Laden...
Laden...



Der Thriller, der Millionen faszinierte!
Nach einem Besuch bei ihrem Psychiater wird Kate Miller im Aufzug ihres Wohnhauses von einer unbekannten Frau mit einem Rasiermesser niedergemetzelt. Eine junge Prostituierte, die den Vorfall als einzige beobachtet hat, steht fortan als Hauptverdächtige da und muß obendrein einen Mordanschlag der wahren Täterin befürchten. Überraschenderweise findet sie jedoch in dem erwachsenen Sohn der Toten, der nicht an ihre Schuld glauben will, einen hilfreichen Vertrauten. Gemeinsam kommt man der Wahrheit auf die Spur.
Avis de la communauté (11)
This movie was a long time on my bucket list, and finally there was a release of the uncut version on Blu-ray in Germany last year (there was only the R-rated verison on DVD available in Germany, even though the Cinema and VHS verison used to be the unrated cut!). Interesting movie that starts really weak, but then gets better and better. We first have Kate Miller (Angie Dickinson), the first murder victim and I did not enjoy this part of the movie at all. It's main part is the museum sequence, and though I get that there are some interesting ideas, that are conveied by her watching the lovers, the family, the kid that runs of, and the guy hitting at a woman, and how it is connected to what she is going through in her thoughts and emotionally. But in all it was too long and especially the chase scene is - though greatly filmed - not really getting anywhere, and adds some stupid elements to the movie - I mean, especially Kate - how stupid is she? [spoiler]First she want's to get the attention of the guy, then she takes of her glove, to show off with her wedding ring? Naturally he walks away, so she follows without realizing that she looses her glove. Running through this museum we get the scene where he touches her shoulder with the glove and she sees it, but doesn't recognize that it is her glove? Then, only when walking away, and looking at the map she realizes that she is only wearing one glove? How much feelings does she have in her hands? So, she remembers that she took it off and mus have lost it, but not finding it, again she starts thinking and remembers him wearing it (great job, only figuring that out now!) So she storms out, and throws away her other glove right at the steps (why? And how rude is that?), only to get lured into the taxi by this stranger waving her other glove. So because she wants it back, so gets to him (regardless that she just threw out her other glove, so she would still be ending up with only one glove?! They start making out in the Taxi and at his home, and when she wakes up, she get's all dressed, writes a note, we have a lot of situations where she looks at her hand - all of a sudden she realizes that she is not wearing any panties (really?! Wtf is wrong with the sensitivity of your skin, lady?!), so she searches his appartment, does not find it, then remembers that she dropped it at the Taxi so it's probably still there, she puts on all her other jewlery except her ring, which until now she did not realize was missing, goes into the elevator, drives down, then realizes that she is missing her ring, thinks about where she could have left it, only to remember that it was besides her watch in his appartment, so she drives back up again. How stupid is she?[/spoiler] And then there are silly coincidences that actually make no sense [spoiler]We see the killer, he sees how she drives down with the elevator, but decides to stay just where he is, in case she comes back up - and because she forgot her ring, she does? And runs into him standing there, ready with his razor blade?![/spoiler] This scene in my oppinion - as some others - are just lazy script writing. They needed a situation, so they created one without thinking two steps ahead. However from there on I consider it to get better - the scene where Liz Blake (Nancy Allen) is introduced and meets with Kate Miller in the elevator has some ingeniouty in it, and is fun to watch and to experience. Of course there are minor things that don't add up, but Nancy Allen is not only a far better actress, also her character is far more interesting and smart, and with her also the movie picks up the pace and adds some interesting and thrilling scenes, right up to the final, where we see a lot of her that is really beautiful :) On the downsides, however, I did not enjoy some prejedices the movie proclaims. Take for instance the "punks" - of course they are all black no-goods that assult beautiful women out of nowhere and try to rape her. Of course, the black police officer does not believe a word, of course anyone wanting a sex change must be a psychopath. Not cool. Even for a movie that is from the 1980s, I think it is a bit too much. But okey. Those are only side effects and nothing the movie proclaims as one of its main thesises. So to sum up, it starts slow and bad, I did not like the acting of Angie Dickinson so much, as well as her character - but it gets better with Nancy Allen, who is great in all departments. Of course we also have a strong Michael Caine, and a believable sidekick with joung Keith Gordon as Peter Miller, the son of Kate. And Dennis Franz, who plays a typical - but in it's acting good and believable - detective. In the second half the movie gets really interesting, we have a lot of scenes that remind me of old Hitchcock movies, but we also have a number of Giallo references, kind of a: "What if Hitchcock had shot Gialli?" sort of movie. And I enjoyed that part.
Dressed to Kill tells an interesting story, but it never fully tightens. Characters move from scene to scene, but never with enough weight or urgency. The acting and dialogue in certain moments are bad enough to pull you out of the film, but Michael Caine’s Dr. Elliott picks up plenty of slack. Overall, not a bad watch.
Meh at it's best and since it's just a mediocre attempt at Psycho, this doesn't really do much other than show a good amount of skin at times.
First off, without spoiling it, this movie is guilty of being extremely offensive, outdated and completely wrong about a certain subject matter. 1980 or not, it's a real bummer. There's no other way to look at it. Oy. I was going to then say something like "but as for the rest of the movie, here's what I thought" and try to justify giving it 3 stars based on that, but I can't get past it. There were interesting things happening in this movie, like the old school Psycho way of killing someone with super slow, easy to escape from, POV shots. Also a shocking amount of close up nudity in the very first scene. Just didn't see any of that coming. There are also some cool 70s style shots, but what overshadows all of this is what I'm referring to above.