth a look for completists fans of De Palma and De Niro.

The problem with judging a work like Greetings is that it is by a filmmaker who is just starting to work out what's inside of him, his themes, his ideas, his sense of humor and attitudes towards society and women. Brian De Palma would follow-up Greetings with the (for my money) better satire Hi, Mom, which also features a 20-something Robert De Niro (indeed, also in a similar role here, though not by much). The reason his follow-up was better, to me, is because he had sorted out more of what he wanted with his style; here, he is skilled at infusing Nouvelle Vague into the film, and his voyeuristic attitude is prevalent in a few key scenes (one of them perhaps the funniest, involving De Niro's Jon Rubin 'directing' a woman on a bed).

What is fascinating throughout is how little De Palma shows his Hitchcock influence here; if anything, Godard is the main pulse throughout (long takes that inevitably comment upon themselves, characters reading books on camera, near political use of jump cuts and zooms). So that is one reason why it can't have everything together; as De Palma is still finding himself, and more than likely making this movie for himself (i.e. HE is the audience), it's hard for it to find what is often called 'accessibility' for a viewer like myself. I probably would've found this to be a 8/10 if I had been born thirty or forty years earlier.

The three characters here are separated very vastly, but each with their own incredible, off-beat, and often strange behavior. The friend on with the computer dates is hit or miss; the highlight here being when he has the "Dirty Movie" date, as De Palma shoots it in a mix of pre Clockwork Orange styling and as a silent film. The friend obsessed with the Kennedy assassination, to the point of drawing diagrams on a naked woman to prove his point (tongue-in-cheek of course). And then there's De Niro's character, not really in the film that much until the last twenty or so minutes. These (not to put down the talents of the other two actors; the Assassination friend had a weird quality that made him watchable) scenes are the better ones, as even here De Niro has a grasp on what De Palma thinks he's getting. But the main problem here, which was solved in most of De Palma's later movies starting with Hi, Mom onward, is consistency. There are some scenes that just don't work, that are either funny for the wrong reasons, or not funny at all.

The technical aspect of the film, in terms of being quintessentially 60's, is intriguing, but even here isn't always used to its best use. Overall, it almost makes me think of this as like one long Monty Python movie with sketches that sometimes work, but unfortunately don't. If you would want to see it out of curiosity, especially from a historical or sociological interest, I wouldn't dare tell you not to see it (the last scenes in "Vietnam" are just wacky enough). But if your a De Niro fan or De Palma fan just getting into their work, know what you're getting into here. Some may love it, some may dis-like it even more than I. For me, it served its purpose well.