Criss-Cross-Dressers Movie #3: Connie & Carla

Oh man.  Someone spare me from tired cliches.  Between this movie and the last my brain feels like something the cat dragged in.

HOLY SHIT, THE CLICHES HAVE INVADED MY BLOG!!!!!!

At this point I'm sure someone has a snide remark about the fact that I sometimes speak or write in cliches myself.  Please do let me know in the comments.  (Okay, so I really just want comments on my blog.  Sue me.)

Anyway, Connie & Carla isn't an inherently bad movie.  It has some fun moments and if you're in the mood for a gal-pal comedy you could do worse.  But it's spectacularly UNspectacular, which is a shame considering the talent on tap.

Here's the plot rundown (my own this time, as none of the websites I usually go to for these is terribly informative):

Connie and Carla (Nia Vardalos and Toni Collette) are two waitresses who have long dreamed of being a dinner-theater showtunes act.  Since their childhood together they've performed odd quick-change stage shows for tiny audiences.  In Chicago, the girls accidentally witness a mobster-related shooting and go on the lam to protect themselves.  They end up in Los Angeles (the joke being that L.A. "has no culture" and thus would be the last place mobsters would try to find the two theatre-loving gals).  After a failed couple of stereotypical L.A. jobs, Connie and Carla stumble upon a drag bar run by Ian Gomez (of "Drew Carey Show" and "Norm" fame).  Gomez is looking to add a new act to the current dismal run of drag performers, so Connie and Carla dress up as men in drag and perform live.  Which is a big hit as most drag queens perform lip sync.  Connie and Carla then must maintain their secret identities as real women while also trying to make it big without getting caught by the mob.  AND Connie develops a crush on fellow drag queen Robert's estranged brother Jeff (David Duchovny), further complicating things and potentially exposing their identities.  The show gets bigger, Jeff tries to accept brother Robert's lifestyle, the mobsters travel all over trying to find them, and hijinks generally ensue.  And musical numbers.  LOTS and LOTS of musical numbers.  Eventually Connie and Carla's well-meaning but blundering boyfriends conveniently find work with the mobsters who are looking for the pair, and the mobsters overhear the boys talking about their missing gals and a stray phone call from L.A.  The mobsters send the boys to L.A. and have them followed.  The boys see Connie and Carla on local TV and notify the mobsters.  On the night that Ian Gomez opens his brand-new dinner theater with Connie and Carla as the opening number (complete with their hero Debbie Reynolds as a guest), the mobsters find Connie and Carla.  Chaos leads to the mobsters getting caught eventually by the police thanks to the interference of the fellow drag queens and club owner Gomez.  And Vardalos is able to reveal to Duchovny that she's actually a woman, making it okay for him to have been attracted to her.

Woof.  Okay, a couple of things right off the bat.  This is very much a gender-bent Some Like it Hot but with about 1/10th the charm.  Also, this movie smashes you over the head with its theme, which unfortunately is one of the most over-used themes in American film: "Be yourself."  I'm sick to death of American characters struggling to "be yourself" or learning "to thine own self be true" or whatever other way you want to put it.  You know what?  Be someone else!  How about a movie that says, "Be someone you aren't because the person you are is an obnoxious, self-congratulatory jerk."  I'm just done with that theme.  At least as written by people like Nia Vardalos, who knows how to write a decent joke but naught else.  Also, this movie is about an hour of story and 40+ minutes of a stage show.  Which I guess is fine if you want to watch Nia Vardalos sing with Toni Collette.  Personally, it made the movie feel like a ridiculous vanity project.  An impression not aided at all by the fact that Connie is the romantic lead, the stronger of the two women, and pretty much the cat's pajamas.  I'll be interested to see if Larry Crowne benefits at all from the fact that Vardalos is NOT playing the female lead of her own script. 

And!!!! Like Kinky Boots before it, Connie & Carla focuses on the least interesting characters.  You know who I wanted this movie to be about?  Not Robert, though his relationship with brother Jeff would be more interesting and definitely worth developing.  In fact, that relationship was the strongest and most compelling in the film.  No, I want to see a movie about the Ian Gomez character.  He doesn't play as flamboyantly gay as the drag queen characters, but clearly he must either BE gay or have some emotional attachment to a gay person if he continues to throw himself into his club the way he does.  And Gomez underplays him perfectly.  I've noticed this about him generally over the years.  He's a really effective character actor.

So is there anything I did like about the movie?  Yes.  As mentioned, the relationship between Robert and Jeff (Duchovny) is played really well.  It feels genuine.  Where most comedies would have Jeff accept his brother with little effort, this movie makes Jeff uncomfortable with Robert's drag persona and lifestyle.  He has to get used to it, which is not something you'd ordinarily see with this kind of film.  It's kind of strange, really, that Vardalos made this relationship SO compelling.  Did she not realize that it would be more compelling than the friendship between Connie and Carla?  Or did she assume that she and Collette were just so fab that nothing could possibly take our attention away?  In any case, I thought the slow acceptance on Jeff's part was done well.  And Duchovny took that minor relationship development into a greater height by playing against his charm.  He allowed it to be a flaw in the character.

I also thought the musical numbers were funny and a lot of fun.  Or most of them, anyway.  The first show we see Connie and Carla perform in an airport bar is pretty hilarious, especially the quick-change costumes.  Assuming for the moment that Vardalos and Collette actually sang their parts (it would be a little silly otherwise), they have damn good voices.  I don't know a lot about musical theater.  I wish I knew more, but I don't.  But what I've seen I've liked, and what I like is powerful voice.  I definitely got that sense watching the musical numbers.  (I also take weird perverse amusement in the fact that Princess Leia's mom looks in better shape than the Princess herself these days).

Still, overall I was enormously disappointed by this film.  I enjoyed My Big, Fat Greek Wedding but even then felt like Vardalos was a bit overrated.  This film confirms my suspicion.  She's funny when she tries, but she writes her leads too perfect (in an empowered "imperfect" way) for me to not view her work as largely self-aggrandizing.

Here, as always, are the mid-movie thoughts:

- I wonder who modeled for the Spyglass Entertainment logo....

- Oof, child actors aren't always that great. Especially when you're forcing them to act like kids would never act.

- I hope they tell us where these characters got their passion for showtunes.

- These New York accents are Jon Stewart bad.

- The dialogue is kinda stage-y. It's fun, but not entirely buyable.

- Kinda awesome that the movie wastes NO TIME getting the girls in trouble. Though it's hard to imagine they can keep up this pace for just under 2 hours.

- Okay, regarding the line, "Come on Thelma." Once again, for those of you who want to be screenwriters, take a lesson from Mystery Science Theater 3000: "Never mention a great movie in your crappy movie." Not a prejudgment on this film, just a bit of wisdom. Don't invite comparisons as they can bias your audience.

- Easy joke at L.A.'s expense.

- Nice coke joke.

- Uh.... really? They got an apartment in West Hollywood with... what money? What credit?

- Nice! Greg Grunberg! Go Oceanic 815 pilot!!!! (Yes, more Lost. Deal with it.)

- The movie is just rocketing past all these complications... kinda TOO fast.

- hahaha... conveniently loud exposition being tossed around in this bar.

- Ian Gomez? Awesome!

- Uh, where's the piano player? Does the club HAVE a piano player? Wouldn't he give away the fact that they were singing live? Kinda doesn't make sense.

- Wouldn't they have to do some kind of check to *prevent* women from trying out?

- Connie and Carla really should have to dress like GUYS at some point.

- Oof, could Vardalos have written more cliche flamboyant gays?

- Ugh. So much referring to Debbie Reynolds. If she doesn't show up in a cameo I'll eat my non-existent hat.

- What the shit was that scene? Duchovny didn't talk at all? Why not?

- So... why did Robert bring Duchovny to Connie and Carla's place?

- Jesus Christ, why aren't their fellow drag queens suspicious??? Are they stupid?

- I also really dig that the Russian guy is getting into musicals now.

- hahaha... Duchovny looks at his watch. Yeah, buddy, I feel ya.

- Ugh. This whole "running into Duchovny" thing is awful.

- So Duchovny acts disgusted, like a homophobe, and we're supposed to still want Connie to get together with him?

- Wow, what a shitty coincidence that the boyfriends are working for the mobsters.

- Toni Collette has hilariously awesomely HUGE eyes.

- Who lives in Los Angeles and thinks that drag queens are freaks? Only the most insanely conservative people, and this styling white girl is very likely NOT a conservative.

- "We can't disappoint everyone!" and get shot? This is stupid.

- Ugh. And here it is, the obligatory Debbie Reynolds cameo. No hat-eating for me.

- Wow, this ending is awful. So forced.

- Wait, so Duchovny's attracted to what he thinks is a man in drag, then finds out is a woman, and his reaction isn't incredible confusion? And now it's okay that he almost puked when he thought she was a he? Bullshit, movie.

Did the movie fit the theme?  Yeah, pretty much.  I mean, it's all about women dressing as guys who dress as women.  So sure, it fits.  I only wish it had been about the GUYS WHO DRESS AS WOMEN.

I say unless you really like the leads (Vardalos, Collette, and/or Duchovny) and/or are really into gal-pal flicks featuring loads of showtunes, skip this one.

Criss-Cross-Dressers Movie #2: Kinky Boots

I'm going to point you in the direction of the following link, which is a British comedy sketch that I think brilliantly sums up my feelings about this week's film.

http://youtu.be/CUyK_J_W4BI

Look, I'm all for underdog stories and as the child of a blue-collar family I'm always happy to see stories about industrialization's slow decline.  But this movie is cliche after cliche, largely because it focuses so much on the least interesting of the two potential protagonist choices.  If you play it safe that way, you have to rely on a lot of tried-and-true story elements.  Which is a damn shame as there's potential here for something better.

Here's the rundown on the plot.  Again, because I'm behind this month I'm basing my plot rundown on an existing summary (this one available on imdb):

Price & Sons, located in Northampton, England, is a fourth generation owned and operated family business specializing in quality shoes for men. The heir apparent to the company, Charlie Price, is moving to London with his fiancée Nicola to get as far away from the company and the close-mindedness of Northampton as possible. Charlie's plans change when his father suddenly dies. Charlie ceases his London move to take over in his father's stead.  Charlie learns that the primary contract on which the company had been working has long expired - something that his father Harold hid from everyone - meaning that there is no work and little prospect for work with their current line of shoes. Charlie lays off several of his employees against his personal wishes. Meanwhile, Nicola wants Charlie to sell the business to a property developer who wants to convert the factory into upscale condos. But one of Charlie's laid off employees, a young woman named Lauren, suggests he change the business model and create another line of shoes in a niche market. Upon a chance meeting with a relatively large drag queen named Lola (the awesome Chiwetel Ejiofor), Charlie comes up with the idea of specializing in fashionable boots made for the generally larger heft of drag queens. There are many obstacles to converting the business to this new model, including meshing fashionable design with the required functionality of the boots and talking a relatively conservative town and business into supporting this change. With Lola's assistance, these changes are both advanced and hindered. Don, one of the factory's key workers, is threatened by Lola (real name Simon) and proceeds to make things difficult until Lola allows him to win an arm-wrestling match that could have made Don look foolish.  Charlie believes that to make the company truly successful in this new model, he has to show the boots during the Milan fashion season using the target market, drag queens, as the models. Showing in Milan takes money which Charlie doesn't have until he mortgages his house.  Nicola is furious and cheats on Charlie, which causes Charlie to lash out at Lola prior to Milan.  In Milan, Charlie calls Lola to apologize but it's too late: Charlie is without his models.  In a desperate moment, Charlie walks out on the runway in a pair of his factory's boots.  He stumbles and falls in the high heels but luckily Lola and her fellow drag queens have shown up to Milan to surprise him.  As the movie ends, we hear Charlie's voicemail to Lola, which is very touching and apologetic.  Lola says her goodbyes to her drag bar in London and joins the Northampton factory, now renamed from Price & Sons to Kinky Boots.

I wanted to like this movie.  A lot.  The opening scene with the young Simon (soon to be Lola) dancing in a pair of high heels to his father's disapproval set up the expectation that this movie was going to be about Simon/Lola.  But no.  Then we cut to Charlie and his dad and for the majority of the film the story belongs to them.  Or to Charlie at least, and the idea of dealing with paternal expectations.  Both Charlie and Simon/Lola deal with this father-son dynamic.  The problem, of course, is that a man being coerced into taking over a dying business in which he has no personal interest is FAR AND AWAY less interesting than a man dealing with his father's disapproval at his gender identification.  There were so many scenes that touched on Simon/Lola's difficulties but went nowhere.  At one point in the movie Simon (he's dressed as a man at this point) confesses to Charlie that he was trained to be a boxer.  And he was apparently pretty damn good.  See, THAT's the movie I want to see.  Okay, that movie was done in Beautiful Boxer, but how many people have seen that?  Compared to the number of people who have seen The Full Monty, Calendar Girls, Saving Grace, etc.?  We've all seen the British industrial underdog movie.  We haven't all seen the British heavyweight boxer who really wants to be a woman.  Compared to the drama inherent in Lola's life, Charlie's life seems pretty run-of-the-mill, if you'll pardon the joke.  Lola is by far the more interesting protagonist and it was a mistake to concentrate on Charlie instead.

The biggest problem, though, comes in what Mitchell and Webb refer to in the sketch I linked above.  This movie is one ridiculous cliche after the other.  I can't count the number of times I rolled my eyes at the predictable, heavy-handed moments of drama and tension in this film.  Or the tired old jokes.  Pretty much every moment announces itself and goes through the motions.  The crazy, kinda hilarious thing is that some of these cliche moments are completely unmotivated.  Charlie discovering Nicola cheating is handled by one of the worst examples of forced coincidence you'll ever see.  Charlie getting mad at Lola for showing up to a dinner in a dress is ridiculous.  Yes, the plot required that Charlie and Lola be at odds so that she can run in during the third act to make the last minute save.  But there's no reason for Charlie to be upset by Lola wearing a dress.  That's what Lola has done the entire time Charlie has known her.  In fact, I was impressed by the character's LACK of reaction to Lola's drag show the first time he stumbles across it.  It's like the movie has to make Charlie a homophobe in that moment, not because the character IS a homophobe, but because the cliche requires that the two characters be at odds.  Those are just a few examples of how awful the cliches are in the movie and how much they affect it.  It's not just a cliche that's bad (many of the best movies deal in a cliche or three), it's a cliche that drags down everything around it.

Which isn't to say that Kinky Boots is entirely a bad film.  Chiwetel Ejiofor is frigging fantastic as both drag queen Lola and conflicted Simon.  He plays like a slightly rougher version of RuPaul.  While the Golden Globes are pretty much a joke, they *did* do something right by nominating Ejiofor for an award.  You get the ferocity of the Lola character and the connection that she has to Simon's troubled past.  You get the fondness for outsiders and the vulnerability mixed with toughness.  Again, I really wish this movie had been about Lola/Simon, and that's in no small part because Ejiofor is so damn effective.  Honorable mention goes to Nick Frost for playing against type (or the type that we commonly associate with him currently) as a macho dickhead.  Frost has that "big lad" look to him but it's mostly played for comedy these days.  It was interesting to see that aspect of his physicality played for menace (even if it was a menace undercut with humor).  I also thought Sarah-Jane Potts as Lauren did a great job of inhabiting a cliche character (the pretty local factory girl).  I bought that Lauren would have sufficient moxie to help keep the operation running.  Potts gave Lauren a cheerful but pragmatic disposition that the character might not otherwise have displayed.

It might also be worth mentioning that the musical numbers done by Lola and her fellow dragsters were quite fun.  I especially enjoyed the catwalk number, which was a medley of These Boots were Made for Walkin and a song I didn't recognize but involved boots in some way.  The choreography was fun and effective and that catwalk number did a great job of acting as a fun moment AND as a way to sell the boots.  I don't know if that event happened in real life, but I kinda wish it had because that would definitely sell boots to drag queens.  Or anyone who just really likes sexy boots.  (Incidentally, I don't know anything about shoe fashion, but I do know that I LOVED these boots.  Lola says that the boots should make you think of sex.  "Kinky" boots definitely work for me.)

Here are the usual mid-movie thoughts I jotted down:

- Wow, lots of freaking ads on this DVD.
- The Miramax logo makes me want to visit NYC.
- Oh man, that was Chiwetel's character as the little boy dancing in high heels, wasn't it? Pretty sure I'm gonna dig that character.
- Kinda neat to see the mechanics that go into shoes.
- Seriously, ice-cream guy? He came around my neighborhood at the EXACT moment in the movie when Charlie finds out his dad's dead.  I guess that's what I get for watching a movie in the living room with the front door open.
- I know this is about shoes, but holy shit, could we ease up on the shoes already?
- Yeesh, these British "rags to riches"/factory life stories all start off the same, eh? "I believe in my town/dad/product/etc."
- If Charlie doesn't get involved with the factory girl I'll be dipped in shit. (Ed.-he does.  no shit-dipping required)
- He's the son of a shoemaker. How did this wannabe rich girl get involved with him in the first place?
- Chiwetel makes a good drag queen.
- I'd be interested to read the true story as this movie feels very much like one of those "inspired by/not at all true to life" movies where conflict is created apropos of nothing.
- Ugh... the sexual tension between Charlie and Lauren is terrible and so damn predictable.
- hahaha... Charlie needs her to do internet research?  Really? "The interwebs scares me."
- Okay, Chiwetel makes a FANTASTIC drag queen. In the factory, he pretty much passes. If I didn't know he was a man, I might not even realize it.
- Ugh, the boot on the button is ridiculous. Bad ridiculous, not fun ridiculous.
- "This is Northampton! It's not SoHo!" ugh... Man, there are so many cliche lines in this.
- So what are these people doing if their contract is up? Do they make other specialty men's shoes? I'm just confused about the particulars.
- Jesus, right down to the wacky old woman who doesn't care that she's a he. Could this movie be any more of a frigging cliche?
- But Charlie knows that's a lie, right? If his father intended to sell the factory, why didn't he? What difference does it make to the agent if it's the son and not the father? That makes no sense to me.  Did his father want a higher price?  I'm so confused about this.
- Letting Don win was a cliche, but at least it played genuine. The actors did a good job with making it feel like a real moment.
- Why are the workers mad at Charlie for accurate criticisms? ARE the stitches crooked?
- Do they really need the button since Charlie is yelling? Seems unnecessary. An open window could've achieved the same purpose.
- I like that the Frost character "changes his mind" about Charlie and not Lola. Again, every time this movie plays a beat that's NOT cliche it's good.
- Ah fuck, seriously? Charlie ended up at the same restaurant as Nicola? Frigging forced.
- Why did he take it out on Lola? I get that Charlie's upset, but Lola's not even close to the target.
- "Does he look sexy?" "He does to me, George." GAG ME
- I don't like the "last minute save" thing in movies where the character who has been wronged by the protag decides to look past it as the "bigger person". It doesn't ring true. Bastardry should be repaid in full.
- Wait, so Charlie apologized in a voicemail? We should have heard that voicemail as it happened to motivate the last minute save. There's no benefit to holding that information back.  We already know that Charlie's show will go well, what's the difference if it's Lola in a last minute surprise?

Does the movie address the theme?  Sort of.  Lola is the cross-dresser and is an integral character, but certainly not the primary protagonist.  The movie is mostly about Charlie and his hang-ups when it should have been about Lola/Simon.  I know: broken record.  Sorry, I was just annoyed at this.

In the end, I don't think Kinky Boots is worth your time.  There are far better movies about cross-dressers around that don't waste your time on the British underdog bullshit.  I suppose if you really like Chiwetel it's worth a look.  I personally really enjoy the man's work and was happy to sit through what was an otherwise sub-par movie, but I won't be repeating this experience.

Until next time, when we have Connie & Carla to watch!

Criss-Cross-Dressers Movie #1: Dressed to Kill

First up on the docket for this month's theme is Brian De Palma's Dressed to Kill.  I want to start by apologizing to anyone who actually reads this blog.  I'm behind by about two weeks.  This is due to a bit of very detailed and very unpaid editorial/story notes work I did for a friend and a bit of less detailed but paid story notes work I did for a new freelance client.  Yes, that's right, I'm not just a narrative elitist windbag anymore: I'm a professional narrative elitist windbag.

Anyway, what to say about Dressed to Kill?  Oh, I know: holy batshit insane!  I enjoyed this Psycho homage right up until the point at which the plot did an about-face, much like its inspiration.  Then, man... then shit got weird and really, really awful.

I'm gonna copy and paste from the Wikipedia plot synopsis and add my own editorial notes where I feel necessary.  I've diligently avoided doing this for the prior blog entries as I feel this should be wholly MY review of the film.  But I'm playing a little catch-up and besides, most of you probably just read this for my comments and not for the synopsis anyway.  Here goes:

Kate (Angie Dickinson) is a sexually frustrated aging housewife (and MILF) in therapy with psychiatrist Dr. Elliott (Michael Caine). During an appointment, Kate attempts to seduce him, but Elliott rejects her advances. Kate goes to the Metropolitan Museum to meet her mother, but instead has an unexpected flirtation with a mysterious stranger. Kate and the stranger "stalk" each other through the museum until they finally wind up outside, where Kate joins him in a taxi. They immediately begin to have sex in the cab, and continue at his apartment. Hours later, Kate awakens and decides to discreetly leave while the man is asleep. Kate leaves the apartment but on the way out realizes that she has left her wedding ring on the stranger's nightstand, and she returns to retrieve it. The elevator doors open on the figure of a tall, blonde woman in dark sunglasses wielding a straight razor. Kate is slashed to death in the elevator.  (and now the Psycho plot change).  A high-priced call girl, Liz (crazy hot Nancy Allen), happens upon the body and catches a glimpse of the killer, therefore becoming both the prime suspect and the killer's next target. Elliott receives a bizarre answering machine message from "Bobbi", a transgendered person he is treating. Bobbi taunts the psychiatrist for breaking off their therapy sessions, apparently because Elliott refuses to sign the necessary papers for Bobbi to get a sex change operation. Elliott, discovering that his straight razor is missing (and thereby giving the jaded modern audience all the proof it needs to confirm what we already suspect), visits Bobbi's new doctor and tries to convince him that Bobbi is a danger to herself and others. The police, notably represented by Dennis Franz in full moustache awesomeness, are less than willing to believe Liz's story, so she joins forces with Kate's revenge-minded son Peter (Christine's Keith Gordon) to find the killer. Peter is an inventor, and uses a series of homemade listening devices and time-lapse cameras to track patients from Elliott's office. They catch Bobbi on camera, and soon Liz is being stalked by a tall blonde figure in sunglasses.  Several attempts are made on Liz's life. One, in the subway, is thwarted by Peter, who sprays Bobbi with homemade mace. Liz and Peter scheme to get inside Elliott's office to look at his appointment book and learn Bobbi's real name. Liz baits the therapist by stripping to lingerie and coming on to him, distracting him long enough to make a brief exit and leaf through his appointment book. When she returns, it is Bobbi rather than Dr. Elliott who confronts her; they are the same person (shocking NOBODY). Elliott/Bobbi is shot and wounded by a female police officer who looks like Bobbi: she is the tall blonde figure who was trailing Liz under orders from Dennis Franz's moustache. Elliott is arrested by the police and placed in an insane asylum. It is explained by a psychiatrist that Elliott wanted to be a woman, but his "male" side would not allow him to go through with the operation. Whenever a woman sexually aroused Elliott, it was "Bobbi", who represented the female side of the doctor's personality, who became threatened. In a final sequence, Elliott escapes from the asylum and slashes Liz's throat in a bloody act of vengeance. She wakes up screaming, realizing that it was just a dream as Peter runs to her bed to comfort her.

Like Psycho, we have here a narrative that gives us an incredibly compelling (and sexy) female protagonist (so we think) whose murder (sorry if you haven't seen Psycho, but... well... seriously?) throws us off as we enter Act II.  De Palma, as much as he might sometimes wish it were so, is no Hitchcock.  Or rather, De Palma's writers are no Hitchcock's writers.  While there's much to admire in Dressed to Kill, there's a lot more to deride.  But lest you think I'm just a Debbie Downer here, I'll talk about the good.

First, as a young man whose primary visual association with Nancy Allen is Robocop, let me just say this: wow, Nancy Allen.  You were freaking HOT.  I'm sorry I mostly missed your risque work because... hommina hommina woog woog (tongue falls out of mouth and eyes rocket out of their sockets a la animated wolf).  In fact, I found it kind of hilarious that the Keith Gordon character wasn't ogling her in every scene.  I know if I saved hooker Nancy Allen from a lunatic, I'd be cashing in the favor ASAP.  But I digress...  Actually, I thought Angie Dickinson was pretty damn hot herself.  And she did a fantastic job of getting across that sense of a formerly desired woman who finds herself a little older but still possessed of a powerful libido.  She also shared a scene with Keith Gordon as her son that felt particularly real.  There was a dynamic going on in that scene that felt true to me as a son.  It reminded me of that time in my life when I was trying to move out on my own and leave the nest behind.  There's often a dual sadness and pride on hand when mothers let their sons go.  Any child, really, but I know I personally experienced this with my own mother.  It's very much a shame when the narrative takes the turn it does because I was awfully invested in Kate.  I think De Palma missed the point of the Janet Leigh death in Psycho because in Norman Hitchcock had a fiendishly watchable anti-hero/villain.  Not so much Dr. Elliott.  Anyway, Dickinson is in top form in this film.

Speaking of which, the best sequence in this film, and the only sequence that I think justifies this as a film to study, happens when Dickinson is stalking the guy in the museum.  This sequence is 10-15 minutes long and completely without dialogue.  NONE.  Everything going on in this sequence is non-verbal and Dickinson just absolutely steals the movie here.  It's clever and sexy and mysterious and... man, that is some great filmmaking right there.  The range of emotions and reactions from Dickinson and the guy playing the object of her lust is impressively vast, the patience of the long takes and push-ins is effortless, the blocking is like watching modern dance.  Frankly this sequence belongs in a MUCH better movie.  Giving this scene to the Kate character is a big mistake on De Palma's part, since poor Liz and Peter are given nothing remotely this interesting to do in the rest of the film.

So why didn't I like this?  First of all, if you don't realize that (gasp!) Dr. Elliott is the killer in question, then you have never seen a thriller.  You especially aren't under the age of 60.  The last movie that even remotely shocked the audience in its revelation of the villain's identity was Fight Club, and even then the shock had more to do with practical questions like Who was he punching in the parking lot? than anything story-related.  (If you haven't seen Fight Club, again, seriously?)

Second, we really feel downgraded when the story kills off Kate in favor of the constantly-pouting proto-nerd Peter (Keith Gordon always looks like he just smelled a fart) and the beautiful but rather blank Liz.  It's not Nancy Allen's fault.  Liz just isn't given much to work with, character-wise.  That she stumbled across a murder is unfortunate and we sorta sympathize with her.  But compared to the passionate but ignored Kate, whose chutzpah in stalking this total stranger delights us, Liz is blah.  I wasn't entirely joking, either, when I said that Peter's lack of sexual interest in Liz threw me off.  I thought for sure that Peter would clumsily attempt to seduce Liz (or vice versa for some REAL tension!) but mostly Peter sat around looking like Man, I swear someone just farted.  I get that the kid is grieving for his mother and he wants revenge, but... c'mon.  Nancy Allen nearly nude?  The alliteration of that sentence alone gives me a boner.

Inappropriate?

The less said about Michael Caine's ridiculous performance the better.  He's a solid actor and he did the best he could, I suspect, but it's like De Palma told him, "You've got this terrible secret hidden inside you, so repress EVERYTHING.  Every human emotion, repress it."  Hey, maybe it was Dr. Elliott who farted.  He certainly looked like he was holding back a rat-cracker the whole time.  (Incidentally, the term "cracked a rat" is one of my favorite expressions for a fart/poo).  See?  See what my review devolves into when you make me watch movies like Dressed to Kill?

Holy lord, and how about that denoument?  The tail end of the third act, which turns out to be a dream sequence?  Okay, it IS a dream sequence, so I guess the balls-out goofiness can be forgiven a little.  But until we realize that, this is one of the worst things you will ever watch a talented actor like Michael Caine put himself through.  It's gibbering insanity, and not because the scene takes place in an asylum.  No, it's the worst kind of over-the-top scene, chock full of childish symbolism (get it?  sexy nurse!  it's like a fetish!) and terrible pacing (why does the dream killer just stand around for five minutes?).  And in the end, even when we realize it's a dream, what f'ing PURPOSE DOES IT SERVE???  All it really shows us is that Liz is likely now traumatized by her experience.  Well.... duh!  If you witnessed some woman's dying moments at the hands of a lunatic with a straight razor, then that lunatic tried to kill YOU, you'd be pretty traumatized.  Of course.  No shit.  Thanks for the clue, Sherlock.

Per usual, here are some mid-movie thoughts:

- Dennis Franz? Uh oh, do I have to see his butt?

- Wow, fantastic opening shot, tells us everything we need to know about Kate.

- That's the kid from Christine, right? Yeah, yes it is. Cool.

- Wow, Dickinson is killing it. Her face is just fantastic. It's a study in non-verbal acting.

- hahaha... so much tension and it's just a woman looking for her glove.

- Ooh, who picked up her other glove? Mysterious...

- Women's clothes are f'n complicated.

- Not fond of the "memory in frame next to character's head as footage from prior scene". It calls attention to itself and the movie. She couldn't have had that perspective.

- hahaha... the little girl is a creep.

- What the FUCK???? This is some Psycho shit! I thought for sure Angie Dickinson was the protag!

- If Caine isn't the killer I'll be dipped in shit.

- hahahah... holy shit, Franz hasn't changed at all! He just swelled.

- I dig the nerd son Peter horning into the interrogation.

- Damn, nice framing. De Palma is def a student of Hitch.

- Is Peter doing a Numb3rs thing?

- I don't like split-screen. Nope. Not at all. It can be useful and this is visually interesting, but it's also hugely distracting.

- hahaha... nice job, dick taxi guy.

- I'd read that Nancy Allen did quite a bit of risque work, but never paid it much attention because of Robocop. Well, I may check out her other stuff now. Cuz she's crazy hot here.

- That subway defense scene was a little awkward.

- The Nerd and the Hooker, this season on CBS!

- Jesus, look at the 'stache on Franz.

- How is this kid not trying to get laid by Allen every second?

- Caine is good at acting "off".

- Damn, Nancy Allen. That body... woof...

- Right now, Caine is going to change into the Bobbi outfit. An admirable effort at misdirection, but I'm too familiar with film twists.

- What's the point of this wrap-up?

- What the fuck is this? Why are we still with Liz and Peter?

- This whole Liz and Peter "hanging together" thing is weird. She's acting like they spent the whole movie together when they only had a few scenes.

- What is this Michael Caine murdering the nurse scene? So freaking bizarre. (later) Was it part of Liz's nightmare or did he really murder someone and escape?

Did the movie live up to the theme?  Yep.  Elliott was a cross-dresser.  And his desire to be female is what caused Kate to get slashed and Liz chased.  When I was cutting and pasting the synopsis I noticed that De Palma got yelled at by transgender activists for promoting a negative idea of the community.  Come on, people, this movie promotes a negative idea of storytelling.  Dr. Elliott isn't a bad trans, he's a bad character, period.  If anyone thought that this was an accurate representation of anything at all they should be locked up in an asylum with... well, with cross-dressing murderer Michael Caine.

In the end, I can't really recommend this movie to people.  I watched it on Netflix streaming, so it might be worth satisfying your curiosity if you like the occasional bad movie.  Actually, I recommend that people watch the first act, right up until Kate bites it.  The rest isn't really worth your time.  Well, okay, maybe you can scan to the scene in Elliott's office when Nancy Allen is trying to seduce him.  That's a good scene for lascivious reasons.  Otherwise, skip this stinker and watch De Palma's equally batshit insane, but far superior, Raising Cain.

Theme the Third: Criss-Cross-Dressers!!!

That was the theme written on the slip of paper.  I assume by the subsequent conversation that I had with Mr. X that these are all movies involving cross-dressing and that the "criss" part was just some stray wordplay.  In the event that one of these movies in fact features the 90s child rapping prodigies known as Criss Cross OR features characters engaged in the "backwards pants" fashion style forwarded by the aforementioned kiddies, I ask that you sign my asylum papers swiftly.

I love the idea of this month's theme, but I also approach it with some trepidation.  Because I have seen a startlingly large number of movies that prominently feature cross-dressing.  This is mostly due to my love for sketch comedy, and one of the basic tenets of sketch comedy (comedy in general, really) is that Dudes in Dresses are Hilarious.  My two favorite sketch comedy troupes are Monty Python and The Kids in the Hall, and if you've ever seen those troupes then you know about Dudes in Dresses.

It does go deeper than laughs, however.  I sought out both To Wong Foo and its progenitor, Priscilla Queen of the Desert.  I wanted desperately to like Flawless despite the director's frequent hackery.  I was disappointed in Stephen Rea's initial reaction of disgust in The Crying Game .  What it comes down to is that I find cross-gender identification FASCINATING.  One of the best (and most criminally dropped) storylines of Showtime's "The L Word" was the transition of female Moira to male Max.  Instead we got more Jenny Schechter nonsense and Shane's incessant inability to commit despite multiple seasons during which we watched the character DEVELOP into the kind of person who COULD COMMIT.  Or the stupid gambling addiction and prison sex of an otherwise fun character.  Grrrr.... goddamit, L Word, why couldn't you just be awesome the whole time?  Why couldn't Shane have ended up with Carmen, or ended up adopting her little brother?  Who gave a shit about Jenny's writing career or her movie?  Why did we spend any time at all on the cheating Angus?  Why was Max shoved off into a narrative corner once he got a job?  Ugh, L Word, you were so awesome sometimes and so goddamn stupid other times!

.....  Sorry.  Got off-topic.  Anyway, as I was saying, I find something fascinating about cross-gender identification.  Most real life stories about the subject break my heart.  There's so much confusion and social ostracization involved in cross-gender identification, even moreso than homo or bisexuality.  Indeed, it's the tendency for homosexuals to act in stereotypically cross-gender ways that gains them the most negative attention.  I'm not saying that gender confusion is the entire basis for homophobia, but it covers a LOT of that ground.  And just as I'm infuriated by anyone's inability to accept homosexuality, I'm infuriated by anyone's inability to accept cross-gender identification.  The fact that anyone takes someone else's sense of self as a personal affront to their own sense of self is ludicrous in the extreme.  And I'm aware that me being affronted by gender-and-sex-traditionalists is itself ludicrous.  But the difference is you'll never see me dragging one of those assholes behind my pickup truck until he's dead.

Incidentally, I think the Dil character in The Crying Game is very alluring.  Nong Toom, whose story was portrayed in the film Beautiful Boxer, is a beautiful post-op former ladyboy (indeed MANY ladyboy beauty contest winners are stunners).  And I've perused transgendered profiles on dating sites a few times.  Not sure there's a point to me saying all that besides taking personal amusement in confession, but there you go.

Anyway, first up in our Criss-Cross-Dressers theme?  Brian De Palma's Dressed to Kill