Greetings - Grüße

The above ironic comment was made by Howard Thompson of The New York Times when this Brian De Palma film was first released. Turns out Mr. Warden never made another movie while De Niro...anyway, besides being one of the earliest works for De Niro and De Palma, this was also the first movie to get the X rating after the Motion Picture Association of America created its rating system. Warden, De Niro, and Gerrit Graham play three New York buddies with the latter two showing Warden various ways to avoid the draft. Warden is also trying to get dates using the computer pick method. Graham is obsessed with the Kennedy assassination conspiracy, in fact, when he mentions one potential suspect, the name is always bleeped out. And De Niro is an aspiring filmmaker who tricks ladies to take off their clothes on film in the name of "art". The entire movie has an improvisational feel and meanders from scene to scene with an unevenness that shows how experimental De Palma was during his early years. Gerrit has some highlights when talking to the camera but De Niro shows how into characterization he really is when either pretending to be a right winger to someone on the steps of an army recruitment building or being nonchalant when someone offers him a stag movie. Not everything works but Greetings is very much worth a look for completists fans of De Palma and De Niro.

The problem with judging a work like Greetings is that it is by a filmmaker who is just starting to work out what's inside of him, his themes, his ideas, his sense of humor and attitudes towards society and women. Brian De Palma would follow-up Greetings with the (for my money) better satire Hi, Mom, which also features a 20-something Robert De Niro (indeed, also in a similar role here, though not by much). The reason his follow-up was better, to me, is because he had sorted out more of what he wanted with his style; here, he is skilled at infusing Nouvelle Vague into the film, and his voyeuristic attitude is prevalent in a few key scenes (one of them perhaps the funniest, involving De Niro's Jon Rubin 'directing' a woman on a bed).

What is fascinating throughout is how little De Palma shows his Hitchcock influence here; if anything, Godard is the main pulse throughout (long takes that inevitably comment upon themselves, characters reading books on camera, near political use of jump cuts and zooms). So that is one reason why it can't have everything together; as De Palma is still finding himself, and more than likely making this movie for himself (i.e. HE is the audience), it's hard for it to find what is often called 'accessibility' for a viewer like myself. I probably would've found this to be a 8/10 if I had been born thirty or forty years earlier.

The three characters here are separated very vastly, but each with their own incredible, off-beat, and often strange behavior. The friend on with the computer dates is hit or miss; the highlight here being when he has the "Dirty Movie" date, as De Palma shoots it in a mix of pre Clockwork Orange styling and as a silent film. The friend obsessed with the Kennedy assassination, to the point of drawing diagrams on a naked woman to prove his point (tongue-in-cheek of course). And then there's De Niro's character, not really in the film that much until the last twenty or so minutes. These (not to put down the talents of the other two actors; the Assassination friend had a weird quality that made him watchable) scenes are the better ones, as even here De Niro has a grasp on what De Palma thinks he's getting. But the main problem here, which was solved in most of De Palma's later movies starting with Hi, Mom onward, is consistency. There are some scenes that just don't work, that are either funny for the wrong reasons, or not funny at all.

The technical aspect of the film, in terms of being quintessentially 60's, is intriguing, but even here isn't always used to its best use. Overall, it almost makes me think of this as like one long Monty Python movie with sketches that sometimes work, but unfortunately don't. If you would want to see it out of curiosity, especially from a historical or sociological interest, I wouldn't dare tell you not to see it (the last scenes in "Vietnam" are just wacky enough). But if your a De Niro fan or De Palma fan just getting into their work, know what you're getting into here. Some may love it, some may dis-like it even more than I. For me, it served its purpose well.

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.

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.