Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I must admit that I had my doubts about this movie before I was going to watch it. The main reason for that is because it was compared to a Hitchcock movie. I've seen several movies that were said to be inspired by Hitchcock or that could have been made by the 'Master of Suspense' himself, but so far I haven't seen any of these movie that would be able to stand the test of time. In my opinion Hitchcock has become a household name which is too easily used to promote some (cheap) thrillers, but on the other hand I must admit that I was intrigued by it because this is a European movie. Normally it's the big Hollywood studios who like to abuse Hitchcock's name if that can raise their income. But this movie was made in one of the most chauvinistic European countries ever and I'm sure that most French would rather drop dead than to admit that their movies have been inspired by an Englishman. That's why I decided to give this movie a try and I must say that I'm glad that I did.

"Sur mes levres" or "Read my Lips" as it is called in English, tells the story of a young secretary named Carla. She is a hardworking and loyal employee, but has never been very appreciated by her colleagues. That has much to do with the fact that she suffers from a hearing deficiency, which has denied her to climb up on the hierarchical ladder of the company. But when she is allowed to hire a trainee that can work for her, all this is about to change. Paul Angeli is a 25 year old and completely unskilled ex-convict. The man is a thief, but Carla gives him a chance and covers for him when needed. She hopes to teach him what a regular life should look like, but at the same time he drags her with him in his old life...

Since I still believe that the name Hitchcock is used too often to describe a very good thriller - which this movie definitely is - I will not make any comparisons between Hitchcock and Jacques Audiard's directing. Fact is that the man has done a really good job with this movie. I hadn't heard of him before, but it is true that he knows how to build up suspense and how to keep you interested from the beginning until the end. That also has a lot to do with the very fine and original story of course. I doubt if there is someone in Hollywood who has ever come up with the idea of using a handicapped woman in a powerful role, instead of making her the helpless subject of an abusive husband (you know, the typical TV-movie story).

Also worth noticing is the acting in this movie. Vincent Cassel is quite famous, but Emmanuelle Devos was a complete mystery to me. There is absolutely nothing glamorous about their roles, but they both did an excellent job with their characters, making them feel very believable and realistic. Paul could have been the average tough guy right out of jail and Carla the typically helpless woman, but thanks to their performances, you really believe that these are two strong people who both have had some bad luck in life but who will make the best out of it together.

All in all this is a powerful movie with a very fine script and some excellent acting. Despite the fact that I had my doubts about it, I've soon become one of its greatest admirers. I give this movie an 8/10. Don't hesitate to give it a try.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Everyone involved (and the audience) should seek out "The Candidate" to see how good this movie could have been. What happened the South American story? What were Julie Christie and Kate Capshaw thinking to allow their roles to be cardboard cut-outs. Up to now I have liked every Gene Hackman performance and/or movie. He was either disinterested (which I can hardly believe) or dreadfully miscast. I have also liked and defended Richard Gere (and been vilified for it). But here he had no "power". He was never intimidating and only occasionally persuasive. All in all I was very disappointed. I really expected much more from this director and cast. If you can't find "The Candidate" watch "Wag the dog" again or even "Bulworth".
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:"Dressed to Kill" is Brian DePalma's best film, an absolute thrill ride of suspense, humor and style that remains unrivaled today. DePalma has a bum rap in Hollywood, as most people claim that he rips off Alfred Hitchcock. He does not. Hitchcock could only dream of what DePalma shows in his thrillers.

Sadly, the original uncut version of "Dressed to Kill" is no longer available on video. The current copy released by Goodtimes is the Jack Valenti approved R rated cut. But some copies of DePalma's original cut still exist. It is the one distributed by Warner Home Video, in both a green cardboard box with Angie Dickinson on the cover, or in a black clamshell case with the theatrical poster on silver lining. These are the ones to get, if you can find a copy. I have the green one and it is among my treasured possessions.

Anyway, back to the story. Dickinson plays Kate Miller, a sexually frustrated wife who is being treated by Dr. Robert Elliott ( Michael Caine) for her obsessive fantasies. While on a trip to the museum (a real tour-de-force for DePalma in terms of camera work and suspense),

Miller is picked up by a stranger. You can pretty much guess what happens to her, since the ads and box art give away the story. But there are a few complications. A hooker (Nancy Allen) is the sole witness to the murder. Kate Miller's son Peter (Keith Gordon) is a teenage genius determined to solve the crime. And Dr. Elliott's answering machine has a certain message on it...about a missing razor...

I'm not spoiling the film at all for you since what I have described above takes place within the opening half hour and DePalma's biggest surprises are reserved for the last hour. This film is explicit, however, enough for Valenti (head of the MPAA) to demand cuts in the film. What surprises me is what cuts he wanted. Several cuts in the opening shower scene and one or two slashing scenes and some of Nancy Allen's dialogue (Valenti wanted "cock" changed to "bulge"). This is a film that is very violent and bloody, yet the objections are to sexual content. I'd love to hear Valenti's explaination at how seeing two women in a tender love scene in "Lost and Delirious" is somehow more damaging to a young mind than Arnold Schwarzenegger blowing away people with a chain gun. It just isn't fair.

What makes "Dressed to Kill" so good is that not only are the technical credits first rate, but the performances are very good as well. Michael Caine, who was in a lot of crap in this time period, gives one of his best performances as the doctor. Angie Dickinson is better than usual, possibly because she actually has a strong role here. Nancy Allen adds this to her range of performances that has her pegged as one of the most underrated and overlooked actresses in the world. Keith Gordon is wonderful as the genius and i loved all those inventions of his.

DePalma is one of our best directors who has never received the recognition he deserved. The recent joke of the AFI 100 Best Thrillers list showed that very few people actually know what a thriller is. If they were to actually open their eyes for once, they would see that DePalma has staked his career in thrillers and is actually the best craftsman. This is even better than "Psycho". It's a shame that very few actually know that.

**** out of 4 stars
+++++++++
A:
positive