Síndrome de Caim

Yes, it's bad for the man who made Carrie, but it's not as bad as it might be. A lot of it is tongue-in-cheek (witness the long tracking shot of the pet psychologist explaining split personalities) and it has some terrific bizarre moments, not least the scariest drowning-in-a-car scene in film history. It's a very weird movie and John Lithgow gives a great camp performance in it. I don't know if Brian set out to make a schlocky trash movie but that's what he did, and as such, it's fun. Watch it and see.

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.

Jenny finds herself doubting if she is happy when her ex comes back into town... she reminds herself that she is married to the perfect man, an excellent psychiatrist who's taken time off his own practice to spend more time with their daughter, Amy. He is getting somewhat obsessive about it, though... almost like he's... studying her. De Palma goes so far in this homage to Hitchcock that the entire film is one big tribute to the master, and he plays with the camera as he also loves to do(we get a couple of long takes, one of them 4 full minutes, and one sequence has great use of slow-mo... not quite the subway scene in The Untouchables, of course), and we get a tension-packed, suspenseful psychological thriller(light, in the way that it uses the Hollywood approach to mental problems; it is actually a brutal, disturbing, bloody and violent piece with some strong sexuality... also setting it apart from Alfred's pictures - then again, he might have gone this far if the censorship laws had allowed for it, considering stuff like Frenzy), with a lot of the power coming from Lithgow's inherent creepiness(and he's perfectly cast, if some of what he's asked to do here is awkward... and do not look at the IMDb listings before watching, it will spoil a lot). The characters aren't bad(nothing spectacular, but likable and interesting enough), and the acting is plenty solid. This has a lot going on, especially as far as the plot goes(you may want to give it a second viewing just to make sure you picked up on everything that happened), and not only for a fast-paced movie that doesn't break 90 minutes. The chronology can really confuse you, as well as the score of surprises(and several fake-outs!). And at the end of the day, this is mainly meant to entertain you, and it lacks the kick of credible flicks. The DVD comes with a trailer. I recommend this to any fan of the director, star and the man whose body of work provided the inspiration. 6/10

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.

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.