May contain minor spoilers.
Dressed to Kill, having just seen it for the first time the other day, is a movie with some terrific sequences, some decent performances, and a nice, though obvious Hitchcock ripoff, plot twist at the end. It's just too bad certain things, quite obvious, prevent it from being a classic.
Dressed to Kill deals with a mystery of a killer who has slain at least two women (could have been more but the movie never tells us), and the search for the killer by three people: a brainy kid whose mom was a victim, a lively hooker whose the only one who can identify the killer, and a psychiatrist whose patient was the slained brainy kid's mother. There are a host of well done performances including Nancy Allen as the hooker Liz, Angie Dickenson as the sexually frustrated victim Kate Miller, and Micheal Caine as Doctor Rober Elliot whose has more hidden than meets the eye; though by no standard is anyone really outstanding. On the other hand Denis Franz, later to be a great character along the same lines on the hit show NYPD Blue, is embarrassing as an over-exaggerated, ruthless, hateful detective, though he takes little screen time so it doesn't hurt the movie that much. Keith Gordon, the brain child, is decent, but is almost too smart to really be believable.
What sticks with me the most in the film are the tense sequences. The scene with the sexually frustrated mother at the museum is gripping and well done, as is the later sequence leading to her untimely death. I also love the sequence at the doctor's office, that reveals the identity of the killer, which really makes the whole film come together at once. And there's a split screen scene that I thought was almost classic. Still there's another situation when Liz is on a train, running from what may be the killer, that gets taken in directions it should never had with almost embarrassing racial stereotypes. As a thriller it's tense and quite often believable. As a crime drama it often falters, especially with the incomplete, ridiculous explanation of everything that happened in the end. There's also a needless, and way too long, dream sequence at the end, in which they had the audacity to shoot someone's foot for what seemed minutes at a time. This was an up and down experience; one scene would catch me by the heart and mind with enticement, and the next would make me squirm and ask why. At more than 100 minutes this could have been under 90 and been a better film.
Scary movie fans should like this. It still stands as a better film than most of today's slasher flicks. Maybe it was a better film in it's time, but having just seen it recently I can say I enjoy it, and it is worth watching for my three favorite scenes alone.

Watching "Kroko" I would have liked to leave the cinema very much for the first time in my life. I would not recommend to watch this movie: flat main characters - absolutely no development e.g. Kroko the metaphoric German problem child remains a pure metaphor without any capability of positive involvement despite several plot-wise chances to do so. Uninspired actors, non-evolving plot. I guess the movie attempted an environmental survey but did not succeed: camera appeared shaky rather than motivated. Pictures were low - contrast, gray and dark - i am sure deliberately but the components did not add up to a convincing impression of the social milieu. The story had certain potential though, it could have made a good short story.