By Laurent Bouzereau Running Press: 320 pages, $30
If you buy books linked on our site, The Times may earn a commission from Bookshop.org, whose fees support independent bookstores.
Advertisement
Martin Scorsese made his name in the 1970s with dramas about characters living on the fringes of society. Francis Ford Coppola, seeking his own personal projects, almost reluctantly struck paydirt with the first two “Godfather” movies. George Lucas, of course, wrote and directed “Star Wars.” But none had a stranger, more expressive decade than Brian De Palma. With a string of sensational, graphic thrillers and horror movies, including “Sisters” (1972), “Carrie” (1976), “The Fury” (1978) and “Dressed to Kill” (1980), De Palma created his own film language — gory and operatic, kinky and depraved, laden with optical effects (find someone who looks at you the way De Palma looks at a split screen) and often comically indebted to Alfred Hitchcock. Many moviegoers loathe De Palma. Many more love him. But very few find him boring.
And yet, “The De Palma Decade,” the new book out now by author and filmmaker Laurent Bouzereau, somehow makes him seem just that. This is less a critical consideration or biography so much as, to borrow the title of the unnerving Frederick Exley novel, a fan’s notes. Bouzereau, who made the recent (and excellent) Faye Dunaway documentary, “Faye,” really, really likes De Palma. He refers to a scene in “Sisters” as “pure cinematic genius.” Michael Caine’s performance as the transgender psychiatrist/murderer in “Dressed to Kill” is “predictably amazing and daring”; that film’s intricately constructed cat-and-mouse seduction sequence at the Metropolitan Museum of Art — the interiors were actually shot at the Philadelphia Museum of Art — is “simply mesmerizing and bewitching.” John Farris’ source novel for “The Fury” is “fascinating.” Even more, er, fascinating is that such anodyne language can be used to describe a filmmaker who has always been determined to jolt the viewer out of any sense of complacency.
“The De Palma Decade” unfolds as a series of oral histories plus copious plot summary, featuring interviews with De Palma — or, as Bouzereau refers to him near the book’s beginning, “Brian” — and an array of his cast and crew members through the years. Walking through these pages you’ll find the likes of Amy Irving (“Carrie,” “The Fury”), film editor Paul Hirsch (who won an Oscar for cutting “Star Wars”) and Chicago theater veteran Dennis Franz, who, as De Palma devotees know, warmed up for his signature work in “Hill Street Blues” and “NYPD Blue” by playing cops in “The Fury” and, most delightfully, “Dressed to Kill.”
Advertisement
Bouzereau did some reporting, and some of his subjects actually have something to say. De Palma talks about the importance of music in setting the tone for his long, dialogue-free scenes (like that museum sequence). Hirsch riffs on the different approaches taken by “The Fury” stars Kirk Douglas and John Cassavetes: Douglas, who attacked his role with vim, came in hot but fizzled in later takes, while it took Cassavetes, who often booked acting jobs to help pay for the movies he wanted to make himself, about 10 takes to get loose. Nestled between the platitudes of “The De Palma Decade” are some genuine insights into the filmmaking process.
But the author’s unabashed adoration of De Palma can be a hindrance to deeper understanding. Bouzereau touches on the primary controversy surrounding “Dressed to Kill,” that “De Palma conflates transness with mental illness and homicidal behavior.” Caine’s character does indeed come across as a trans person whose conflicted identity leads him to kill. Here we go. Bouzereau is going to ask his hero how he views all of this now. And then … he doesn’t. Instead, De Palma says a little about how his screenplay for “Cruising,” a movie ultimately written and directed by William Friedkin, led to some of his ideas for “Dressed to Kill.” With that, the author lets him skate, onto the next platitude. Early on, Bouzereau writes that he has “no intention here to make a social treaty or statement or defend the controversial aspects of De Palma’s work” (perhaps he means “treatise,” not “treaty”). Fair enough. But the idea of handling such a gleeful provocateur with kid gloves seems to somehow miss the point of De Palma’s work.
Laurent Bouzereau’s unabashed adoration of Brian De Palma can be a hindrance to deeper understanding.
(Travers Jacobs)
The book covers seven films, organized thematically into three sections: The Split (“Sisters” and “Dressed to Kill”), The Power (“Carrie” and “The Fury”) and The Tragedies (“Phantom of the Paradise,” “Obsession” and “Blow Out”). “The Split,” of course, has multiple meanings for De Palma, who used split screens not merely as an aesthetic exercise: Like many an artist of the macabre, going back at least to Edgar Allan Poe, he also made bloody hay out of the theme of doubling, and the terror and instability inherent to the idea of a divided self.
Advertisement
By the time he made “Sisters,” in 1972, De Palma had already done a few scrappy counterculture features, including “Greetings” (1968), “The Wedding Party” (1969) and “Hi, Mom!” (1970). But “Sisters,” a proper freakout starring Margot Kidder, playing conjoined twins, is the first of what we now think of as a De Palma movie: a psychosexual nightmare with madman instincts. Viewed with the hindsight of 52 years, it feels of a piece with other rule-breaking, devil-may-care horror films of the period, including George Romero’s “Night of the Living Dead” (1968), Wes Craven’s “The Last House on the Left” (1972) and David Cronenberg’s “Shivers” (1975).
It is, in other words, the real deal. Paradoxically, it also marks De Palma’s true entry into the sincerest form of flattery, the imitation game. Bouzereau starts his defense early, asking, “Is it fair to label De Palma a copycat? Isn’t he, rather, the legitimate heir to the Hitchcock kingdom?” He may, in fact, be both.
Angie Dickinson is trapped in an elevator by a psychotic killer in director Brian De Palma’s 1980 movie “Dressed to Kill.”
(Filmways Pictures)
De Palma’s slavish emulation of Hitchcock runs through numerous films, and with notable specificity. Someone witnesses a murder in the apartment across the way, a la “Rear Window” (“Sisters,” “Body Double”). A blond star is murdered in a movie’s first act, as in “Psycho” (“Dressed to Kill,” which also throws in a couple of shower scenes and an obtuse expert explaining why a man dresses as a woman). He bows to “Vertigo” on multiple occasions, including “Blow Out” (man suffers the same tragedy twice, unable to prevent murders he has indirectly enabled) and, more directly, “Obsession,” about a grief-stricken man who reconstructs a lost lover. In these movies De Palma is almost like a hip-hop producer, mixing samples of different songs to create a new whole. He is director as collagist.
Advertisement
By focusing on De Palma’s ‘70s output (“Blow Out” and “Dressed to Kill” are technically early-‘80s movies, but exact decades can be imprecise markers of an artist’s thematic output), the book opts to pull up short of the director’s next, in many ways more eclectic, period. The ‘80s brought, among others, the opulence of “Scarface” (the subject of a pair of recent books, by Glenn Kenny and Nat Segaloff), the undiluted sleaze of “Body Double,” the mainstream success of “The Untouchables” and the underrecognized Vietnam War drama “Casualties of War.” If you seek a more comprehensive study, check out Noah Baumbach and Jake Paltrow’s fine 2015 documentary “De Palma.” In “The De Palma Decade,” the filmmaker gets a more precise spotlight. And he couldn’t have asked for a more devoted fan to shine it.
by Sean P. Aune | January 10, 2026January 10, 2026 10:30 am EST
Welcome to an exciting year-long project here at The Nerdy. 1986 was an exciting year for films giving us a lot of films that would go on to be beloved favorites and cult classics. It was also the start to a major shift in cultural and societal norms, and some of those still reverberate to this day.
We’re going to pick and choose which movies we hit, but right now the list stands at nearly four dozen.
Yes, we’re insane, but 1986 was that great of a year for film.
The articles will come out – in most cases – on the same day the films hit theaters in 1986 so that it is their true 40th anniversary. All films are also watched again for the purposes of these reviews and are not being done from memory. In some cases, it truly will be the first time we’ve seen them.
Advertisement
This time around, it’s Jan. 10, 1986, and we’re off to see Black Moon Rising.
Black Moon Rising
What was the obsession in the 1980s with super vehicles?
Sam Quint (Tommy Lee Jones) is hired to steal a computer tape with evidence against a company on it. While being pursued, he tucks it in the parachute of a prototype vehicle called the Black Moon. While trying to retrieve it, the car is stolen by Nina (Linda Hamilton), a car thief working for a car theft ring. Both of them want out of their lives, and it looks like the Black Moon could be their ticket out.
Blue Thunder in the movies, Airwolf and Knight Rider on TV, the 1980s loved an impractical ‘super’ vehicle. In this case, the car plays a very minor role up until the final action set piece, and the story is far more about the characters and their motivations.
Advertisement
The movie is silly as you would expect it to be, but it is never a bad watch. It’s just not anything particularly memorable.
1986 Movie Reviews will continue on Jan. 17, 2026, with The Adventures of the American Rabbit, The Adventures of Mark Twain, The Clan of the Cave Bear, Iron Eagle, The Longshot, and Troll.
California helped make them the rich. Now a small proposed tax is spooking them out of the state.
California helped make them among the richest people in the world. Now they’re fleeing because California wants a little something back.
The proposed California Billionaire Tax Act has plutocrats saying they are considering deserting the Golden State for fear they’ll have to pay a one-time, 5% tax, on top of the other taxes they barely pay in comparison to the rest of us. Think of it as the Dust Bowl migration in reverse, with The Monied headed East to grow their fortunes.
The measure would apply to billionaires residing in California as of Jan. 1, 2026, meaning that 2025 was a big moving year month among the 200 wealthiest California households subject to the tax.
The recently departed reportedly include In-n-Out Burger owner and heiress Lynsi Snyder, PayPal co-founder and conservative donor Peter Thiel, Venture Capitalist David Sacks, co-founder of Craft Ventures, and Google co-founder Larry Page, who recently purchased $173 million worth of waterfront property in Miami’s Coconut Grove. Thank goodness he landed on his feet in these tough times.
Advertisement
The principal sponsor behind the Billionaire Tax Act is the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW), which contends that the tax could raise a $100 billion to offset severe federal cutbacks to California’s public education, food assistance and Medicaid programs.
The initiative is designed to offset some of the tax breaks that billionaires received from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act recently passed by the Republican-dominated Congress and signed by President Trump.
According to my colleague Michael Hiltzik, the bill “will funnel as much as $1 trillion in tax benefits to the wealthy over the next decade, while blowing a hole in state and local budgets for healthcare and other needs.”
The drafters of the Billionaire Tax Act still have to gather around 875,000 signatures from registered voters by June 24 for the measure to qualify on November’s ballot. But given the public ire toward the growing wealth of the 1%, and the affordability crisis engulfing much of the rest of the nation, it has a fair chance of making it onto the ballot.
If the tax should be voted into law, what would it mean for those poor tycoons who failed to pack up the Lamborghinis in time? For Thiel, whose net worth is around $27.5 billion, it would be around $1.2 billion, should he choose to stay, and he’d have up to five years to pay it.
Advertisement
Yes, it’s a lot … if you’re not a billionaire. It’s doubtful any of the potentially affected affluents would feel the pinch, but it could make a world of difference for kids depending on free school lunches, or folks who need medical care but can’t afford it because they’ve been squeezed by a system that places much of the tax burden on them.
According to the California Budget & Policy Center, the bottom fifth of California’s non-elderly families, with an average annual income of $13,900, spend an estimated 10.5% of their incomes on state and local taxes. In comparison, the wealthiest 1% of families, with an average annual income of $2.0 million, spend an estimated 8.7% of their incomes on state and local taxes.
“It’s a matter of values,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) posted on X. “We believe billionaires can pay a modest wealth tax so working-class Californians have Medicaid.”
Many have argued losing all that wealth to other states will hurt California in the long run.
Even Gov. Gavin Newsom has argued against the measure, citing that the wealthy can relocate anywhere else to evade the tax. During the New York Times DealBook Summit last month, Newsom said, “You can’t isolate yourself from the 49 others. We’re in a competitive environment.”
Advertisement
He has a point, as do others who contend that the proposed tax may hurt California rather then help.
Sacks signaled he was leaving California by posting an image of the Texas flag on Dec. 31 on X and writing: “God bless Texas.” He followed with a post that read, “As a response to socialism, Miami will replace NYC as the finance capital and Austin will replace SF as the tech capital.”
Arguments aside, it’s disturbing to think that some of the richest people in the nation would rather pick up and move than put a small fraction of their vast California-made — or in the case of the burger chain, inherited — fortunes toward helping others who need a financial boost.
A still from ‘Song Sung Blue’.
| Photo Credit: Focus Features/YouTube
There is something unputdownable about Mike Sardina (Hugh Jackman) from the first moment one sees him at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting celebrating his 20th sober birthday. He encourages the group to sing the famous Neil Diamond number, ‘Song Sung Blue,’ with him, and we are carried along on a wave of his enthusiasm.
Song Sung Blue (English)
Director: Craig Brewer
Cast: Hugh Jackman, Kate Hudson, Michael Imperioli, Ella Anderson, Mustafa Shakir, Fisher Stevens, Jim Belushi
Runtime: 132 minutes
Advertisement
Storyline: Mike and Claire find and rescue each other from the slings and arrows of mediocrity when they form a Neil Diamond tribute band
We learn that Mike is a music impersonator who refuses to come on stage as anyone but himself, Lightning, at the Wisconsin State Fair. At the fair, he meets Claire (Kate Hudson), who is performing as Patsy Cline. Sparks fly between the two, and Claire suggests Mike perform a Neil Diamond tribute.
Claire and Mike start a relationship and a Neil Diamond tribute band, called Lightning and Thunder. They marry and after some initial hesitation, Claire’s children from her first marriage, Rachel (Ella Anderson) and Dayna (Hudson Hensley), and Mike’s daughter from an earlier marriage, Angelina (King Princess), become friends.
Members from Mike’s old band join the group, including Mark Shurilla (Michael Imperioli), a Buddy Holly impersonator and Sex Machine (Mustafa Shakir), who sings as James Brown. His dentist/manager, Dave Watson (Fisher Stevens), believes in him, even fixing his tooth with a little lightning bolt!
The tribute band meets with success, including opening for Pearl Jam, with the front man for the grunge band, Eddie Vedder (John Beckwith), joining Lightning and Thunder for a rendition of ‘Forever in Blue Jeans’ at the 1995 Pearl Jam concert in Milwaukee.
There is heartbreak, anger, addiction, and the rise again before the final tragedy. Song Sung Blue, based on Greg Kohs’ eponymous documentary, is a gentle look into a musician’s life. When Mike says, “I’m not a songwriter. I’m not a sex symbol. But I am an entertainer,” he shows that dreams do not have to die. Mike and Claire reveal that even if you do not conquer the world like a rock god, you can achieve success doing what makes you happy.
Advertisement
ALSO READ: ‘Run Away’ series review: Perfect pulp to kick off the New Year
Song Sung Blue is a validation for all the regular folk with modest dreams, but dreams nevertheless. As the poet said, “there’s no success like failure, and failure’s no success at all.” Hudson and Jackman power through the songs and tears like champs, leaving us laughing, tapping our feet, and wiping away the errant tears all at once.
The period detail is spot on (never mind the distracting wigs). The chance to hear a generous catalogue of Diamond’s music in arena-quality sound is not to be missed, in a movie that offers a satisfying catharsis. Music is most definitely the food of love, so may we all please have a second and third helping?