Ciao America

In an episodic series of stories we meet three friends in the mid-sixties, each with their own hang-ups, issues and problems. Paul is shy and seeking love even though it isn't forthcoming from any of the computer dates he tries; Lloyd is a conspiracy theory nut, worried that he is being watched at all times due to his knowledge of those involved in the JFK assassination, meanwhile Jon is a shy amateur film maker who just happens to also be a peeping tom in training.

On the basis of those involved in this film I decided to give it a go and see what it did – after all De Palma is mentioned in the same breath as other very good directors who did a lot of good work back in the late 1960's and 70's. However this film left me cold and failed to really make any lasting impression on whatsoever as it was rather messy and with nothing I could really get a hold of. Other reviewers have called this a satire but few have said what it satirises and I suspect are using the word rather than knowing that that is what this was. The episodic nature of the film was not the problem for me, it was more than few of the sections were funny or interesting and too many of them just seemed to go nowhere.

The cast are mixed and it is obviously the presence of De Niro that attracts a lot of people. He is good despite the material and he shows some touches that he would develop as time went on. Graham and Warden are underused and have nothing of any real value to offer – not all their fault as the material is to blame but Graham does have some good moments. De Palma's direction is a bit dull to be honest and most of his shots are very static – ignore the fact that it lacks the style he is famous for, this just lacks imagination full stop.

Overall this is interesting only to see early work from De Palma and De Niro but really as a film it is poor. The episodic nature of the film is not so much a problem as the fact that few of the episodes are any good, even if they are watchable in the main. Not really worth watching on the whole then but maybe completest will get something from it.

"Greetings" sees a trio of awkward young men acting, well... pretty damn strangely in 1960s New York City actually! These guys are really at odds with their environment and culture. Their eccentricities begin as a source of humor, (even if they might represent the citizen who has "too much freedom"), but eventually, these habits become eccentric, obsessive and finally disturbing. This escalation of behavior might run parallel to Government and society at the time, what with the Vietnamese conflict and the unsettled political climate. Or, it might not! The "episodic" nature of the film, the way it presents scenes like flipping through a scrapbook, is an uneven method in which to present it's satirical comments. In other words: some work and some don't. Sure, I'm sure a lot of the scenes FELT right at the time, (and there is some nice energy to many of them), but unfortunately some of them lack a direction and fall a flat, (but it IS forty years old!).

De Niro has his moments too. A draft-dodging scheme he has is probably the best laugh in the film. His comedic skill is drawn upon fairly well in a number of scenes, (after all, he is the pervert of the group!). His friends are not as gripping though. A JFK conspiracy theory nut, (who is probably the most obsessive of all), lacks depth, and is really just there for a repetitive gag that didn't seem that clever to begin with. Likewise the "computer-date" enthusiast, who goes from nut-case to nut-case. He doesn't come across all that well either, and again, the same gag is dragged along for several evenly-spaced scenes.

One of the things this film does well is show you New York City unflinchingly. 1968 has been captured very well, and it's astounding to see how unpopulated and thoroughly modern it looked, even then. We see these three shabbily-dressed, purposeless, bumblers haunting the bottoms of skyscrapers and climbing across architecture, all while engaging in some stream-of-consciousness-type strange banter. Weird stuff.

The best things are the visuals, followed closely by some comedic flare from De Niro. But overall, it may only be those who have direct connections to this era or this city that may find a whole film out of "Greetings".

Brian De Palma these days isn't generally associated with comedy, but this is from his counter culture period, when subversive put ons were his metier (see also 'get To Know Your Rabbit'). Three hipsters (Robert De Niro, cult figure Gerrit Graham and unknown Jonathan Warden, all good) try and dodge the draft, and romp through a near plotless series of odd scenes involving their private obsessions, mainly JFK's assassination and voyeurism. The mood is somewhere between Richard Lester and Jean Luc Godard. While it's great to see De Niro in an early comedic role, the stand out performance for me is by Graham, who shows the chops he would use in his subsequent long and varied career ('Demon Seed', 'Used Cars', Bud the Chud). The supporting cast also includes the hugely underrated Allen Garfield ('The Conversation', 'The Stunt Man') in a memorable sequence opposite De Niro.

'Greetings' is uneven, and dated in some ways, but has enough invention and genuine laughs to make it worth the rental. Now, if only I can find the sequel...

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.

"Greetings" is cheaply made satire, which was Brian DePalma's directorial debut and one of DeNiro's first roles. That was my main reason for being very curious of this film. I was anxious to see DeNiro in early moments of his career.

Maybe this movie is dated. I wasn't around during 1968, so maybe I just didn't get the satire. Maybe that's why most of this movie flew above my head. Nevertheless, the movie never seems to center on a basic idea. It just meanders on and on, delivering a series of satirical sketches, almost as if they were coming up with ideas as they continued shooting the film. This would be typical of an experimental student film, and I'm sure it would get top honors if DePalma, DeNiro and the other people who took part in this movie submitted this to their film class in college. But I'm not going to purposely lower my standards just because a movie is cheaply made by a couple of ambitious filmmakers who simply tried to salvage whatever they can with their fledgling budget. I'm not going to feel pity for the film's cheapness, like it's some struggling vagrant. I've seen much better films made on low budgets that didn't contain shaky camera work and bad sound. You can at least do something fancy with the camera to show off your skills. Most of the shots you see in this movie are wide shots. There are very few close-ups. It wasn't until fifteen minutes through the film where I realized which one DeNiro was. It's like at those Christmas gatherings where one of the family members doesn't feel like lugging the camera around, so he/she mounts the camera atop some sort of aparatus to capture what's going on but it's just one boring still shot.

Anyway, I don't think DePalma will be putting this movie on his most-cherished list. Sometimes early work can be the best work. Like Martin Scorcese with "Mean Streets." I saw him on an interview recently and he claims "MS" is still his favorite out of all films he's ever done. I wouldn't be surprised if DePalma has this movie resting in the receptacle in his backyard.

Almost every great filmmaker started out making little forgettable, crappy, no-brain films with their camcorders at an early age. This is like one of those films, except it isn't completely devoid of intelligence and does have some direction. Just not enough consistency.