[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
[B]I'm "wrong" and don't appreciate a movie because I don't know someone who "lived like he did"? 🙄
Mr Prophet, Mr Addiction...
Irrespective of whether you need to "know" how accurate a portrayal is to make a judgment - it's subjective. It may be a great performance, but still be a poor movie... Yes Scarface is in some respects Depalmas Godfather Lite, but it's far from his best work.
And many people thought Pacinos performance was at best caricature-ish, and at worst - slightly racist.
Originally posted by Myth
Jesus F*cking Christ. You are a know it all little shit aren't you. I post my favorite directors and you attack me. So I clarify that they are my favs and not the greatest of all time and you attack me again for not doing 'exactly' as the topic says. I tell you to back off and you still attack me along with criticizing others.Anyway, I also disagree with Scarface just being a "tough guy" act. It has possibly one of the greatest character developments in movie history (IMO, but don't attack me for it). I'd also like to add that Brian Depalma also did Carlito's Way which I don't think gets as much recognition as it deserves.
I wont attack you Myth, your a cool guy, but I disagree with your point about Scarface having the greatest character development in movie history. IMO when Tony started out he was a loudmouth tough guy who cussed a lot, the end of the movie he was a loudmouth tough guy who cussed a lot who had gone crazy with inhaling to much sticky icky.
I look at Pacino's peformance in Godfather I and II where he was good natured at the start but turns into a monster because of being in the mob business or De Niro's as Travis as although you could sense that something was wrong with him at the start he seemed good natured but turns against everything as he hates all the crime, sex thats around him and the mistakes he made because he didnt know better like taking a girl to a porn movie.😱
I found those peformances much better than Tony's character, because at least IMO it isnt really tough to play Tony as you just have to go all out while Micheal and Travis are a lot more complex characters as they change their personalities because of their surroundings.
Originally posted by TheFilmProphet
WRONG, WRONG AND WRONG. The story behind it is about what actually happended in the early 80's when Fidel Castro and Jimmi Carter nogotiated to send about 10,000 Cubans to the US in ships and among those was the character Scarface but in real life I knew one of those people very closely. When they got here they either worked for next to nothing in some dump or sold drugs I'm not saying its right but its what most of them chose to do at the time which ended in either death or prison. I don't have to tell you anything about myself and neither does anyone else here but I will tell you this I'm certainly not a Quote 'kid'. I am familiar the intricacies of a drug cartel but I didn't live it but like I said before I knew someone very close who did. The rest of the story yes was the rise and fall of a character but some of the story around it was real. I don't know you and you don't me for so for now how about neither one of us makes an assumption about the other.
1) I'm not "wrong" if all I did was exclude a minor plot point pertaining to origin. The story isn't about refugees in general.
2) You're absolutely right, you don't have to tell me shit, but your credibility here has been on trial time and time again, and you'll never be taken seriously. if you can live with that, so can I.
3) If you're not a kid, why do you chose to present yourself as such, instead of the cultured filmmaker extraordinaire you claim to be? Really?
4)..
I am familiar with the intricacies of a drug cartel but I didn't live it but like I said before I knew someone very close who did.
Well, I'm not a drug lord, but I did stay beside one at the Holiday Inn Express! Doesn't that mean I know everything he does? Nope.
5) I didn't make any assumptions. You're the only one guilty of that, like I said in my last paragraph..
These aren't assumptions, just observations.
That said, don't take it so hard. It's just a movie. 😎
Just like to chime in at this point (I'm pretty sure none of them haven't mentioned them yet):
1) John Carpenter
2) Michael Mann
3) Spike Lee--it's not so much that I like Spike Lee (in fact, he mostly pisses me off), but I was a fan of "Bamboozled", and I have to at least acknowledge what a lucrative racket he's made of racial agitation over the last couple of decades.
Speaking of agitators...has anybody mentioned Kevin Smith yet?
EDIT: Dang! Just remembered John Ford and Sam Peckinpah! Duh!
Originally posted by roundisfunny
1) John Carpenter
Here's the thing about John Carpenter.
He has had about 3 movies that were just brilliant, and stand the test of time. "The Thing", "They Live", and of course "Halloween".
For the genre, he is fantasic. Much like Romero, Craven, Raimi, Argento, Fulci, etc. But in the grand scheme of things, these guys works will be over looked.
I would definitely include "Escape from New York" on that list, though; plus, "Assault on Precinct 13", "The Fog", "Christine", "Starman", "Big Trouble in Little China", "Memoirs of an Invisible Man" and "Vampires", collectively, have enough shining moments to count as at least a couple more jewels in his crown, right?
Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
1) I'm not "wrong" if all I did was exclude a minor plot point pertaining to origin. The story isn't about refugees in general.2) You're absolutely right, you don't have to tell me shit, but your credibility here has been on trial time and time again, and you'll never be taken seriously. if you can live with that, so can I.
3) If you're not a kid, why do you chose to present yourself as such, instead of the cultured filmmaker extraordinaire you claim to be? Really?
4)..
Well, I'm not a drug lord, but I did stay beside one at the Holiday Inn Express! Doesn't that mean I know everything he does? Nope.
5) I didn't make any assumptions. You're the only one guilty of that, like I said in my last paragraph..
That said, don't take it so hard. It's just a movie. 😎
So saying I'm probably a kid is not an assumption? I never said I was a filmmaker. I didn't know the person for one day as you used the example I knew this person for many years. What makes you think I take you seriously? So why would I care if you do?
Originally posted by TheFilmProphet
So saying I'm probably a kid is not an assumption? I never said I was a filmmaker. I didn't know the person for one day as you used the example I knew this person for many years. What makes you think I take you seriously? So why would I care if you do?
You don't have to take me seriously, because I don't exaggerate. My legitimacy is automatic. 😎
Originally posted by roundisfunny
Okay, so Carpenter isn't really in the running for "Greatest" whatever, even within his own genre. I just had to throw him in there for the good work he has done.Two more: John Landis and John Hughes.
I think he's one of the greatest Horror directors, personally. He just confined himself to one genre, for the most part.
Landis' reign was even shorter lived. 1977-1983. After that, 3 mediocre comedies. "Spies Like Us", "Coming to America", and "The Stupids".
Hughes, another period director. 5 brat pack flicks in 3 years. That's it.
This is turning into a Favorite directors thread after all. 😕
Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
Here's the thing about John Carpenter.He has had about 3 movies that were just brilliant, and stand the test of time. "The Thing", "They Live", and of course "Halloween".
Assault on Precinct 13 - set the JC standard.
Prince of Darkness & At the Mouth of Madness - genuinely creepy horror.
Originally posted by roundisfunny
So what? Stop being so contrary. The important thing is, most or all of these directors can be credited with making enjoyable, enduring films throughout the years, and naming a "best of all time" is not as easy as letting the sun rise and set on your own tastes to decide it.
Contrary? This thread is about the greatest filmmakers of all time. If you think these guys would vie for such a dubious distinction, then so be it.
Personally, they were good for their time, but by no means do they deserve to be in this thread.
Didn't mean to upset you. Jeez.