1972’s Sisters begins by introducing us to a likable ad executive named Philip Woode (Lisle Wilson). Woode is the victim of a prank show and, for his trouble, he wins dinner for two at a nice Manhattan restaurant. Daniele Breton (Margot Kidder), the model/actress who set him up for the show, agrees to be his date. They have a lovely night that ends at Daniele’s apartment. In the morning, Daniele explains that it’s not only her birthday but also the birthday of her twin, Dominique. Philip, being a nice guy, goes not only to refill Daniele’s prescription but also to pick up a birthday cake. He then comes back to the apartment and, in true Psycho fashion, is promptly stabbed to death by one of the sisters.
Across the street, journalist Grace Collier (Jennifer Salt) looks out her window just in time to see Philip getting stabbed and then using his own blood to write “help” on the apartment window. Director Brian De Palma makes good use of his trademark split-screen technique. On one side of the screen, we watch Philip dying. On the other side, we explore Grace’s apartment and see that, in the past, she’s written an editorial headlined “Why We Call Them Pigs.” We know that Grace is the only person who has witnessed Philip’s murder, and we also know why the police are not going to be inclined to believe her.
And indeed, by the time the police arrive, Daniele and her creepy ex-husband, Emil (William Finley), have already hidden Philip’s body in a couch. With the police proving to be of no help, Grace hires a private detective named Joseph Larch (Charles Durning) to break into Daniele’s apartment and search for clues. Durning doesn’t have a huge role in Sisters, but he definitely makes an impression as he proceeds to follow that couch across the country. De Palma’s dark sense of humor is evident as the couch eventually ends up in the wilds of Canada, where Durning uses his binoculars to keep an eye on it.
Sisters was an early De Palma film, one that gives him a chance to show off both his ability to generate suspense and the style that would become his trademark. It’s an effective film, one that has a plot that is full of twists but which can still easily be followed by the audience. Indeed, I doubt anyone will be shocked to discover the truth about Daniele and Dominique, but Margot Kidder gives such a good performance and De Palma directs with such confidence that the story still holds your attention. As for Jennifer Salt, she’s playing the type of radical journalist who probably would have identified with the politics of Greetings and Hi, Mom! while ultimately rejecting both films for their casual misogyny. It undoubtedly says something about De Palma’s worldview that, while he obviously sympathized with Grace’s politics, he still ultimately portrayed her as being an ineffectual investigator.
In the end, Grace is as much of a sister to Daniele as Dominique is. They’ve found themselves being manipulated by the same society, and they’ve both been forced to the fringes—Daniele by her past and Grace by her politics. In typical De Palma fashion, this film ends with the audience knowing more than the majority of the characters. We know what happened but, for everyone else, the truth is still hidden in a couch that’s sitting in the middle of nowhere.
Rumor has it that Brian De Palma’s motivation for directing 1984’s Body Double was that he was angry with the MPAA. After being forced to (unfairly, in his opinion) recut almost all of his previous films to avoid an X-rating, De Palma decided to make a film that was actually worthy of an X. It would feature the bloodiest and most sexually suggestive murder that he had filmed up to that point. Because a good deal of the film would deal with the adult film industry and would co-star Melanie Griffith as an actress named Holly Body, the film would be full of nudity. The film would even feature Frankie Goes to Hollywood performing their then-controversial hit song, “Relax.” De Palma said that the film would be a “real X,” and, indeed, it was rated X when it was first submitted. De Palma later said that he actually only had to cut a few seconds of nudity to get an R-rating, which was quite a contrast to what he went through with his previous films. The nudity was cut. The scene of Deborah Shelton getting murdered by a killer with a very phallic drill was untouched, just in case you were wondering about the MPAA’s priorities.
Body Double stars one of my favorite underrated actors, Craig Wasson. Wasson plays Jake Scully, a struggling actor with extreme claustrophobia. When he freezes up while lying in a coffin, Jake is fired from the vampire film in which he’s appearing. Jake’s friend, Sam Bouchard (Gregg Henry), takes some pity on him and arranges for Jake to housesit a luxurious apartment. Sam points out that, every night, Jake’s neighbor appears to dance naked in her apartment. Jake becomes obsessed with Gloria Revelle (Deborah Shelton) and starts to follow her across Los Angeles. (That Jake remains likable even after he watches her shop for underwear is a testament to Wasson’s amiable screen presence.) Jake realizes that he’s not the only one following Gloria. After a man who appears to be extremely scarred snatches Gloria’s purse, Jake chases after him. Jake doesn’t catch the man because his claustrophobia acts up when he has to run through a tunnel. But Gloria shares an impulsive kiss with him before leaving. Later that night, Jake looks into Gloria’s apartment and witnesses her being murdered by the man who earlier stole her purse….
Jake’s investigation into Gloria’s death leads him into the world of adult films and body doubles. In a typical De Palma twist, it also leads to Jake becoming a better actor as he’s forced to take on different identities and lie about his intentions. He meets Holly Body, an actress he’s shocked to discover he’s seen before.
Body Double is one of those De Palma films that seem to divide people. Viewers either love the twisty plot, the elaborate set pieces, and the deliberate homages to Hitchcock or else they find it all to be terribly self-indulgent. This film is De Palma at his most stylish. When Gloria and Jake kiss, De Palma doesn’t just show us the kiss. Instead, the camera spins around them and, for a few moments, De Palma’s thriller becomes a grand romance. There’s a dark sense of humor running through Body Double and, again, how one reacts to it will depend on how much one is already on De Palma’s wavelength. Just as Blow Out ended with Travolta finding the perfect scream, Body Double ends with Jake learning how to stay in the coffin until the director yells “Cut!” Big tragedies lead to small victories.
I have to admit that the first time I saw Body Double, I was a little bit annoyed with it. Every time that I started to get invested in the story, De Palma would launch into another lengthy set piece that ultimately seemed to be designed to remind me that it was just a movie. On repeat viewings, though, I’ve come to appreciate the film’s dark humor and the performances of Wasson, Griffith, and Gregg Henry. Now, I can appreciate the film for what it is, an exercise in glorious style and excess. Body Double is De Palma paying tribute to the masters (like Hitchcock) while also telling an unapologetically sordid story. De Palma’s real X holds up well.
Before the shouting starts, allow me to say that I fully understand that 1981’s Blow Out is not a horror film .… or at least, it isn’t in the traditional way. It’s a conspiracy thriller starring John Travolta as Jack Terry, a Philadelphia sound technician. While recording outside sounds, he witnesses a car careen off a bridge and crash into a creek. Though the driver is killed in the crash, Jack is able to pull the car’s passenger, an escort named Sally (Nancy Allen), out of the water. Later, Jack learns that the driver was Governor George McRyan, a presidential candidate. And when Jack listens to his tapes of the crash, he becomes convinced that he can hear someone shooting out one of the tires.
So, yes, the film is definitely a conspiracy thriller, one that owes quite a bit to the lore surrounding the Kennedys. Jack’s sound tape and the later discovery that a sleazy guy with the unforgettable name of Manny Karp (Dennis Franz) filmed the accident bring to mind the Zapruder film and the ongoing debate about what it showed and didn’t show. (Watching the film, one is reminded that it took several years for people to acknowledge that a key moment in the Zapruder Tape was actually shown in reverse when it was first released to the public.) The crash into the creek brings to mind the night that Ted Kennedy drove off a bridge at Chappaquiddick and left Mary Jo Kopechne to die while he returned to his hotel and got some sleep. There were some conspiracy theorists who claimed that the accident was actually the result of an attempt on Ted’s life. (It’s always interesting how Chappaquiddick is described as being a Kennedy tragedy when, in actuality, Mary Jo Kopechne is the one who died and Ted was the one reelected to the Senate.) Just a year before Blow Out was released, Ted Kennedy ran for President and discovered that voters outside of Massachusetts actually did care about what he did at Chappaquiddick. Meanwhile, director Brian De Palma’s interest in the Kennedy assassination could be traced all the way back to Greetings and Gerrit Graham’s performance as a conspiracy-obsessed hipster.
That said, Blow Out is definitely horror-adjacent. The film opens with footage from a believably bad slasher film called Co-Ed Frenzy. The footage makes use of all the expected slasher tropes, from the prowling camera to the gratuitous nudity to the death of a voyeuristic extra. But it falls apart during the inevitable shower scene, when it turns out that the actress cannot scream. It’s a reminder that the violence in horror movies is not real. Instead, it’s carefully choreographed and edited to keep the viewer uneasy. Jack is ordered to record the perfect scream to fool viewers into thinking the horror is real. Jack manages to do so, but at a terrible cost. The scream works in the film. The spell that the film puts over the audience will not be broken. But Jack will never be able to listen to his work.
The film also features John Lithgow as Burke, one of the cruelest villains to be found in De Palma’s entire filmography. Burke knows that he has to kill Sally to cover up the assassination of Governor McRyan but, rather than just kill her, he first kills several women who resemble her so that Sally will be viewed as just being the latest victim of the Liberty Bell Strangler. John Lithgow is a terrifying murderer because he’s so casual about it. For him, it’s just a part of the job. Ever since I saw Blow Out for the first time, I automatically get uneasy whenever John Lithgow shows up in a movie. In a film full of good performances, John Lithgow is terrifying.
Blow Out is a stylish film, which should come as no surprise given that it was directed by Brian De Palma. De Palma goes as far as to create a fictional holiday—“Liberty Day”—so that he can fill the climax with red, white, and blue. The celebrations, which are meant to commemorate the ringing of the Liberty Bell, provide a joyous contrast to the darkness that defines the worlds of the film’s characters. Like the best conspiracy thrillers, Blow Out is drenched in an atmosphere of paranoia. No one can be trusted, and the scariest thing isn’t that people don’t know the truth. It’s that they don’t want to know. And while this theme was undoubtedly something that De Palma carried into the ’80s from the ’60s and the ’70s, it feels even more relevant today as we’re continually told that we shouldn’t still be thinking about the excesses and secrets of the COVID era.
As I was discovering my love of movies in the 80s, the first director I ever fell for was Brian De Palma. There was a time when people would ask me what my favorite movie was, and I’d answer BLOW OUT. Fox 16 out of Little Rock played the film often, and its style absolutely blew me away. Later, as a young teenager, my family was at our local video store, and we rented THE UNTOUCHABLES. I was sulking because I wanted to rent something different, but my brother wanted THE UNTOUCHABLES, and he won out that night. I remember watching the movie that evening, and I’m so glad my brother got his selection because I loved it so much. To this day, we still laugh about that night and how happy I was to discover that I was wrong. Which brings me back to RAISING CAIN. As an obsessed De Palma fan, I was very excited about RAISING CAIN when it was being released in 1992, and I eagerly watched it in the theater on opening weekend. I watched it again on VHS when it was released a little later, but I haven’t watched it now in many years. It seemed like the time was right for a revisit.
The film stars John Lithgow as Dr. Carter Nix, a child psychologist whose work involves studying the development of children. He’s also a husband and father, living with his wife Jenny (Lolita Davidovich) and their young daughter, Amy. At first glance, Carter seems like a devoted father who just happens to take his work very seriously, but we soon learn that all is not well in the Nix household. It seems that Carter has multiple personalities, and not all of them have the best of intentions. Jenny’s life and relationships are also more complicated than they might initially seem, and the farther the story progresses, the more dangerous things become for her and Amy!
With RAISING CAIN, I wanted to revisit a movie from my past that really meant something to me when it was released, but that has kind of fallen by the wayside since. What’s interesting is that I bought the 2016 Shout Factory Blu-ray release many years ago and had never even opened the package. I finally decided to crack it open and see what all I had. I was surprised to learn that the Blu-ray included two distinct cuts of the film: the theatrical cut, which was the only version I’d ever seen before, and the newer “Re-cut.” The Re-cut is a version that was put together by Dutch filmmaker Peet Gelderblom that followed along with De Palma’s draft script. What’s interesting is that De Palma has given this cut his full endorsement and called it the version he really wanted. Naturally, I decided to check them both out for fun, because I wanted to know which one I preferred. I mean, just because De Palma preferred the Re-cut doesn’t necessarily mean that I would! And to be honest, I knew that spending all this time with early 90s Brian De Palma again would be a blast, regardless of which cut I was watching.
No matter how you slice it, a big part of what makes RAISING CAIN work is John Lithgow. He seems to be having a ball playing multiple personalities, and he also plays his own unhinged father. At times, his shift in personality is abrupt and obvious, while at other times, he holds back, and we aren’t sure which personality is at the front until he acts, and sometimes violently. These moments create some of the most effective surprises in the film. Lolita Davidovich is just so beautiful, and she’s very good as Jenny. Her marriage and family life aren’t as good as they appear on the surface, and she also has unresolved feelings for Jack (Steven Bauer), a man she had known and fallen in love with prior to her marriage. Jack just happens to show back up in her life as our story begins. As crazy as the story gets, and even though Davidovich makes her own share of questionable decisions, she’s still someone we can root for as the story moves forward. I also want to shout out Frances Sternhagen, who has a supporting role as Dr. Lyn Waldheim, whose knowledge of Carter’s past becomes important as the mystery unfolds. She nails the role.
I do think that a person’s enjoyment of RAISING CAIN could be affected by how much they’re willing to go along with De Palma’s directorial excesses. It’s easy for me, because that’s one of the main things I love about his movies. The stylish camerawork and sometimes over the top performances and situations are what drew me in in the first place. However, I can also freely admit that there are times when the film’s outrageous situations and performances become so exaggerated that what could be a genuinely disturbing psychological thriller can get lost as style threatens to take over substance. That’s part of the fun for me, but I do understand how it could take others out of the story. One of the best things about movies is their subjective nature, and while the film works for me, it may not for everyone.
After watching both the theatrical cut and the Re-cut, I have to admit that I think the newer version works a little better. The main reason is that it keeps more of its cards close to the vest when it comes to Carter’s personalities, building more suspense and making some of the later revelations that much more effective. I enjoyed the experience of approaching the story from a different angle. It didn’t suddenly turn RAISING CAIN into a completely different movie for me, and I still love both versions, but it did give me a new appreciation for what De Palma’s true vision was.
For me, RAISING CAIN still holds up as a super entertaining psychological thriller that gives John Lithgow plenty of room to show off his talents. It’s a true “De Palma film,” so it might get a little carried away with its own twists and turns, but I really enjoyed revisiting the theatrical cut and especially discovering the new cut. Neither version will take over those spots I’ve reserved for BLOW OUT, THE UNTOUCHABLES, or DRESSED TO KILL, but that’s fine and dandy. I still loved it, and after all this time, I’m glad I finally opened that Blu-ray!
As I was discovering my love of movies, the first director I ever became obsessed with was Brian De Palma. His BLOW OUT (1981) played frequently on Fox 16 out of Little Rock, and I still consider it one of my favorite films. I consider his version of THE UNTOUCHABLES to almost be a perfect film. To celebrate his 86th birthday, I thought I’d share this scene featuring the Oscar winning performance of Sean Connery, along with Kevin Costner and Andy Garcia. Enjoy, my friends!
Produced by Martin Bregman, directed by Brian De Palma, written by Oliver Stone, and starring Al Pacino, the 1983 remake of Scarface is one of the best-known, most iconic gangster films ever made. It opened to mixed reviews but it’s gone on to be recognized as a classic. Everyone can quote the script: “Say hello to my little friend!” “In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women.” “Say goodnight to the bad guy!”
Scarface starts with one of my favorite opening scenes of all time. Powered by Giorgio Moroder’s score, the opening credits of Scarface play out over footage of the real-life Mariel boatlift. Combined with footage of Fidel Castro ranting that Cuba does not need the Marielitos, this opening gives real-world credibility to everything that follows. We then segue from the actual boatlift to Al Pacino as Tony Montana, answering questions with that shit-eating grin on his face.
Listen to the interrogation scene carefully and you’ll hear both Charles Durning and Dennis Franz, dubbing the lines of the actors who played the immigration agents.
4 Or More Shots From 4 Or More Films is just what it says it is, 4 shots from 4 of our favorite films. As opposed to the reviews and recaps that we usually post, 4 Shots From 4 Films lets the visuals do the talking!
Today is the birthday of Brian De Palma and that means that it is time for….
6 Shots From 6 Brian De Palma Films
Phantom of Paradise (1974, dir by Brian De Palma, DP: Larry Pizer)
Carrie (1976, dir by Brian De Palma, DP: Mario Tosi)
Dressed to Kill (1980, dir by Brian De Palma, DP: Ralf D. Bode)
Blow Out (1981, dir by Brian De Palma, DP: Vilmos Zsigmond)
Scarface (1983, dir by Brian De Palma, DP: John A. Alonzo)
Body Double (1984, dir by Brian De Palma, DP: Stephen Burum)
“All I have in this world is my balls and my word.” — Tony Montana
Brian De Palma’s Scarface is one of those movies that seems almost impossible to discuss at a normal volume. Everything about it is loud, excessive, sweaty, violent, vulgar, and deliberately too much. The movie does not simply tell the story of Tony Montana, a Cuban immigrant who rises through Miami’s cocaine trade before destroying himself. It turns that rise and fall into a neon-lit, operatic explosion of greed, paranoia, sex, money, and violence. At first, Scarface can feel like an overlong, incredibly entertaining gangster fantasy. But underneath all the cocaine mountains and machine guns, it is also a deeply cynical story about the American dream and what happens when ambition is allowed to become a substitute for an actual soul.
Tony arrives in Miami during the Mariel boatlift, immediately presenting himself as someone who refuses to be intimidated. He is not interested in being grateful, polite, or patient. Tony wants power, and he wants it quickly. That impatience is both his greatest strength and the obvious source of his downfall. He is willing to do things that other people are too afraid to do, which helps him climb the criminal ladder. At the same time, he cannot understand the idea of limits. Every success only makes him want something bigger: more money, more cocaine, more influence, a bigger house, a more beautiful wife, and absolute control over everyone around him.
The screenplay by Oliver Stone gives Tony a kind of blunt, almost cartoonishly direct philosophy. He believes that the world belongs to people who take it. In Tony’s mind, morality is mostly an excuse invented by people who lack the courage to seize what they want. That attitude makes him magnetic, but the film never truly presents his worldview as admirable. Tony may have the confidence of a king, but he behaves more like a man who is constantly terrified that someone will discover he is not really in control. His bravado is a shield against humiliation, poverty, and powerlessness. The more successful he becomes, the more obvious it is that he is still fighting the same emotional battle he was fighting when he first arrived.
Al Pacino’s performance is the central reason Scarface remains so watchable. He plays Tony as a human grenade, a character who seems to be vibrating with anger even when he is sitting still. The accent, the posture, the rapid shifts in mood, and the exaggerated physical gestures could easily have turned Tony into a parody. In fact, there are moments when Pacino absolutely does push the character into parody. Yet that is also part of the performance’s strange power. Tony is a man who has constructed himself as a larger-than-life personality, so Pacino makes him seem like someone performing Tony Montana even while he is alone.
Pacino understands that Tony’s violence is not simply about cruelty. It is about insecurity, pride, and the panic of losing status. Tony cannot tolerate being laughed at, challenged, ignored, or treated as inferior. A casual insult can become a life-or-death confrontation because he experiences disrespect as an existential threat. Pacino makes those reactions frightening, but he also gives them a pathetic quality. Tony is powerful enough to terrify an entire room, yet emotionally he often behaves like a wounded child demanding recognition.
That contradiction is what keeps the performance from becoming empty scenery chewing. Tony is ridiculous, but he is also tragic. He is disgusting, but he has flashes of genuine feeling, especially in his relationship with his sister Gina. Unfortunately, even his love for her becomes possessive and destructive. Tony wants to protect Gina, but he also wants to own her choices, her sexuality, and her future. He cannot separate love from control. The same problem affects his relationship with Elvira, played by Michelle Pfeiffer, and eventually his entire empire. Tony does not know how to care for people without turning them into extensions of himself.
De Palma’s direction matches Tony’s personality. The film is staged like a gangster epic filtered through a fever dream. Miami becomes a place of bright colors, glass surfaces, giant mansions, tropical heat, and constant artificial light. The city feels less like a real environment than a hallucination of wealth. Tony’s home is especially important because it looks like a monument to success but gradually becomes a prison. The famous final shootout transforms that mansion into a battlefield, with Tony defending his kingdom even after it has already collapsed around him.
The violence in Scarface is often shocking, but it is also theatrical. De Palma uses suspense, wide compositions, sudden bursts of brutality, and moments of grotesque visual humor to make the violence feel both horrifying and unreal. The movie’s excess can be exhausting, particularly in the middle section, where Tony’s rise begins to blur into an endless parade of deals, parties, arguments, and drug use. The length is part of the point: we are meant to feel Tony’s world becoming bloated and unstable. Still, some of the film’s scenes repeat ideas that it has already established. Tony is ambitious, Tony is paranoid, Tony is violent, and eventually Tony is high. The movie sometimes keeps shouting after the audience has already heard it.
That criticism matters because Scarface is not a flawless film. Its dialogue can be clumsy, its supporting characters are sometimes more functional than fully developed, and its treatment of women is frequently limited by Tony’s perspective. The film wants to condemn male domination and criminal capitalism, but it is also fascinated by the same things it condemns. It shows us the luxury, the clothes, the cars, the glamorous parties, and the apparent freedom of Tony’s lifestyle. Even while warning that this life ends in misery, it makes the fantasy visually seductive.
That tension helps explain the movie’s complicated legacy. When Scarface was first released in 1983, many critics found it excessive, ugly, and morally confused. Over time, however, its reach expanded dramatically through home video and popular culture. The movie became especially important to hip-hop, where artists recognized Tony’s language of survival, hustle, ambition, and self-invention. Al Pacino has credited hip-hop with helping the film find its audience, saying that rappers understood and embraced it. That relationship became one of the most important parts of Scarface’s afterlife.
Hip-hop did not simply treat Tony as a cool gangster. It also turned him into a symbol. The character could represent ruthless ambition, immigrant struggle, street credibility, material success, or the danger of becoming trapped by one’s own myth. Lines from the movie entered rap lyrics, album skits, music videos, and stage names. The film’s imagery became a shorthand for a certain kind of rise-from-nothing fantasy, even when the original movie was trying to show how poisonous that fantasy could be. In this sense, Scarface became bigger than its initial critical reputation. It stopped being only a crime film and became a cultural text that people could quote, remix, parody, and reinterpret.
Its influence on video games is just as obvious, especially in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. That game’s 1980s Miami setting, neon colors, criminal empire structure, radio culture, and flamboyant protagonist clearly operate in the same general territory as Scarface. The film has also been connected directly to other games, including Scarface: The World Is Yours, which imagines an alternate continuation after the movie’s ending. The game allows players to rebuild Tony’s empire, purchase businesses, intimidate rivals, and expand across Miami. It turns the movie’s rise-and-fall structure into an interactive fantasy in which the player gets to ignore the ending and keep climbing.
That difference between film and game is revealing. Scarface ultimately insists that Tony’s dream cannot survive because Tony himself is incapable of moderation, trust, or self-knowledge. Video games can take the same world and make the player feel rewarded for doing exactly what Tony does: acquiring territory, collecting money, buying weapons, and becoming more powerful. In that format, the critique of excess can easily become a celebration of excess. Yet that is also why the film remains so influential to games. It provides an instantly understandable fantasy of criminal ascent, complete with a distinctive visual style and a protagonist whose personality is impossible to ignore.
In the end, Scarface is both a warning and a temptation. It tells us that Tony Montana is doomed, but it makes his climb so entertaining that we understand why generations of viewers, rappers, and game designers kept returning to him. Al Pacino’s performance is the movie’s beating heart: outrageous, funny, frightening, and occasionally heartbreaking. De Palma’s film may be messy and overstuffed, but its messiness is part of its identity. Scarface does not want to be tasteful or balanced. It wants to overwhelm you, seduce you, and then leave you staring at the wreckage of a man who mistook having everything for being somebody.
4 Shots From 4 Films is just what it says it is, 4 shots from 4 of our favorite films. As opposed to the reviews and recaps that we usually post, 4 Shots From 4 Films lets the visuals do the talking!
Today, we pay tribute to the legendary cinematographer, Vilmos Zsigmond. Born 91 years ago today in Hungary, Zsigmond got his start in the 60s with low-budget films like The Sadist but he went on to become one of the most in-demand cinematographers around. In fact, of all the people who started their career working on a film that starred Arch Hall, Jr., it’s hard to think of any who went on to have the type of success that Zsigmond did.
Zsigmond won one Oscar, for his work on Close Encounters of Third Kind. He was nominated for three more. He also received a BAFTA award for his work on The Deer Hunter and was nominated for an Emmy for his work on Stalin. He’s considered to be one of the most influential cinematographers of all time.
In honor of the legacy of Vilmos Zsigmond, here are….
4 Shots From 4 Films
Deliverance (1972, dir by John Boorman, DP: Vilmos Zsigmond)
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977, dir by Steven Spielberg, DP: Vilmos Zsigmond)
The Deer Hunter (1978, dir by Michael Cimino, DP: Vilmos Zsigmond)
Blow Out (1981, dir by Brian De Palma, DP: Vilmos Zsigmond)
4 Or More Shots From 4 Or More Films is just what it says it is, 4 shots from 4 of our favorite films. As opposed to the reviews and recaps that we usually post, 4 Shots From 4 Films lets the visuals do the talking!
Today is the birthday of Brian De Palma and that means that it is time for….
4 Shots From 4 Brian De Palma Films
Carrie (1976, dir by Brian De Palma, DP: Mario Tosi)
Dressed to Kill (1980, dir by Brian De Palma, DP: Ralf D. Bode)
Blow Out (1981, dir by Brian De Palma, DP: Vilmos Zsigmond)
Scarface (1983, dir by Brian De Palma, DP: John A. Alonzo)