708. SCARFACE (1983)

Running Time: 170 minutes
Directed By: Brian De Palma
Written By: Oliver Stone, from the novel Armitage Trail and 1932 screenplay Scarface by Howard Hawks
Main Cast: Al Pacino, Steven Bauer, Michelle Pfeiffer, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, Robert Loggia
Click here to view the trailer

THE WORLD IS YOURS

Been a few days - I bet you thought I forgot about the MARCH TO HALLOWEEN, which will see me hopefully wrapping up my journey through the 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die and putting to rest six years worth of work. Nope, I didn't forget and I'm still on track to make my goal. However, as June Carter said, time's a wastin'...

This is another one where I almost feel silly telling you what it's about, because anybody who's anybody, especially if you're a movie fan (which you must be or you wouldn't be here), knows the plot to Scarface. However, just to stick with format, I'll go over it for you. We kick it off a brief history lesson: In 1980, boat loads of Cubans arrive from their homeland to Miami. The initial purpose of the boat loads was to reunite Cubans with their families that had previously fled to the U.S. However, the Cuban government also took the opportunity to unload some of their criminals, sending over thousands of men who were occupying their prisons. One of the criminals - Antonio "Tony" Montana (Pacino), a career criminal, who ends up living in a tent underneath the freeway, with hundreds of his fellow countrymen. When an opportunity arises for Tony and his friend Manny (Bauer) to retrieve green cards, they snatch it up. All they have to do is kill someone. Tony barely bats an eye when he shoots the man to death in the streets. From there, Tony goes on to wash dishes at a burger joint, but realizes quick that he's a career criminal. When another opportunity arises to get his hands dirty, Tony takes it, assassinating a band of chainsaw wielding, Colombian drug dealers. With this kill, Tony manages to get in good with Frank Lopez (Loggia), the big dog in the world of drugs, in Miami. Tony watches, learns, stays loyal and even manages to undertake a few side projects, building up his wealth and ultimately rising in the criminal underworld, transforming before our eyes into a maniacal drug kingpin.

SPOILER ALERT!

If I had to guess, I'd say I saw Scarface for the first and only time (before tonight) when I was about fourteen or fifteen. When I was that age - even younger - my parents were more concerned with sex & nudity, than they were with drugs & violence, when it came to what their children watched, so therefore watching Al Pacino do a nose dive (literally) into a mountain of cocaine and spout of the word "fuck" hundreds of times probably wouldn't have bothered them too much. Be that as it may, I have a feeling I still watched this one in my bedroom, keeping the mute button nearby, just in case I caught mom & dad in a particularly grumpy mood. Anyway, my first impressions, way back then, were not good toward Scarface. After watching it tonight and being able to find very few flaws (if any), I think I have to chalk up my initial dislike for Scarface as simply, young & dumb. I mean I don't think I was so far off that I thought Pacino was taking hits of Splenda, but I'd say it was probably too long to hold my attention and pertained to certain things I simply wasn't familiar with, since I lead a particularly sheltered life. It's also possible, that at this point, I had yet to see Heat, Dog Day Afternoon, Carlito's Way, Scent of a Woman, Sea of Love & Frankie and Johnny, among others, solidifying Al Pacino as one of my all time favorites. Because I think if I'd been a little older, a little smarter and a little more of a Pacino fanatic, I don't think there's anyway I couldn't have loved this spectacular movie.

Can I just talk about Pacino for a minute? I mean, how fantastic is this guy. In Scarface, he puts in a performance that goes perhaps the furthest I've seen from an actor simply reading lines off a page, memorizing mannerisms, getting "into character". Here, Pacino creates an entire personality, an entire aura of a man. He doesn't just go through the motions, but rather he puts in the effort to create as close to a real man as can possibly come off of a movie screen. Tony Montana had a heart, had passion, had a lust for power, perhaps stemming from a poor, fatherless childhood. Perhaps Tony's desire to "own the world" surely came from living in a communist country, where one owned nothing and was always told how to live, what to do. Here you have a guy who literally goes from rags to riches and the journey from those rags to those mountains of drugs & riches, is a tale for the ages. This one very easily stands the test of time, not aging a bit and holding up as much in 2015, as I'm sure it did in 1983. I was literally scared of Antonio Montana, this character that threatened to leap right out of the celluloid and rip my heart out of my chest if I made the wrong move. I had a hard time telling if Tony was truly a bad guy or if somewhere under that thick, Cuban accent, $800 suits and pocketfuls of drug money, if maybe there was a man who yearned to be a little boy again, tugging at his mother's apron strings, craving a better childhood, more attention, an upbringing that wouldn't lead to the life he ended up leading. However, as Tony puts it in his speech at dinner, when he kisses goodbye to Elvira for the final time, he is "the bad guy" and that's that. Look, of course Tony had a heart. Look at the kids he refused to blow up or even the children of his own he wanted from Elvira. That scene in the car when Tony shoots Alberto - it's kind of like "the bad guy" fist fighting with "the good guy" and on this one occasion, the good guy finally won a round.

One of the very few flaws I found in the whole picture was the appearance of Michelle Pfeiffer's character. In my view, I really think you could have cut out the character entirely and still had pretty much the exact same film. I didn't feel like Elvira offered anything to the development and dimension of Pacino's Montana and really, their scenes together were just fodder until we got to the next juicy bit. However, I will say. that without question, Michelle Pfeiffer has NEVER looked better. It's as if De Palma took extreme caution to always film her just right, making moves as precise as a painter's hand when it came to things like wardrobe, makeup and the like. She was simply stunning and worthy of Pacino's kingpin character - a dame fit for a king.

In closing, I was extremely thrilled with this movie. It managed to keep fully coherent and awake on a night when I'd worked the same day (not an easy task) and makes me realize that when film's put me to sleep, they put me to sleep for a reason - and it's not necessarily because I'm tired. I was completely "INTO" this movie, wanted to know more, wanted to get more of the story, felt compelled to go search out the DVD and make sure there weren't any deleted scenes left off the final product. The film had everything that I, personally, look for in a movie: a fantastic cast (everyone from Pacino to Mastrantonio to Pfeiffer were great), great directing (De Palma proved to be skilled here), great writing (I have a new respect for Oliver Stone, whose movies I've never been really able to get into), the plot, the cinematography, the characters and the character development. Everything seemed to be spot on and I can boldly say that this is the best thing I've seen in quite sometime.

RATING: 10/10  Screw it, I'm going all the way, baby! It's worth noting that this is the first '10' I've given to a BOOK movie since Turkish Delight, which I believe I watched sometime last November. This is also only the second movie that I've given a '10' to this whole calendar year, BOOK or NON-BOOK (the other being Dogville). Yep, it's that good.

MOVIES WATCHED: 950
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 51

August 14, 2015  11:28pm

770. The Untouchables (1987)

Running Time: 119 minutes
Directed By: Brian De Palma
Written By: David Mamet, from novels by Oscar Fraley, Eliot Ness, Paul Robsky
Main Cast: Kevin Costner, Sean Connery, Robert De Niro, Andy Garcia, Charles Martin Smith
Click here to view the trailer

"THEY SEND ONE OF YOURS TO THE HOSPITAL, YOU SEND ONE OF THEIRS TO THE MORGUE"

With the watching of The Untouchables, I now only have sixty movies left to watch for THE BOOK. The game plan that I laid out in my head this morning was twenty a month, for the next three months, starting today, August 1. I'm not sure how well that plan will go, since I haven't watched twenty BOOK movies in one month for a long time, but it's worth a try and if all goes well, I'll wrap this up by Halloween. Anyway...The Untouchables...

The film takes place in Prohibition Era Chicago and is your classic good guys vs. bad guys story. On the bad guys side - Al Capone (De Niro) and his merry band of misfits, all with the goal of bringing illegal booze to dry Chicagoans, even if it means getting their hands bloody. Enter Eliot Ness (Costner), a treasury agent bent on catching Capone and putting him behind bars, including as many of his henchmen as possible. However, that won't be easy, since Al Capone has been greasing the palms of some of Chicago's highest officials, including judges and policemen. Ness finds out quick that if he wants to get to Capone, he'll need to get together a group of guys who can't be bribed a.k.a. The Untouchables. Ness first recruits world weary, beat cop Malone (Connery), who preaches the "Chicago Way" of sending one of Capone's men to the morgue for every one of their men he sends to the hospital. Together, the two go to police academy, to get a third man who has yet to taste the bitter pill of corruption. They find George Stone (Garcia), an ace with a pistol and ready to do good. The Untouchables are rounded out by meek accountant Oscar Wallace (Smith), who thinks that if enough evidence is rounded up, they can convict Capone of tax evasion. The battle sways back and forth in the streets of 1930s era Chicago and even spills across the border, into Canada, for a little taste of old West action, in a film that's beautifully scored by Ennio Morricone and masterfully directed by De Palma.

I now present the ratings of the last five movies I've watched for THE BOOK:

4.5
4.5
7
1
5.5

So yeah, one '7' but that was Zhivago and it was a light '7', not necessarily a strong one and most of THAT '7' was for technical things, like the cinematography and not particularly for the plot, which is usually what I'd prefer to give a '7' out for. Therefore, I needed SOMETHING to give me a little POP. With only sixty one movies remaining, I went with The Untouchables, one I'd seen twice before and remembered liking, for the most part. I'd actually go so far as to say I liked it best this time around (only rating it around the '6' mark last time), meaning this was just what the doctor ordered for my slump.

I thought this was really great and had all the qualities of a film that I wouldn't mind watching again and again. Shall we start with the fantastic score of Morricone? What is it about that guy that makes me feel a little deeper, take a little bit more notice of what's playing out in front of me? His sounds almost always give me chills and there's always some sort of TWINGE in his symphonies that take me back to his scores for Leone and remind me of some of the best times to come out of THE BOOK. I loved how we were treated to two distinct scores for the bad guys and the good guys. Capone's theme was magnificent, my favorite piece from the whole film and somehow seemed to perfectly spell out that doom was on the horizon. The good guys theme was just the opposite, reassuring enough to put the notes of that ominous trombone riff out of our minds for a little while. I'm not sure this film would be near as good without the score from Morricone and I'm glad we never had to find out. It's the reason why Morricone is easily my favorite of all film composers, because I've never before recognized the music of a single composer, the way I can recognize Morricone's. At times, it even outshines the script, the cast...

The cast was fine here, by the way. I know I mentioned before that I can't normally stand Costner, but I could take him here, surrounded by Connery and De Niro. I do wish Robert De Niro's part had been a bit larger though. It seemed that he wasn't much more than a supporting character, just showing up long enough to show us what these Untouchables were fighting for and then disappearing again. The scene after the opening scene, where we first meet Capone is great - as De Palma initiates a great tracking shot, taking us right to Capone's bed side. Side note here, when my wife and I were in Philadelphia, back in May, we actually did a tour of the prison where Capone was held - Eastern State Penitentiary. He was only held there for about nine months, but it was still pretty cool to be where such a notorious gangster was once held.

All in all, this was a really good night at the movies for me and an easy recommendation. Great score, great cast, great story and a slice of of old Chicago, a slice of the 30s and a slice of a bygone era. Sometimes it's played a little TOO hokey, but I think that works mostly. At times, it almost comes off like a parody of old gangster films, but then something happens and it reignites it's own originality. The ode to the Odessa steps sequence from The Battleship Potemkin would be the scene to keep your eyes peeled for and like I said, with that Morricone score, your ears need to be permanently peeled.

RATING: 8.5/10  Finally something to write home about! Add this to The Decalogue, Rocco and His Brothers, The Godfather, Singin in the Rain, Last Tango in Paris and The Deer Hunter as the front runners for this current crop.

MOVIES WATCHED: 941
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 60

August 1, 2015  3:07pm

607. CARRIE (1976)

Running Time: 98 minutes
Directed By: Brian De Palma
Written By: Lawrence D. Cohen, from the novel by Stephen King
Main Cast: Sissy Spacek, Piper Laurie, Amy Irving, William Katt, John Travolta
Click here to view the trailer

DON'T PISS OFF CARRIE!

My wife's second choice to replace the two movies from the 40s that I couldn't get a hold of, is "Carrie" - the 1976 feature directed by Brian De Palma and adapted from a Stephen King novel. This one also came off of our DVD collection and despite the fact that I bought it, I'd have to say I wasn't crazy about it this time around.

The film starts at a typical, American high school, just after a girls gym class, as the young ladies are in their locker room, showering and changing. Carrie White (Spacek) loses herself under the warm water of a shower head and as she lathers her body, she begins to have her period. You see, apparently this is Carrie's first period and having no prior knowledge that her body would begin to do this, she freaks out and thinks she's dying.  Of course, the other students laugh and throw tampons at her, urging her to "plug it up". Carrie is embarrassed to death and is only saved when the gym teacher comes to her aid. Later, we learn that Carrie's home life is a little bit odd, as her mother is a hardcore religious enthusiast, who now believes that Carrie has committed sin by beginning menstruation. Her mother, Margaret (Laurie) locks her in the closet and forces her to pray, in hopes that God will forgive her for becoming a woman. Back at school, the girls who were involved in the tampon throwing incident are being heavily punished by gym teacher, Miss Collins (Betty Buckley). They're sentenced to a week's worth of detention, with her and if they don't appear, they'll be refused tickets to their senior prom. Meanwhile, Sue Snell (Irving) one of the girls involved in the locker room incident, is starting to feel guilt for her role in the event and decides to sacrifice her date, Tommy Ross (Katt), so that Carrie can go to the prom with him and experience what it's like to be accepted at high school. Oh and Carrie is discovering something else about her body; that she has the power to move things with her mind. What will happen when Tommy escorts Carrie to the prom?

SPOILER ALERT!!

You aren't going to hear me say this often, if ever again, so listen carefully: I don't like "Carrie" because I've read the novel and am of the opinion that it is better than the film.

Whew! That was hard. I'm not much of a reader, but years ago, mainly because my brother was such a big fan of Stephen King and I wanted to see what all the hubbub was about, I picked up a copy of Carrie and read it. I had already seen the movie at that point, but was still surprised to learn that there were many differences between the film and the novel. One of the main differences and one of the reasons I just can't like this movie, is the ending, which sees Carrie White not only burn down her high school, but proceed to leave the high school, walk through town and basically burn the entire town to the ground - houses, businesses, everything. Sure, I completely understand that the year was 1976 and to undertake such a feat as to burn down an entire town on film would've cost a lot more money than this production probably had, but dammit, the heart wants what the heart wants! In 2002, they remade "Carrie" for the first time, as a television movie and at least they included a shot of a town being burned to the ground, but that was about the end of it. This fall, Hollywood will take another crack at "Carrie", when a new version comes out around Halloween. While I'm sure this new version will be shoddy at best, here's hoping they go balls to the wall and produce a more faithful adaptation.

But, it wasn't just the fact that the film wasn't as good as the book, as I had other gripes too. The ending just seems to stretch on forever and ever, as De Palma uses a slow motion effect and makes the spilled pigs blood feel like spilled molasses. That score got really old, really quick too and it just kept playing and playing and wouldn't quit. It's just not a very eventful film, as De Palma takes too much time establishing everything and not enough time focusing on what makes the book great. Piper Laurie was amazing as Margaret White, but the rest of the cast was filled out with amateur teenagers/twenty-somethings that just couldn't cut the mustard when it came time to bring the acting muscle. The film had some good to it and it had that gritty, 70s horror movie feel and in that case you want those non-experienced actors, because that goes along way in making it more fun. My wife and I had a blast making fun of the actors, their expressions and their silly wardrobes. However, "Carrie" shouldn't JUST BE your typical horror fest, because it's based on a King novel and King puts a lot more effort into his work than that and deserves a higher class of film.

RATING: 5.5/10  I was gonna' go '6', but I really don't think it's even that good. I wanted to like it, but ultimately it's flaws were too prevalent and I couldn't get past that.

MOVIES WATCHED: 697
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 304

June 3, 2013  11:13am