I see that he’s doing Elroy’s Black Dahlia, and it kinda fits with what he’s been up to since about 1980, when he did Dressed to kill. A look at his directorial outings during the past 25 years shows clearly that he’s paying hommage and re-doing a lot of things from cinema of the past.
He was accused of just emulating Hitchcock for the longest time, and clearly Hitch has been a tremendous influence. But there are a lot of echoes of noir movies, classic silent films, and horror. *Snake Eyes * wasn’t very good, but I almost get the feeling that he wanted to do it, just so he could have that long, continous shot in the beginning. *Mission Impossible, Bonfire of Vaneties * and maybe *Mission to Mars * was just work to pay for his own pet projects.
As for Pacino…
He’s ok when there’s a strong director (or producer) that can rein him in. Most of the time, he’s playing the part of a great actor and superstar, not the character he’s actually supposed to portray. This is a sin he shares with De Niro, Nicholson, Streep, Hoffman, Redford and a couple of others. When the part calls for him chewing the scenery it can work, but I prefer to forget who’s acting and care for the character.
re-viewings? :eek:
You fought the good fight RickJay, I couldn’t even sit through the whole thing once. But then I’m not what you’d call a red-blooded chainsaw lovin’ gal.
Interesting you say that; I saw Carlito’s Way for the first time last night, and my comment at the time was, verbatim, “This isn’t a crime movie; it’s a movie about crime movies.”
I didn’t mean that in a good way, though; it didn’t strike me as an intentionally postmodern approach. I saw it as a film that had no concept of its subject other than the distilled sense of crime films that comes from seeing a lot of clips from other films, but I never got the sense that the director was aware of how derivative a film he was making.
Trust me, if it’s DePalma, he’s aware of how referential the movie is. That’s his entire approach.
I thought it was boring. Too much screaming and shooting.
I agree. Who would have thought that a movie with that much gore would be . . . dull?
It wasn’t just me, either. I was in junior high when the movie came out, and a lot of people and reviewers said at the time that once you got past the chainsaw scene, it was just a bunch of shooting and cursing.
I remember the big thing about this movie was the number of times people said “fuck”. That’s what everyone was talking about when this movie came out. Well, that and the chainsaw.
I think the movie glorifies drug dealing, but I don’t see kids becoming dealers because they totally geeked out over Scarface. To the very limited extent these two things would be related, I would say it would be the other way around.
Hated it. Over the top crap. Unadulterated horseshit. Bad acting, bad plot, bad everything.
I’d give it a C… maybe a C+ on a good day. Definitely one of the most over-rated movies of all time, though.
It is one of the few movies that I have actually walked out while it was running. I got to the scene in the bathroom with the chainsaw, and bolted.
you might be the only man who hates it…but im sure one of the few girls who do! I thought it was just too long for the crappy plot it had to offer! and overly mafiaish …yes i did make that word up!
That’s what stands out for me too. Scarface was really popular with my friends in high school, circa 1985, but as complete camp. The big joke at the speech tournaments was that someone was going to do one of Tony Montana’s monologues as a Dramatic Interp.
Up until pretty late in the movie I had more or less taken it at face value. I thought it was over-the-top, a little silly, and I wasn’t much into the violence. But when I saw Tony with his head buried in literal mountain of cocaine, I laughed out loud and thought “OK, now this is fun.” It was just so utterly absurd.