Reply With Quote
Truer words have never been spoken. When I first saw Scarface, I thought it was going to be an epic crime film like Goodfellas, but it doesn't even compare.
People only care about Scarface because of Tony Montana, not the actual movie.
Scarface licks balls.
Truer words have never been spoken. When I first saw Scarface, I thought it was going to be an epic crime film like Goodfellas, but it doesn't even compare.
People only care about Scarface because of Tony Montana, not the actual movie.
I have a confession to make, guys.
I've never watched Godfather(Any of them).
Really? The first two were great, but the third one was horribly done.
Yeah.
I'm not much of a movie person(I'd rather sit down and listen to 2 or 3 albums). And when I saw that the first one was like 3 hours, I decided not to watch it.
Yeah, I get you on the lengthy movies, but if you can't sit through the whole 3 hours--watch it in parts. Like an hour at a time.
I'd have to watch it in 1 sitting to understand it.
I have watched Schindler's list and Goodfellas, even though they were well over 2 hours.
wow, what?
go fix that please.
this comment about licking balls makes sense coming from you
you who think Boogie Nights is a better movie than Pulp Fiction
Scarface is a man's movie. The whole thing is over the top, amazing, brutally honest view on human behavior and ambition gone wrong. One of Pacino's best performances. amazing film
it's a bigger classic than most of the movies up there.
Gone With The Wind is probably the best though, in all seriousness.
Matter of personal opinion, of course (Waters is one of my favorite directors, but also one of those where I kind of get it when people don't like him), but it wouldn't change the fact that he is at this point almost synonymous with Baltimore and the state of Maryland. He's been making films for over 40 years and every single one is set and shot completely within Baltimore.
Lone Star with Chris Cooper was the best Texas movie I've seen. It was really Texas centric as well, Dazed and Confused could have been set in any number of other states.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1074022-lone_star/
Texas and California are just too damn big for something like this. And too regionally diverse/specific.
Were I to make my choice based on their apparent parameters, in which "most representative of California" becomes "most representative of Los Angeles," however, I don't know that I'd go with Pulp Fiction. I don't think that Pulp Fiction would have been the same film were it set anywhere else, for the record. Its setting is integral to its feel. But it would be hard to leave it at the top of the list when there are films like LA Confidential, The Player, Barton Fink, Boogie Nights, and even Menace II Society, in which the city itself plays such a huge role.
Barton Fink was great but no one's seen that tbh.
Scarface was a study in how to go so over-the-top with a movie that it's re ed.
And Pacino was horrible in Scarface. Ridiculously over the top. That's right on par with some of his worst performances where all he does is rant and rave and "act" instead of actually getting into character.
Pacino's been in at least 10 films where his performance was better than Scarface.
Everyone's en led to an opinion just realize you're in a fairly extreme minority.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1018324-scarface/
http://www.imdb.com/ le/tt0086250/
Also, Pacino was going for an over the top performance. He's said that from the very beginning. That was the whole point tbh.
tbh people only care about it because it got trendy for rappers to knobslob it on MTV Cribs. Once every dumbass out there saw that Ja Rule/Xzibit/Juvenile/Master P/etc had a Scarface poster in their house, somehow the idea spread that Scarface was the greatest gangster movie ever.
The only good thing from Scarface:
That montage was great.
Song also reminds me a lot of Vice City.
Al Pacino has been good in exactly five films. Five. And none of them are Scarface.
So ing overrated it's not even funny.
Yeah Scarface qualifies as guilty pleasure good... It's like the Evil Dead 2 of gangster movies.
almost all of those reviews on Rotten Tomatoes were done recently, after revisionist history told everyone that Pacino was great and this movie was a gangster classic.
when Scarface originally came out, the reviews were not nearly as flattering.
http://www.reelviews.net/php_review_...dentifier=1566
Upon its initial release, Scarface was savaged by many critics and suffered from tepid box office performance.
The greatest gangster movie ever was made in 1931.
What's that? Public Enemy?
So only reviews from the early eighties count? That's pretty convenient for your argument. Ebert gave that four stars when it came out plus most reviews from back then gave the violence and so called depravity negative marks.
Pluss tons of classics were panned way, way worse than Scarface was when it came out.
Look you can criticize that movie for many things but to criticize for it having an over the top performance by Pacino totally and completely misses the mark. Everything about that movie was overdone in the best sense of the word, it was typically over-stylized like pretty much every De Palma movie, had like 3 montages, and climaxed with a guy having like a mountain of coke on his desk that he sticks his whole face into then snorts before getting shot 20 times while killing like 50 gangsters.
Tbh another movie like that is Coppola's version of Dracula. It doesn't really come together as anything more than collection of scenes but the style is crazy awesome and over the top.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions