Home Movies (1980)

Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

Admirable film.

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Nebbish teenager, with squabbling parents and a megalomaniacal older brother, is mentored by a professor at Now College to stop being invisible and become the star of his own life. Hot property Brian De Palma filmed this low-budget movie alongside his filmmaking students at Sarah Lawrence College, perhaps in an attempt to reconnect with his roots as an independent maker of revue comedies (if true, the film could surely use Robert De Niro and Allen Garfield to give it a lift). There's no wit or sting in the writing (credited to six people, working from De Palma's original treatment)--it's all just a lark, a flagging, in-jokey experiment. It might have been easier to watch had the exteriors not been so dark and the interiors so muddy; the picture is a visual insult. Nancy Allen is a plus as a tootsie who gets to know her rabbit, and Pino Donaggio contributed an eclectic score. * from ****

The bulk of the crew on Brian De Palma's Home Movies were his college students, but if you asked me where it looks it the most it's hard to say. De Palma decided to make it a challenge in as much that he thrusted these kids (one of whom Mark Romanek) into their first real foray into film-making, but he also lessened some of the possible stress on the situation in two ways: he took some of the same freewheeling, seemingly improvisational approach that he took with his early satires (the great Hi, Mom and the decent Greetings), and he also made it a silly comedy based around his obsessions and personal history. It's a send-up of self-made stardom, adultery, male dominant control, and the craftiness in the craft of film-making, and it's very funny.But to say how funny it is or why would have to reveal too much of the plot, which I'd rather leave open ended for those who might find this in their local video store's obscure picks. All I'll say is that Kirk Douglas plays the Maestro (introduced by a hilarious lot of egotistical opening titles), teaching a class about how he faltered in getting a young man, Dennis Bird (Keith Gordon) to move on from being just an "extra" in his life to being the star of his own making. Gordon's Dennis is the youngest in the Bird family, which includes an adulterous doctor father, a weepy and half-crazy (and half all-for-attention) mother, and a brother, James (the scene stealing meat-head played by Gerrit Graham with the same tenacity as in Phantom of Paradise), who teaches a summer class on Spartanism to a bunch of impressionable youths. He's also getting engaged to Kristina (always gorgeous Nancy Allen), but there's some trouble and friction in their possible "socio-economic contract".Meanwhile, Dennis meets the Maestro while acting as a Peeping Tom up in a tree, and becomes an amateur filmmaker. Now, as this all sounds, it's a little stuck together in cheap style and rough edges, which adds to its charm. It's made almost as if De Palma knows it's something of a fluke, and just wants to get his students as enthusiastic as possible about the process; it wouldn't be as much fun having them on, for example, Casualtues of War. And as one of De Palma's experimental comedies, it provides for the director, through a better than expected script from his pupils, to express some of his nuttiest scenes, including some scenes where Kristina has to unleash the "rabbit", and the running gag with Gordon dressed in black face and an afro sneaking around at night. It's not anywhere near a great comedy, but for what De Palma was after it's a success. In short, it's a low-key hoot, and De Palma fans looking for some ridiculous and crazy gags and character development won't be disappointed.

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 film is totally unlike anything I've ever seen from De Palma. It's a dysfunctional family comedy filmed with purposely shoddy production to get over the premise that we are really watching a home movie shot by the main character.Kirk Douglas plays The Maestro, a film instructor who starts his new class off by showing his recent failure to make Keith Gordon the star of his own movie. Gordon is one of those people who exist without anyone really knowing it. He doesn't appear to have any friends and his family doesn't give him the time of day. His father (the late Vincent Gardenia) is a quack doctor who cheats on his wife with his nurse (and probably his female patients). His mother (Mary Davenport) is too concerned about this, continually wavering on whether to divorce him or accept all the blame for not being able to satisfy him. The rest of the time, she's interested in what her good son that she's so proud of even though she doesn't understand him in the least is up to. Gerrit Graham is an elitist who essentially lives and teaches naturalism and sexism at Now College. He'd rather plant his seed in the ground than in Nancy Allen, but since it's not possible for man to do that yet, he decides he'll marry her if he can convert her to his ways. Allen is an interesting choice for him to try to convert because she's a whore who drinks, smokes, and eats evil fast food. She totally worships him so she attempts to give it all up for a life with him that's, all things considered, less of a life than she had before because a woman in his world essentially can't do anything.Since Gordon's life is an utter bore, Douglas gets him to film things that the average Joe would pay to see. Thus, Gordon decides to try to catch his father in the act to help his mom get the divorce and to steal Allen away from his brother, who has always been the center of attention and one that won in the past, by convincing her that she's fine as she is.The movie is absurd, but generally in a way that's humorous without going overboard. It's definitely somewhat farcical in its look at filmmaking by the inexperienced and this quirky family.Graham does an excellent job of playing his wacky character that considers himself to be of the utmost knowledge, but can't convey his points in a way where anyone understands them (he explains with lines like those who know know). What makes it even funnier is that he's held in such high regard, yet his disciples consist of about 5 rejects that just pretend to understand and buy into his philosophies to his tirades and/or being verbally berated. Allen has a tougher role than in her other films with De Palma, as she tries to be a good girl but she's constantly being tempted, so she gets to have some interesting personality shifts. She's been in better films, but this is the one where she really stands out as someone that could really act. The thing with the style is De Palma seems to waver between whether he wants us to believe it's all a home movie or not. At some points we see Gordon going under cover in a Soul Man kind of outfit to spy on his father, but most of the time it's obvious that Gordon isn't filming and, based on the camera angles, not believable that anyone else could be without being seen. To make things more bizarre, Douglas just appears out of nowhere, even popping up in a tree at one point while Gordon is failing to catch his dad in action. The only true breaks in the style are a few dreamy shots of Allen that make her look really beautiful, perhaps so the filmmakers in the film can be described as hacks that luck into a nice scene once every couple of days.In terms of style, the animation opening is what steals the show. Not that the animations are technical in any way, but it sets up the whole movie by introducing all the characters and the caricatures of them are quite humorous.It seems like De Palma was just having fun with this one. If you take this at face value than it's easy to rank on because it's got its share of implausibilities. If you don't focus on who is filming the movie then it's solid because the actions of the characters are believable (considering what the characters are like) and the progression is logical. As a whole it's a mess, but an enjoyable one that was years ahead of its time. It's out there, but if you like movies with weird families such as Some Girls and didn't find the production of Blair Witch to be a detriment then this is another to check out. I'm glad this isn't De Palma's regular style because we would have been robbed of some great, highly stylish films, but as a one-time experiment it's successful enough and a cool kind of different. I think most people would like his far more conventional comedy Wise Guys better, but I found this story far more humorous and a lot less goofy. 7/10