Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Lust, Liberation, and "Come On, Really?" - TITANTIC

TITANIC

1997 - 194 minutes - Drama/Romance
Director: James Cameron
Country: United States
IMDB: 7.6
Metacritic: 74
RT: 88%

EpicEnthusiast's Rating: 8/10

Watch this movie if you enjoy: 
  • romance films
  • engrossing atmospheres 
  • history 
  • Leonardo DiCaprio 

Avoid this movie if you dislike:
  • James Cameron films
  • love/relationships
  • unrealistic moments

James Cameron's epic Titanic is certainly a landmark in recent film history. It was nominated for a record 14 oscars, and won a record 11 of them, including best picture, best director, and best cinematography. It was budgeted at an astounding $200,000,000 that was only surpassed by Cameron's 2009 Avatar ($270,000,000) as the most expensive film ever made. That proved to be a reasonable price to pay though, as it spent a record fifteen straight weeks at #1 at the box office, and has grossed over $658,000,000 as of June 8, 2012. It's ranked #6 on the American Film Institute's list of top ten "epic" films of all time, and was the first film ever to win best picture at both the Oscars, and the MTV Movie Awards. 

Much of this praise is deserved, but not all. 

The film opens with a present day dive down to Titanic remains. Although its mostly fictitious (as i'll touch on below), Cameron was fascinated by the real ship, and ended up spending more time with it underwater than the original passengers did. In fact, he used the site of the Titanic to persuade the studio to budget the film. He told them it would add appeal, strengthen the story, and sell more tickets. He was certainly right. That perspective and background really adds to the plot, and makes for a much more compelling narrative from the older version of Rose Dewitt Bukater (Gloria Stuart), even if it isn't real. 

After that initial setup, we plunge on to the ill-fated ship with the Rose of 1912 (Kate Winslett), and one of the film's strengths is immediately introduced: the setting. Presumably, much of the $200,000,000 budget was used on the set, and attempting to re-create the Titanic, and for me, it was money well spent. As Rose and her family board the ship, we seem to be doing it with them. Cameron gives us a spectator's view of the gigantic vessel first, and then we head inside to be absorbed by interior. The camera mimics another person on board, and it travels through hallways, spirals up and down staircases, and soars above the ship outside. We get a bevy of perspectives, and by the end of the film, we feel familiar with the ship. All other attributes aside, Cameron created a gorgeous replication that significantly added to the story. Titanic isn't a masterpiece as a whole, but visually, it's nothing short. 


The life like set of Titanic

Along with a personal tour of the luxurious accommodations of the ship, we also get an inside look on Rose's life. She's part of the Dewitt Bukater family that has ironically lost all their money, but is shielded by the family name. At just seventeen (which isn't believable at all due to her acting and appearance), she dresses in extravagant gowns, collects fine art, and dines with other wealthy adults. Her fiance Cal Hockley (Billy Zane) can buy her anything she wants. She seemingly has it all, and yet something is missing. Winslett does a great job of depicting disconnection and bleakness on screen, and the escape from her family becomes a major theme in the film. 

One night while seeking some alone time on the deck, she meets the young American Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio) and sparks fly. The acting from the pair is sound, and Winslett was deserving of her Oscar nomination. Take out a few weak lines from Cameron's script, and she may have won it. Billy Zane also does a nice job of creating a character in Cal that we're supposed to hate. However, the real power in Titanic comes from the connection between Rose and Jack. 

Billy Zane as Cal Hockley


Kate Winslett as Rose Dewitt Bukater
















Jack is precisely what Rose needs in her life. He's an affectionate artist that doesn't have a dollar to his name. He won his Titanic tickets in a poker game and doesn't even have a real home. They're opposites that are quite alike. He instantly recognizes that Rose is trapped by her family, and that she's living a life she's being told to live. While hesitant at first, Rose ultimately follows her heart and breaks down the walls holding her back. In one particular scene,  she tells Jack she's leaving after he asked if she loved Cal. She walks away, but doesn't get far. Jack is legitimately invested in her. He's fascinated by her appearance (and I will say she was quite stunning at times), her charisma and her situation. Rose needed someone to confide in, and after this point, they became truly inseparable. 


Cameron develops the two wonderfully, and they both dominate the screen. Their backgrounds are just a preface to a beautiful connection formed as the film goes on. He shows us what they make each other feel physically and emotionally. He shows us how they laugh and dance together. He shows that every second they have with each other is precious. He even creates an authentic and powerful sex scene, which is quite rare in film today. The beauty of Titanic comes from two people experiencing true love in the midst of a tragedy. They're connection touches you deeply, and certainly outweighs any negatives I may point out below. Cameron succeeds in creating the experience of a lifetime for two characters, and their moments together carry his film. 





My qualms with Titanic may be minor, but are impossible to ignore. If you've yet to see the film, you may want to skip this next paragraph. 

Up to the point of the ship beginning to sink, I was thoroughly enjoying the film. I shrugged off some questionable dialogue, and ignored some outlandish moments, but was impressed overall. However when the sip began to sink and panic from the passengers surfaced, dumb moment after dumb moment transpired. It started with the immediate breaking of Jack's handcuffs in the flooding room. Rose finding the axe was reasonable enough, but as she made clear by her practice swings on the cabinet, she could hardly use the thing. But then add the risk of chopping Jack's hand off, and suddenly she's a lumberjack. Quite dumb. Next was the ever so lucky escape from a flooding staircase. What are the chances that a crew member walks by as they're trying to unlock the gate? Why would he still be down there? Then he drops the keys and leaves them behind. Oh but don't worry, they were dropped within reach of Jack who dove underwater and reached through the gate to snag them. Phew, that was a close one. And then how about Cal suddenly going on a shooting spree? I'm all for sudden bursts of anger, but that was just laughable. Everything turns into slow motion and he misses all six shots. Who saw that one coming right? Again, not technical flaws, but I was definitely disappointed in Cameron. He wasn't creating a documentary, but if he cared enough to thoroughly explore the original ship, and cared enough to include real people and their actions (many of the first class passengers on the ship were actual passengers, and to use one example, one of the crew members did in fact shoot themselves on the deck of the ship), then he should have at least tried to keep everything as realistic as possible. These are just a few of the infamous scenes in the film that bring negative attention, and that could have easily been avoided. 

All that being said, Titanic still possesses a lot of quality, and again, the primary relationship of the film is what will stick with you, not the futile flaws. It's a breathtaking visual experience that features strong, developed characters and very good acting. The soundtrack is memorable, and the Oscar winning cinematography is impossible to ignore. You'll become a passenger of the ship yourself, and get attached to your fellow travelers. As James Berardinelli of ReelViews says, "You don't just watch Titanic, you experience it," and I'd encourage you to experience it as well. 



An iconic scene in Titanic
-EE


One last note. In 2010, the film was released in 3D, and I'd recommend steering clear of that version. While I haven't seen it, I recently saw Gravity in 3D, and could easily pinpoint where 3D effects would be added in Titanic. Unlike Gravity, they would be used primarily for entertainment. They'd add flying debris and rushing water during the sinking of the ship, and while it may add a different perspective, it would ultimately take away from the tone. Again, the film focuses on a relationship, and not the physical sinking of the ship. Just my two cents.

The trailer for Titanic can be seen here:



Monday, October 14, 2013

LET'S TALK ABOUT GRAVITY

GRAVITY 

2013 - 91 minutes - Drama/Sci-Fi/Thriller
Director: Alfonso Cuarón
Country: United States
IMDB: 8.7
Metacritic: 96
RT: 98%

CinemaChagrin's Rating: 10/10
EpicEnthusiast's Rating: 10/10

(a few minor spoilers below...)

Hey guys, EE here. Today CC and I are going to talk about Alfonso Cuarón's new beauty, Gravity. I'm sure you noticed the extremely high scores above, and as we'll discuss below, we believe them to be entirely accurate. I'd like to preface by saying that this film is one that really needs to be seen in a 3D theater. Personally, I'm not a fan of 3D films, but this was like nothing I've ever seen before. It put a whole new meaning to what a 3D movie can be. As of October 14th, 2013 it's still in theaters, and should be for some time longer. Do yourself a favor and go check it out. So with that, let's talk about Gravity

CC: I'd like to begin by just reiterating how highly I'd recommend seeing this film in theaters in 3D (and IMAX if you get the chance). Like EE, I tend to be skeptical of 3D pictures - I've found that in many movies 3D effects are used for gimmicky or flashy purposes. The 3D effects in Gravity are breathtaking yet subtle. The film does contain a few instances of the classic 3D cliche "object floats towards the audience," but they were very well done (for example, George Clooney reaches towards the audience at one point to retrieve a drifting bolt that has come loose from the Hubble Space Telescope). However, the use of 3D in Gravity goes far beyond these simple moments. The 3D layering effects help to immerse the viewer into the film - coupled with Cuarón's fluid and constantly-moving camerawork, one could even imagine that they are in space with the two protagonists. All of the objects in space - from the ISS to the Soyuz spacecraft to the spacesuits - looked incredibly full and realized, thanks in large part to the refined and convincing 3D effects.

EE: Totally agree with you CC. I never felt overwhelmed or jarred by the 3D effects, and in this case, they really added to the film. One shot that stood out to me was an action scene in which debris from a destroyed satellite was flying around. Some was coming towards the audience and made me flinch. It wasn't annoying or overdone though, and actually made me feel like I was in the middle of the chaos. Cuarón did an excellent job 0f choosing when and when not to use the 3D effects. 


Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) in Gravity 
CC: I can’t emphasize enough the sheer visual magnificence of Gravity. From a technical standpoint, it's a wonder how the film was made at all. The technology used in the film had not been developed in 2009 when the project began. Director Alfonso Cuarón and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki have created a camera that glides and flies through space, following the protagonists in a smooth and steady motion while capturing all of the action. Cuarón, known for his extensive use of long shots in his previous works (most notably in the 2006 post-apocalyptic film Children of Men), has outdone himself here once again. The opening shot, an incredibly beautiful and thrilling combination of exposition and action, lasts an astounding 13.5 minutes! It’s difficult to wrap one’s head around how that is even possible, but the fluid motion of the camera always ensures that the viewer witnesses everything important happening on screen. The rest of the film features several more long shots, excellent editing, and some incredibly engrossing first-person sequences which (coupled with the 3D effects) immerse the viewer even further in the experience. Beautiful shots abound throughout the entire film, from gorgeous vistas of the curvature of the Earth with the sun breaching the horizon to detailed reflections on visors and even teardrops. At several points in the film, recognizable geography passes under the astronauts (oh hey – there’s the Nile River and the Sinai Peninsula!) while the Northern Lights dance across the Arctic Circle.

EE: It was definitely awesome to see landmark features of the globe from such a unique perspective.  I'd also like to point out another one of Cuarón's films, Y Tu Mamá También . Although a totally different genre, (and certainly more risque) it's another gorgeous film. He certainly has a way with a camera, and Gravity is undoubtably his masterpiece. I'd seen photos of earth from space, but could never grasp the actual beauty of it. In Gravity, the planet came to life. Polished and silent aerial shots of oceans, clouds and mountains. Absorbing shots of the atmosphere swallowing debris whole. The physical appearance was one of many beautiful aspects of the film, and I could have floated above the earth with Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) for hours. I was awe inspired from the opening seconds to the final shot. 

CC: I wholeheartedly agree with you on that point. Gravity is definitely a visual powerhouse. It looks so real that I wouldn't have been too surprised if they had actually filmed the whole thing in space! But aside from the visual strengths of the film, Gravity also featured wonderful storytelling and a truly gripping tale of personal perseverance and survival.


A brief moment of respite in Gravity
EE: That's another aspect of Gravity that really stood out to me: the story structure and natural dialogue between Stone and Kowalski. I’ve read a few things claiming the script was immature and out of place, but I think those comments are missing the point. In the midst of a detrimental space accident, I don’t want clichéd reactions or space engineer/astronaut jargon. I want raw human emotions, and natural conversation. I think Cuarón and his son Jonas did a phenomenal job of this with their screenplay. I never had thoughts of “no one would say that” or “well that’s a bit much” and in fact, I thought nearly all the dialogue was incredibly plausible. It was a constant portrayal of real and understandable thoughts that really connected you to the characters.


CC: Once more, it seems like we agree (such a rarity at times)! I found the dialogue to be quite realistic (barring a few minor technical discrepancies, like the mixture of the metric and customary measurement systems). Aside from the great dialogue, Gravity also featured excellent acting from both its leads. One critic noted that George Clooney plays "George Clooney in a space suit," an apt observation. Clooney brought his trademark wit and warmth to the film, but the screen definitely belonged to Bullock. Her austere and understated performance hit just the right combination of vulnerability, strength, and perseverance. Bullock's character is not a confidant, experienced veteran of spaceflight, but instead an inexperienced newcomer to zero-gravity. This makes her journey and personal growth that much more gripping and powerful. Given all of the trials and difficulties that her character overcomes over the course of the movie, it's impossible not to root for her.

EE: Absolutely. Bullock gave the performance of her career, and totally dominated the screen. The acting was top notch from a minuscule cast, and I also think the characterization in the film was masterfully done. Many movies fall victim to over emphasizing certain character traits that may or may not pertain to the story. Or some films don't give us enough background, and we're left wanting to know more. Gravity gave us just enough. Small, yet powerful details give us insight to the characters, and we gradually feel more and more for them. In some instances, the amount of development may be considered small, but in a lot of ways this story isn't even about the characters themselves. It's a about a journey of fear, hope and, survival. We follow the characters through space and get attached to the thought of them making it out alive. We can relate to their thinking and their actions, and because we're so immersed in the film, we feel the fear ourselves. We feel the lonely and empty silence. Cuarón did something special in that he attaches us to the characters and their surroundings. Couple the two and you have one incredible thriller. 


Stone (Bullock) and Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) in Gravity
CC: Agreed - Gravity is one heck of a thrill ride of a movie, visually stunning with compelling characters. Many observers have pointed out certain scientific inaccuracies in the film (and Cuarón has acknowledged that he took some liberties with physics for dramatic effect), but that is beside the point. Gravity is not meant to be a perfect representation of space, but instead is meant to instill a certain sense of wonder about what lies beyond our frail little planet in the wide expanse of the universe. Gravity is not just a film, it's an experience. From the astounding visual effects to the wonderfully-realized characters, Alfonso Cuarón's work is a masterpiece in this regard. I'd like to close my comments with a brief quotation from former US Astronaut Mark Kelly, weighing in on Gravity:

"But the truth is, most of this [scientific inaccuracy] doesn't matter. Cuarón has given us a glimpse of the awe that is the universe beyond our atmosphere. And physics aside, he does it remarkably well."

EE: Great stuff as usual CC. I really hope this discussion made you guys want to go check the film out. Rarely do I even go to the theater to see a movie anymore, (let alone in 3D) but Gravity is one I'll probably go see again. I'd say it's just about as perfect as a Sci-Fi thriller can be. An absolute gem of a film that will be remembered as one of the best ever produced. I can guarantee two things: You won't be disappointed, and you'll have never seen anything like it before.

- EE & CC

If you haven't already seen a trailer for the film, check out this visually astounding clip below:

Sunday, September 22, 2013

Thoughts on the 2013 Best Picture Nominees

So although I haven't viewed all of the 2013 Best Picture nominees (for various reasons), I just want to discuss the five that I have seen: Django UnchainedLife Of Pi, Silver Linings PlaybookBeasts of the Southern Wild, and Argo. I still desperately want to see Amour but haven't got the chance to yet (when flying on Austrian Airlines this summer, they offered the film on their in-flight entertainment service, but it didn't have English subtitles). I have little interest in seeing Les Miserables, mainly because of a poor Metascore and the fact that I have heard much about its cheesiness and poor singing from some lead roles. I also am not particularly interested in seeing Lincoln, as I really am not much of a Spielberg fan. I find his films quite overrated (or at least the ones I've seen). Finally, I'd like to see Zero Dark Thirty at some point, but I am afraid if it is shot in a manner similar to Hurt Locker (director Kathryn Bigelow's last film) I wouldn't be able to stomach it - the extreme shaky camera of the latter film actually made me physically nauseous. Without further adieu, here's the lowdown on these five fine films:



Argo 
Director: Ben Affleck
Country: United States
IMDB: 7.9
Metacritic: 86
RT: 96%

CinemaChagrin's Rating: 
B+

Watch this movie if you enjoy:

  • Excellent writing, acting, direction
  • Phenomenal film editing
  • Tense chases and lots of suspense
  • 'Murica
Avoid this film if you dislike:
  • Historical inaccuracies ("Hollywoodization")
  • Ben Affleck 


Django Unchained 
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Country: United States
IMDB: 8.5
Metacritic: 81
RT: 88%

CinemaChagrin's Rating: B+


Watch this movie if you enjoy:

  • Dynamite acting performances
  • Incredibly witty, funny, and intelligent dialogue
  • Tarantino's unique method of storytelling and visual style
  • Over-the-top action and violence
  • Westerns
Avoid this movie if you dislike:
  • Brutal depictions of slavery
  • Lots of profanity and extreme violence/gore/torture
  • Quentin Tarantino films
  • Westerns


Silver Linings Playbook 
Director: David O. Russell
Country: United States
IMDB: 7.9
Metacritic: 81
RT: 92%

CinemaChagrin's Rating: B+

Watch this movie if you enjoy: 

  • Unconventional protagonists
  • Witty, funny, yet serious screenplays
  • Excellent acting
  • Robert DeNiro and/or Jennifer Lawrence
Avoid this movie if you dislike:
  • [Literally] insane protagonists
  • Lots of profanity
  • Unconventional characters/storytelling



Beasts of the Southern Wild
Director: Benh Zeitlin
Country: United States
IMDB: 7.3
Metacritic: 86
RT: 86%

CinemaChagrin's Rating: B+

Watch this movie if you enjoy:
  • Incredibly natural acting
  • Breathtaking scenery
  • Mature fantasy films
  • Gorgeous soundtracks
Avoid this movie if you dislike:
  • Shaky-cam cinematography
  • Abusive characters
  • Extreme poverty and hardship
  • Occasionally nonsensical plot points


Life of Pi
Director: Ang Lee
Country: United States, Taiwan, United Kingdom
IMDB: 8.1
Metacritic: 79
RT: 87%

CinemaChagrin's Rating: A-

Watch this movie if you enjoy:
  • Breathtaking and groundbreaking visual effects
  • Gorgeous and sweeping cinematography
  • Insightful philosophical and religious questions
  • Epic adventure films
  • The actual novel
Avoid this movie if you dislike:
  • Oftentimes minimal dialogue
  • Occasionally excessive use of CGI
  • Potentially inconclusive film endings
  • Animals dying


So as you can see from my ratings, my favorite of the bunch is the breathtakingly beautiful epic film, Life of Pi. I heartily agreed with the Academy's decision to award Ang Lee an Oscar for Best Direction. The cinematography and visual effects were absolutely incredible. The film features an extraordinarily rich range of colors and textures as well. In fact,  Life of Pi oftentimes seems like a series of increasingly breathtaking visual spectacles interspersed with solemn pontificating on the meaning of life. The film also raises interesting religious and philosophical questions and features excellent acting from all of the leads, especially newcomer Suraj Sharma. After seeing the eventual Best Picture winner, Argo, I must say I think Life of Pi deserved it more.

One of many breathtaking stills from Life of Pi
That is taking away absolutely nothing from Argo. In fact, I think the Academy may have awarded the top prize to Affleck's exciting movie simply because of its pure technical proficiency. Argo has no weaknesses across the board - it features strong acting, writing, and editing especially. Yet despite Argo's technical strengths, I couldn't shake feeling that there really isn't much substance behind the film's glossy surface . Story-wise, it plays out like a run-of-the-mill Hollywood thriller, albeit with outstanding production values.

Quentin Tarantino's latest film, Django Unchained, represented a much stronger effort than 2009's Inglorious Basterds. The film's strong point is Tarantino's trademark (and Oscar-winning) dialogue, along with dynamite performances from the entire cast (especially Jackson, DiCaprio, and Waltz). Tarantino's excellent visual style and an awesome soundtrack also contribute to the overall quality of the film. However, Django Unchained does suffer some inconsistent pacing and sloppy editing at times.

I enjoyed Silver Linings Playbook - it's a wonderful little film but I don't think it's in the same category as any of the other Best Picture nominees I've seen. Well made, written, and acted, but nothing really standout (at least to me). Way above average mix of a quirky-family comedy and rom-com. 

Finally, that brings me to Beasts of the Southern Wild, an absolutely outstanding debut effort by rookie director Benh Zeitlin. A rich and engrossing fairy tale taking place in a quasi-post-apocalyptic floodplain in the Louisiana Bayou, the film features wonderfully natural acting, gorgeous scenery, and an earthy and heartwarming soundtrack. Quvenzhane Wallis and Dwight Henry as daughter and father are absolutely incredible given their non-acting backgrounds. The film takes a good hard look at how poverty affects the way people live and interact, and highlights the inherent strength of familial and community ties. The film's plot is a bit of a mess at times, but as a whole, Beasts of the Southern Wild is a phenomenal film. I will definitely be looking out for Mr. Zeitlin's films in the future.


Hushpuppy (Wallis) afloat on a makeshift raft in Beasts of the Southern Wild
So there are my (hopefully coherent) musings on the 2013 Best Picture nominees I've seen. My next post will probably be a more straight-up review, but this was a fun exercise in comparing films!

-CC

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Overrated and Overstated - SCARFACE

SCARFACE

1983 - 170 Minutes - Crime/Drama
Director: Brian De Palma
Country: United States
IMDB: 8.3
Metacritic: 65
RT: 89%

EpicEnthusiast's Rating: 6/10

Watch this movie if you enjoy: 
  • violence/gore
  • crime/drugs/mob
  • Michelle Pfeiffer

Avoid this movie if you dislike:
  • violence/gore
  • a weak screenplay
  • poor characterization/acting
  • montages

(minor spoilers and language below)

"Scarface is one of special movies, like "The Godfather," that is willing to take a flawed, evill man and allow him to be human," - Roger Ebert - Chicago Sun-Times

"A beautiful, at times poetic exercise in excess from Brian De Palma." - TV Guide

"Performances are excellent, and despite its moralistic conclusion, the film has since become de rideur for crack baron, who know a good shoot-em-ep when they see one." 
- Andy Gill - Empire

Well... not exactly. 

Brian De Palma's Scarface celebrated it's 30th anniversary this year, and is renowned as a crime saga classic. Al Pacino stars as Tony Montana, a Cuban immigrant who decides he wants to take Miami by storm, and become a drug lord. In the process, he fights back agaisnt extreme violence, kills off his bosses in the hope of taking their positions, and is seemingly unfazed by any and all obstacles. He woos a beautiful woman (Michelle Pfeiffer as Elvira Hancock), buys a massive mansion and takes control of the south Florida drug landscape. The story had promise, but Brian De Palma and company failed to execute. Scarface is a poorly done, extravagant film that is basely placed among the crime classics. 

Headlining the negative features is lean man Al Pacino. He was surely the ideal actor for the role in 1983, coming off huge performances in the 70's like "The Godfather," "The Godfather Part ll," "Serpico," and "Dog Day Afternoon." He was smack in the middle of his prime, and familiar with a crime-oriented role. Hell, he even sort of looked Cuban. He's a favorite actor of mine, but his acting in Scarface was all too fake. While he may resemble a Cuban, his attempt at a Cuban accent was bothersome. It felt forced and unnatural, and sparked flashbacks from his Italian role in "The Godfather" as Michael Corleone. Italy is where his actual decent lies, and he was much more believable as an Italian. Worse than the accent though, was his overall body language. Everything he did, from walking and talking to smoking and shooting was exaggerated and over the top. He spoke loudly, almost yelling in unneeded settings. His presence as a powerful and ambitious figure was clear, but almost too clear. Some claim that he acted this way because he was constantly abusing cocaine. (the prominent drug in the film) I don't buy it, but even if I did, I wouldn't dismiss the overblown mannerisms. Pacino had a role in "Heat" where his character (a homicide detective) was a little wacky sometimes, but it was given to us in small doses. This was non-stop, and it was just too much. His dialogue was also poor, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and point the finger at screenwriter Oliver Stone for that one. 


Al Pacino as Tony Montana

Speaking of Stone's script, it was cliched and immature. It featured a lot of dialogue that seemed abnormal and unfitting. At times, it was even comical:


"I'm Tony Montana! You fuck with me, you fuckin' with the best!" - Tony Montana


"You know what? Fuck you! How about that?" - Tony Montana 


"The only thing in this world that gives orders... is balls." - Tony Montana 


Again, I blame Stone more so than Pacino here, but it just couldn't be taken seriously. In his quote above, the late Roger Ebert claimed that Tony Montana was humanized, but I disagree. I don't think any of the characters in Scarface resembled real people, and it really weakened the plot. And let's not forget about the most famous of them all: "Say Hello to My Little Friend!' This phrase has literally become a brand name over the years, and it's quite puzzling. The line is random, out of place, and prefaced by a snort of cocaine. It's the most overrated line in film history. 


Seriously?




"Uh, hello little friend..."

















Perhaps what I disliked most about Scarface (because I focus so much on them) was the relationship between Tony Montana and Elvira Hancock. The basis has been done a million times: "My boss has a hot wife, I think I'll find a way to capture her." But to make matters worse, it was done in a horrible manner. To be expected, Hancock despises Montana to begin with. He's a disgusting immigrant that calls her "baby." Okay, fine by me. Then as he climbs up the crime ladder, she allows him to sit poolside and ask her to have babies with him. Excuse me? And by the final third of the film, they're getting married in a laughable montage. There was no expression of real feelings, no substance, and no timeframe for any of it. Hancock came off as a pretty housewife that couldn't think for herself, and that wanted nothing more than money. It's possible that that is precisely what she was supposed to be, bit either way it didn't work. 




Al Pacino and Michelle Pfeiffer in Scarface

The last thing I'd like to add regarding Scarface is it's recognition. While many see it as one of the great films of all time, it was never nominated for an Oscar. In fact, Brian De Palma was even nominated for WORST director by Razzies, who gives out awards for worst film aspects in the Academy's categories. Not all great films get heavy attention at the Oscars, but many do. It was almost as if Al Pacino and the cast were attempting to make fun of these Oscar-winning mob movies. Jay Carr of the Boston Globe concurs: 

"It plays like a crude "Godfather" parody, the sort that might amuse a 10-minute sketch on "Saturday Night live," but curdles and collapses as a 143-minute film." [09 Dec 1983]

The film is actually well overlong at 170 minutes, but was edited for the theaters upon release in 1983. Clearly, Carr didn't think chopping 27 minutes helped any. 

Overall, Scarface fails in all the major categories of a successful crime drama: A strong script, believable and necessary violence, and convincing relationships. It's poorly acted (even from the great Al Pacino), and lacks a serious tone. Decent cinematography and some cool visual effects keep it from being a total bomb, but it remains one of the most overrated films ever made.


- EE


If you're a fan of well-done mob movies, I recommend the following titles:



  • Goodfellas
  • The Godfather 
  • The Godfather Part ll
  • Casino
  • The Departed 
  • Donnie Brasco
  • American Gangster
  • Eastern Promises