Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

HeadlinesExotic Boring

Tymon Sutton The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

canscene Interesting from the viewpoint of seeing an early De Palma effort and also applauding his courage in making a film so critical of the Vietnam catastrophe, but the film lacks focus and ambles from one scene to another, lacking the incisiveness it needed to make its mark among the several really good anti-Vietnam War movies that came after.There's a sense of improv about the whole effort but much of the intended black humor vaporizesWorthwhile for students of film history and in particular the careers of De Palma and De Niro .One should be thankful that somehow they were encouraged to proceed with their careers. I don't remember reading any reviews at the time, but feel it coiuld have developed a cult following.

davegrenfell The most interesting thing about this early, cheap DePalma movie is DeNiro's performance, containing shades of his later work in Taxi Driver, The King of Comedy and Meet the Parents. In view of Greetings, and since it would appear the DeNiro didn't do the intense method preparation he became so famous for, we might wonder whether he actually isn't a very talented comedian who stumbled into method acting almost by accident (with a lot of hard work). Certainly his performance in Taxi Driver takes on a new dimension compared with his hilarious take on a Vietnam draftee pretending to be outrageously racist here. The careful, almost stilted speech he delivers straight to camera when he reads the sex book is reminiscent of the verbal fumbling of Rupert Pupkin. Indeed, his whole career is put into an entirely fresh perspective by this early, fresh performance, which is a must for anyone interested in his work.

Alex-Tsander I have just seen Greetings for the first time. My immediate reaction was that it is SO 'Sixties. Parts of it resembling an episode of The Monkees. Especially when a group of people are live animated in a park.As Sixties memorabilia it represents both some of the best aspects of the zeitgeist, such as the dreaminess of a character dwelling on a woman in the street, and it's most excruciatingly embarrassing aspects. Such as the unnecessary and not at all erotic nudity thrown in just for the sake of being oh-so revolutionary. The worst of this being in the ridiculous part where the conspiracy theorist is using a naked woman as an anatomy mannequin and she is supposed to be asleep all through his writing on her and rolling her this way and that.It is of course fascinating to see DeNero so young in this film, yet with some of his tics already formed. However, as a visual artist I found the richest part of the film to be the drawn out conversation with Richard Hamilton. The British originator of the term "Pop Art" who effectively explains in detail the rationale of some of his paintings of the period and takes the opportunity to assert that they pre-dated Blow-Up, to which they were already regarded as deriving from.The film is pretty much without a story and it's many episodes range from the excruciatingly embarrassing to the fascinatingly dated via some good humorous elements and a bit of social history. The nutter in a book-shop whose conversation leads inexorably to the logical conclusion that he was going to be "next" is genuinely clever. Overall, however, this film would not have fore-warned me of some of the super work that De Palma would yet make. It feels amateurish. A student quality piece.

mattymatt4ever "Greetings" is cheaply made satire, which was Brian DePalma's directorial debut and one of DeNiro's first roles. That was my main reason for being very curious of this film. I was anxious to see DeNiro in early moments of his career.Maybe this movie is dated. I wasn't around during 1968, so maybe I just didn't get the satire. Maybe that's why most of this movie flew above my head. Nevertheless, the movie never seems to center on a basic idea. It just meanders on and on, delivering a series of satirical sketches, almost as if they were coming up with ideas as they continued shooting the film. This would be typical of an experimental student film, and I'm sure it would get top honors if DePalma, DeNiro and the other people who took part in this movie submitted this to their film class in college. But I'm not going to purposely lower my standards just because a movie is cheaply made by a couple of ambitious filmmakers who simply tried to salvage whatever they can with their fledgling budget. I'm not going to feel pity for the film's cheapness, like it's some struggling vagrant. I've seen much better films made on low budgets that didn't contain shaky camera work and bad sound. You can at least do something fancy with the camera to show off your skills. Most of the shots you see in this movie are wide shots. There are very few close-ups. It wasn't until fifteen minutes through the film where I realized which one DeNiro was. It's like at those Christmas gatherings where one of the family members doesn't feel like lugging the camera around, so he/she mounts the camera atop some sort of aparatus to capture what's going on but it's just one boring still shot.Anyway, I don't think DePalma will be putting this movie on his most-cherished list. Sometimes early work can be the best work. Like Martin Scorcese with "Mean Streets." I saw him on an interview recently and he claims "MS" is still his favorite out of all films he's ever done. I wouldn't be surprised if DePalma has this movie resting in the receptacle in his backyard.Almost every great filmmaker started out making little forgettable, crappy, no-brain films with their camcorders at an early age. This is like one of those films, except it isn't completely devoid of intelligence and does have some direction. Just not enough consistency.