What are you watching?

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Fenris-77 said:
I'm going to open a beer and start binging Shadow and Bone. Could be a one sitting affair, we'll see.
Click to expand...
So partway through episode 1 here's my main takeaway - the visuals are completely on-point for Blades in the Dark.
 
Watching Sons of Sam: A Decent into Darkness on Netflix. Been watching a lot of true crime because my wife has been into that stuff lately. Can't really say much as I watched the first episode and fell asleep during the second last night (it wasn't boring I was just tired and watching past midnight). So far it seems to be about a journalist who was following a possible story of there being accomplices. Definitely the kind of documentary that warrants fact checking as you watch but entertaining. I feel bad for my players, watching so much true crime, that I think they will be facing an endless string of serial killers.
 
Shit, Brendan is married. This is the kind of trivia I come here for. I am also married btw, coming up on 22 years.
 
BedrockBrendan said:
Watching Sons of Sam: A Decent into Darkness on Netflix. Been watching a lot of true crime because my wife has been into that stuff lately. Can't really say much as I watched the first episode and fell asleep during the second last night (it wasn't boring I was just tired and watching past midnight). So far it seems to be about a journalist who was following a possible story of there being accomplices. Definitely the kind of documentary that warrants fact checking as you watch but entertaining. I feel bad for my players, watching so much true crime, that I think they will be facing an endless string of serial killers.
Click to expand...

I'm a big true crime/serial killer/crazy cults fan but these Netflix serial killer docs are really hit and miss.

The one on the Yorkshire Ripper is excellent but the one on Bundy is terrible.

As soon as I saw the Son of Sam one was peddling the nonsensical accomplice theory I lost interest.

Honestly I feel some of the stuff Netflix is putting out there in their 'documentary' section is irresponsible conspiracy mongering (the doc on Sam Cooke even indulges in that nonsense!).
 
Voros said:
As soon as I saw the Son of Sam one was peddling the nonsensical accomplice theory I lost interest.

Honestly I feel some of the stuff Netflix is putting out there in their 'documentary' section is irresponsible conspiracy mongering (the doc on Sam Cooke even indulges in that nonsense!).
Click to expand...

I always take documentaries with a grain of salt (moving pictures are a very powerful way to establish peoples impressions of an event). So for me, I will watch the crazy stuff if it is entertaining and give me ideas for campaigns. A lot of the true crime stuff is pretty bad in terms of accuracy on netflix (that is why I always fact check the material before watching).
 
Voros said:
I'm a big true crime/serial killer/crazy cults fan but these Netflix serial killer docs are really hit and miss.

The one on the Yorkshire Ripper is excellent but the one on Bundy is terrible.
Click to expand...

Lol. The Ted Bundy one made me think of this fake headline: GROUNDBREAKING DOCUMENTARY REVEALS SHOCKING DETAILS: TED BUNDY NOT A VERY NICE GUY

I liked the one on the Night Stalker because I was living in Southern California when that was going on and remembered the story.
 
Rewatched Vera Cruz on Tubi, with Gary Cooper and Burt Lancaster. Charles Bronson has a minor role in it, as do Ernest Borgnine and Jack Elam. Plus Cesar Romero in a French military uniform!
 
urbwar said:
Rewatched Vera Cruz on Tubi, with Gary Cooper and Burt Lancaster. Charles Bronson has a minor role in it, as do Ernest Borgnine and Jack Elam. Plus Cesar Romero in a French military uniform!
Click to expand...
In Perdita Durango that I mentioned earlier the Javier Bardem character is obsessed with that film and the death of the villain.

Just finished Gumshoe, an early 70s neo-noir by Stephen Frears with quite a good classic-Hollywood-meets-discordant modernism soundtrack by of all people Andrew Lloyd Webber!

Starring a young Albert Finney, the dialogue is arch and staccato and the film is a convoluted character study and tribute to The Big Sleep. Also interesting political and racial context. Lots of fun with that trademark 70s grit and melancholy.



 
urbwar said:
Rewatched Vera Cruz on Tubi, with Gary Cooper and Burt Lancaster. Charles Bronson has a minor role in it, as do Ernest Borgnine and Jack Elam. Plus Cesar Romero in a French military uniform!
Click to expand...
I've never seen that one, but I'd like to.
 
Lofgeornost said:
I've never seen that one, but I'd like to.
Click to expand...

I've seen it quite a few times. I feel it goes well with the John Wayne/Rock Hudson film The Undefeated. Vera Cruz is a little darker (as most of the American characters are pretty much scumbags, save Cooper and the lone African American character), but as the both involve Americans getting involved with the Mexican Civil War, they sort of compliment each other
 
I watched two films on Netflix this week: News of the World and The Edge of Seventeen. Really liked News of the World but I´m rather partial to westerns. The Edge of Seventeen was enjoyable enough.

200w.gif
tumblr_inline_p7i1ojgErN1qfz0ze_250.gifv


Lofgeornost said:
I also wasn't that impressed by Gibson's episode "Kill Switch" from season 5. It showed (IMO) a common problem encountered when bringing big-name writers to a TV series for a guest episode; they will write a story about their own characters in which the characters from the series are largely peripheral.
Click to expand...
My main problem with both Gibson episodes is that they feature people actually disappearing into virtual reality/cyberspace. Even for a show like X-files that's just too ridiculous for me to suspend my disbelief. (IIRC)

Fenris-77 said:
Shit, Brendan is married. This is the kind of trivia I come here for. I am also married btw, coming up on 22 years.
Click to expand...
You didn't know? Who else do you mistakenly assume is unmarried here? :shock:
 
Last night we watched 'The Nightshifter' (2018), a Brazilian horror about a morgue attendant who can speak to the dead... but talking to dead people is not the revelation, just the setup for what follows... it somewhat moves into the background after a bit.
There's nothing all that surprising or new about the plot... but it's got a thick coating of Brazil and the little touches of 'things I don't understand because I'm not from Brazil' set it apart.
Like, I know Brazil has a lot of folks who follow spiritism/spiritualism... but not the specifics of that religion. So the ghosts are... well, are they ghosts? Why do they sometimes have hairy claws?
Not overtly frightening or full of jump scares, but had a lingering creep factor that hit me later when I went to bed and was lying there in the darkness.

Not sure how I'd connect it to gaming... maybe NWoD's Geist RPG, though there was no 'geist' in it, no explanation of how/why the protagonist could see ghosts and speak to the dead.

the-nightshifter-01.jpg
 
Last edited:
Started watching Jupiter's Legacy on Netflix. It's ok so far. A little slower than I thought it would be
 
I love Scarface but as a OTT exploitation camp epic, I still remember one of the DVD extras where they interview a bunch of pop rappers who take it dead serious, admire Pacino's character unironically and in the strangest scene Puffy says he agrees with Tony killing his best friend for sleeping with his sister, apparently unaware of the incest motivation made clear by the end?!
 
Voros said:
I love Scarface but as a OTT exploitation camp epic, I still remember one of the DVD extras where they interview a bunch of pop rappers who take it dead serious, admire Pacino's character unironically and in the strangest scene Puffy says he agrees with Tony killing his best friend for sleeping with his sister, apparently unaware of the incest motivation made clear by the end?!
Click to expand...

I don't know. I live in an area where scarface posters are up on a lot of business walls and there is a degree of admiration for the character, but I really don't see it being that different than how people in my family admired the Godfather (it wasn't an endorsement of the killings, but it resonated as fitting their sense of what a man is). I haven't seen that inverview, but I imagine he isn't actually endorsing the killing, as much as he's saying there is a guy code around things like family members (and maybe not wanting certain of his friends to date his sister). I think a lot of the admiration for Tony is more to do with his boldness, his toughness, and his honor. For me I like movies like Scarface because it is cathartic violence and it allows you to indulge in the darker side of human nature. I don't really see it as camp (I think it comes off that way because it was made in the 80s). I see it more as just a violent gangster movie that turns bloodshed into art.

Edit: A good example from the Godfather I can think of is people admire Michael Corleone, despite him killing his own brother (among other things). And among fans, there are people who argue over whether he should have or whether he had to kill his brother. The people who say they agree with him killing his brother, aren't endorsing fratricide, I think they are just saying in the context of the movie it makes sense, and they are also probably saying Fredo's betrayal of Michael was such a transgression against family that it warranted the movie punishing him that way (though pretty sure Andy Garcia's character in part III was literally arguing he was right to kill Fredo :smile:)
 
Last edited:
BedrockBrendan said:
I don't know. I live in an area where scarface posters are up on a lot of business walls and there is a degree of admiration for the character, but I really don't see it being that different than how people in my family admired the Godfather (it wasn't an endorsement of the killings, but it resonated as fitting their sense of what a man is). I haven't seen that inverview, but I imagine he isn't actually endorsing the killing, as much as he's saying there is a guy code around things like family members (and maybe not wanting certain of his friends to date his sister). I think a lot of the admiration for Tony is more to do with his boldness, his toughness, and his honor. For me I like movies like Scarface because it is cathartic violence and it allows you to indulge in the darker side of human nature. I don't really see it as camp (I think it comes off that way because it was made in the 80s). I see it more as just a violent gangster movie that turns bloodshed into art.

Edit: A good example from the Godfather I can think of is people admire Michael Corleone, despite him killing his own brother (among other things). And among fans, there are people who argue over whether he should have or whether he had to kill his brother. The people who say they agree with him killing his brother, aren't endorsing fratricide, I think they are just saying in the context of the movie it makes sense, and they are also probably saying Fredo's betrayal of Michael was such a transgression against family that it warranted the movie punishing him that way (though pretty sure Andy Garcia's character in part III was literally arguing he was right to kill Fredo :smile:)
Click to expand...

I'd disagree about Scarface, read the reviews of the time and even those who liked it recognized it was absurdly over-the-top in a way that pushes it into camp. I watched it as a teen and saw that, we were all laughing and shaking our heads dumbfounded at the movie as we watched it.

It has nothing to do with the 80s (I watched it the most in the 80s), it has to do with Pacino's poor accent, the silly dialogue and scenes like Tony shoving his face into a huge pile of coke and being shot a hundred times before going down.

There was no time these elements wouldn't have been campy. And with a filmmaker like De Palma, who embraced excess, archness and humour, I'm sure it was all intentional.

One of the flaws of GF 1 is that everyone the family kills 'deserves it' and that lets the audience off the hook, it was something Coppola was aware of and went out to address in GF 2 which I think is a masterpiece and a superior film.

I think any reading of Michael murdering Fredo as the a good or right thing is totally tone deaf to the film they're watching. It is clearly the moment when Michael is exposed as souless, he has pretended to do everything for the family but he is really motivated by his desire for power and his own ego. His treatment of his wife, the last shot of the film all drive that home. The film is a total condemnation of macho self-justification.

GF 3 is a disaster that all Coppola fans pretend never happened.

To me someone defending the murder of Fredo or who think Tony is some kind of model of manhood (lol!) are like those who end up over-identifying with Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver. That film is a critique of machoism and racism, one can ignore all that and just cheer for Travis like some of the audiences when it was first shown but it is more a comment on the viewer at that point.
 
Last edited:
Voros said:
I'd disagree about Scarface, read the reviews of the time and even those who liked it recognized it was absurdly over-the-top in a way that pushes it into camp. I watched it as a teen and saw that.

It has nothing to do with the 80s, it has to do with Pacino's poor accent, the silly dialogue and scenes like Tony shoving his face into a huge pile of coke and being shot a hundred times before going down.

There was no time these elements wouldn't have been campy. And with a filmmaker like De Palma, who embraced archness and humour, I'm sure it was all intentional.

One of the flaws of GF 1 is that everyone the family kills 'deserves it' and that lets the audience off the hook, it was something Coppola was aware of and went out to address in GF 2 which I think is a masterpiece and a superior film.

I think any reading of Michael murdering Fredo as the a good or right thing is not only tone deaf to the film but morally retarded. It is clearly the moment when Michael is exposed as souless, he has pretended to do everything for the family but he is really motivated by his desire for power and his own ego. His treatment of his wife, the last shot of the film all drive that home. The film is a total condemnation of macho self-justification.

GF 3 is a disaster that all Coppola fans pretend never happened.

To me someone defending the murder of Fredo or who think Tony is some kind of model of manhood (lol!) are like those who end up over-identifying with Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver. That film is a critique of machoism and racism, one can ignore all that and just cheer for Travis like some of the audiences when it was first shown but it is more a comment on the viewer at that point.
Click to expand...
Scarface is definitely over the top and indulgent in lots of ways (but many, many 80s movies are). I think a lot of those reviews, in hindsight, are less well regarded now. Scarface is the kind of film, critics disliked, but over the years it has gained a following and its reputation has increased. I think we just disagree on scarface and judging by many of your posts, on art and media in general (which is fine). I am not going to debate you on scarface all day. I will just say I take a different view and I understand why people who grow up around gangs or in different environments, might have a different attitude towards the character than you do (not saying they would endorse his behavior, but that some of his personality traits would be deemed more positive).

I thought Pacino's performance was great. I also thought the dialogue was great to (with a lot of humor to it). I don't think you have to only appreciate scarface ironically (you can appreciate the dark humor, appreciate that you are not meant to emulate Tony, but still enjoy the dark ride and see redeeming traits in the characters).

Peoples reactions to these things can be complex. You can understand that michael's fall form grace is sealed when he kills Fredo, but I also understand why people defend him on the grounds of his brother betraying him. I think Michael and Tony are very different characters from Bickle. Bickle is a complete disaster (this is a person who takes a women to a porno theater for a first date and doesn't understand why it is a problem: and that is maybe one of his smaller character flaws). But Tony and Michael, when you strip out the truly evil and twisted parts of them (which are there for sure) also have lots of strengths as characters that can admirable (though I think less so for Michael as he is more of a contrast against his father). Again, it isn't to say: you should live your life like Tony Montana. It is to say there is something very charming about him, something to his honesty and his cutting through the BS, and stuff like being a man of his word, the perseverance he demonstrates at the end. With Michael, he has admirable qualities, but the thing that makes him evil in my mind is he is the opposite of his father (his father was all about family, and Michael rips his family apart).
 
BedrockBrendan said:
Scarface is definitely over the top and indulgent in lots of ways (but many, many 80s movies are). I think a lot of those reviews, in hindsight, are less well regarded now. Scarface is the kind of film, critics disliked, but over the years it has gained a following and its reputation has increased. I think we just disagree on scarface and judging by many of your posts, on art and media in general (which is fine). I am not going to debate you on scarface all day. I will just say I take a different view and I understand why people who grow up around gangs or in different environments, might have a different attitude towards the character than you do (not saying they would endorse his behavior, but that some of his personality traits would be deemed more positive).

I thought Pacino's performance was great. I also thought the dialogue was great to (with a lot of humor to it). I don't think you have to only appreciate scarface ironically (you can appreciate the dark humor, appreciate that you are not meant to emulate Tony, but still enjoy the dark ride and see redeeming traits in the characters).

Peoples reactions to these things can be complex. You can understand that michael's fall form grace is sealed when he kills Fredo, but I also understand why people defend him on the grounds of his brother betraying him. I think Michael and Tony are very different characters from Bickle. Bickle is a complete disaster (this is a person who takes a women to a porno theater for a first date and doesn't understand why it is a problem: and that is maybe one of his smaller character flaws). But Tony and Michael, when you strip out the truly evil and twisted parts of them (which are there for sure) also have lots of strengths as characters that can admirable (though I think less so for Michael as he is more of a contrast against his father). Again, it isn't to say: you should live your life like Tony Montana. It is to say there is something very charming about him, something to his honesty and his cutting through the BS, and stuff like being a man of his word, the perseverance he demonstrates at the end. With Michael, he has admirable qualities, but the thing that makes him evil in my mind is he is the opposite of his father (his father was all about family, and Michael rips his family apart).
Click to expand...
Interesting that you think we disagree a lot on art and media, in general I have quite broad tastes and like lots of things both from 'high' and 'low' culture. So if we disagree it seems more a case-by-case basis to me and it always seems respectful and interesting. If I'm striking you as aggro let me know, I just like having in-depth conversations on things as relatively innocuous as films and music and don't intend it that way.

Here we both like Scarface, even I suspect for many of the same reasons (its energy, humour and outrageous excess) but are disagreeing about others interpretations.

You're right of course about Tony and Michael's charisma (perverse in Tony's case), that makes the films magnetic and contributes to the rewatchabilty of both films. As to Travis, I'd agree, that's also why I consider Taxi Driver one of the great films of its era, it is uncomprising compared to a lot of other American films. But we now live in a world where corners of the net loudly agree with Ozymandias from Watchmen or John Walker in Falcon and the Winter Solider. But that's probably just a case of the net amplifying outliers beyond all sense.

As to critics, again I'm referring to the sympathetic critics, so yes most mainstream critics of the time weren't going to embrace an exploitation epic like Scarface but that's not who I'm referring to so that seem like a bit of red herring. Genre-friendly critics and De Palma admirers (of which there are many) have been defending Scarface for decades.

I get that there is ambiguity to reading a film and audiences can receive a film differently than intended. Lord knows those who insist there is only one way to read a film are usually wrong-headed.

But I think there are readings that also just not supported by the film itself. For instance, I consider Laura Mulvey's famous reading of Vertigo via the 'male gaze' to be completely missing the point, or Bell Hooks goofball reading of Hoop Dreams as racist.

As to questions of 'environment' when reading a film. I didn't grow up around street gangs but I did grow up dirt poor with friends and family involved in crime, drug-dealing and prostitution.

So I'm pretty aware of the real life impact of poverty, lack of education, drug abuse, domestic and sexual abuse and the macho bullshit that enables it.

But Scarface is so far from any kind of reality I don't buy that as some kind of determing factor in my or others reading of it. Scarface has as much to do with actual criminality as Commando does with actual warfare.

I also don't buy the implication that the reading of Scarface by mainstream rappers has much to do with 'street culture,' claims to the contrary most rappers claims of being 'street' are just that: claims. The vast majority of them come from solidly middle class backgrounds with largely fictionalized 'street' backgrounds invented for gullible white audiences. Most gangster rap was well summarized by the great writer David Mills, who being black himself often spotted bullshit when it was being slung, as 'D&D for black kids.' Ethan Brown's excellent history of the crack epidemic and rapper pretenders Queens Reigns Supreme is a good factual rundown of this.

I think you may be thinking my use of irony and camp in regards to Scarface differently than I intend, these days it is often used as a synonym for cheap sarcasm and laughing at something 'so bad its good.' That's not how I'm using it.

To me there is no doubt that the irony of Scarface is intended, you note yourself that there is humour in the dialogue. That's my point, the extreme vulgarity and garbled syntax is intended to be outrageous and funny.

Now I do think Scarface is an interesting collision of intentions: I don't think Stone or Pacino were approaching the material the same way as De Palma was. I think it is very much a case of De Palma making it as good and enjoyable a film as it is, I don't think if Stone had directed it there would have been as much humour for instance.

Scarface, like a lot of De Palma and Stone at his best, is itself a collison of art and exploitation, a combo I personally like as much as peanut butter and chocolate. Some feel the need to disclaim the exploitation or pooh-pooh the art but I enjoy the uncanny mixture and confusion.

To miss the humour and extreme exaggeration of Scarface is not a case of any ambiguity in the film or a reasonable difference in viewpoint, it is a misreading of the film. It's like taking Starship Troopers straight.
 
Last edited:
Watching the first episode of The Bad Batch, the new Clone Wars animated series. I'm enjoying it. Waiting a week for each new episode is going to suck though.
 
Fenris-77 said:
Watching the first episode of The Bad Batch, the new Clone Wars animated series. I'm enjoying it. Waiting a week for each new episode is going to suck though.
Click to expand...

I liked the second episode, I think they're doing a good job of mixing in sentiment without over-doing it, always a bit tricky, particularly in animation.
 
Voros said:
I liked the second episode, I think they're doing a good job of mixing in sentiment without over-doing it, always a bit tricky, particularly in animation.
Click to expand...
I agree, it could have been saccharine nonsense but is was handled pretty well.
 
Voros said:
Interesting that you think we disagree a lot on art and media, in general I have quite broad tastes and like lots of things both from 'high' and 'low' culture. So if we disagree it seems more a case-by-case basis to me and it always seems respectful and interesting. If I'm striking you as aggro let me know, I just like having in-depth conversations on things as relatively innocuous as films and music and don't intend it that way.

Here we both like Scarface, even I suspect for many of the same reasons (its energy, humour and outrageous excess) but are disagreeing about others interpretations.

You're right of course about Tony and Michael's charisma (perverse in Tony's case), that makes the films magnetic and contributes to the rewatchabilty of both films. As to Travis, I'd agree, that's also why I consider Taxi Driver one of the great films of its era, it is uncomprising compared to a lot of other American films. But we now live in a world where corners of the net loudly agree with Ozymandias from Watchmen or John Walker in Falcon and the Winter Solider. But that's probably just a case of the net amplifying outliers beyond all sense.

As to critics, again I'm referring to the sympathetic critics, so yes most mainstream critics of the time weren't going to embrace an exploitation epic like Scarface but that's not who I'm referring to so that seem like a bit of red herring. Genre-friendly critics and De Palma admirers (of which there are many) have been defending Scarface for decades.

I get that there is ambiguity to reading a film and audiences can receive a film differently than intended. Lord knows those who insist there is only one way to read a film are usually wrong-headed.

But I think there are readings that also just not supported by the film itself. For instance, I consider Laura Mulvey's famous reading of Vertigo via the 'male gaze' to be completely missing the point, or Bell Hooks goofball reading of Hoop Dreams as racist.

As to questions of 'environment' when reading a film. I didn't grow up around street gangs but I did grow up dirt poor with friends and family involved in crime, drug-dealing and prostitution.

So I'm pretty aware of the real life impact of poverty, lack of education, drug abuse, domestic and sexual abuse and the macho bullshit that enables it.

But Scarface is so far from any kind of reality I don't buy that as some kind of determing factor in my or others reading of it. Scarface has as much to do with actual criminality as Commando does with actual warfare.

I also don't buy the implication that the reading of Scarface by mainstream rappers has much to do with 'street culture,' claims to the contrary most rappers claims of being 'street' are just that: claims. The vast majority of them come from solidly middle class backgrounds with largely fictionalized 'street' backgrounds invented for gullible white audiences. Most gangster rap was well summarized by the great writer David Mills, who being black himself often spotted bullshit when it was being slung, as 'D&D for black kids.' Ethan Brown's excellent history of the crack epidemic and rapper pretenders Queens Reigns Supreme is a good factual rundown of this.

I think you may be thinking my use of irony and camp in regards to Scarface differently than I intend, these days it is often used as a synonym for cheap sarcasm and laughing at something 'so bad its good.' That's not how I'm using it.

To me there is no doubt that the irony of Scarface is intended, you note yourself that there is humour in the dialogue. That's my point, the extreme vulgarity and garbled syntax is intended to be outrageous and funny.

Now I do think Scarface is an interesting collision of intentions: I don't think Stone or Pacino were approaching the material the same way as De Palma was. I think it is very much a case of De Palma making it as good and enjoyable a film as it is, I don't think if Stone had directed it there would have been as much humour for instance.

Scarface, like a lot of De Palma and Stone at his best, is itself a collison of art and exploitation, a combo I personally like as much as peanut butter and chocolate. Some feel the need to disclaim the exploitation or pooh-pooh the art but I enjoy the uncanny mixture and confusion.

To miss the humour and extreme exaggeration of Scarface is not a case of any ambiguity in the film or a reasonable difference in viewpoint, it is a misreading of the film. It's like taking Starship Troopers straight.
Click to expand...

Actually Voros I may have been confusing discussions about movies and music I had with another poster, so scratch what I said about disagreeing about media. A lot above, but I don't want to take this thread into a deep scarface discussion. I can just say my point of view on this is movie is little different. I hear what you are saying about Starship Troopers, but that is a blatant parody. With Scarface, I am not saying the message is violence is good, or drug dealing is good but I am also not convinced the message is 'don't do drugs' either lol. But I think it is a lot more complex than Starship Troopers. I love both movies, and both are great for different reasons. But when I rewatch Starship Troopers, I don't really need to rethink too much about the message or meaning (it comes out the same every time I watch it). With Scarface it a much different experience. I just think it has a more complicated moral landscape than Starship Troopers or Robocop (which is pretty crystal clear). Scarface is also one of these movies where what you focus on really seems to change what it means (if you just focus on its use of the F word, there is a lot of homoerotic subtext to the movie for example). But this time around I was more interested in things like how evil is Tony really. Is he more evil than Lopez for example, or is he just more impulsive and reckless (like would Lopez have killed the kids in the car to avoid conflict with Sosa). And other questions like how redemptive really is it that he didn't kill the kids (it is a downfall movie, but the thing that causes his downfall is the one good act we see him commit: granted he does a good deed by shooting someone, but it is to stop kids from being killed). I just kind of file it with a lot of gangster movies, which for me a lot of the enjoyment is reveling in the catharsis of the violence, in enjoying watching characters who delight in going against social norms, etc. There is a dark humor in that I like, but also there are things about the underworld they inhabit, like some of the codes, that do resonate. I am not deep into film analysis or academic readings of media, so I can't really comment much on the books you are referring to. Mainly I am just speaking here as a fan of gangster movies.

I don't know much about the rapper thing. I was just talking about people I've met who like the character and seem to connect it to their upbringing. For me it comes close to how I felt when I first saw Goodfellas for example. Which just really struck a chord, and I think part of it was related to background. The movie is still a descent into hell, but I found things to admire in that criminal underworld that was painted.

I don't think anyone is missing the humor or exaggeration in scarface, I think they see those things, and find them funny, but maybe find them funny for different reasons, or still see things admirable in Montana despite the fact that this is a very exaggerated over the top version of that kind of guy. There is something funny about it, but it is also not a comedy.
 
Last edited:
Think I didn't post this yet (apologies if I did). Watched Jesus Christ Superstar last month. Bought it on Amazon because I had stumbled onto the album and liked it. I always get a little religious around April and found myself watching the movie over and over again (I literally must have seen it 15 times in total, maybe more). I found the whole looking at it through Judas' POV very interesting (because it takes things that are in the bible, but casts them in a slightly different light if taken from Judas point of view as the movie presents it). I am not a huge musical person, though I did like Phantom of the Opera (that is the only Andrew Lloyd Weber thing I am familiar with). But an Ian Gillan performance of one of the songs off the original album sparked enough curiosity for me to watch it. I remember watching Godspell as a kid (performances in Church and seeing it on TV), and hating it. Was suprised this landed so differently.

 
As I get older, I find Scarface doesn't hold up as a movie for me Like it use to. For me, De Palma's films tend to two types. You have the normal grounded films like Carlito's Way and The Untouchables. Then you have the heightened reality films like Body Double, Snake Eyes, etc. The conversation between Voros Voros and BedrockBrendan BedrockBrendan, I think, highlighted why Scarface doesn't hold up, it doesn't fit into either categories. The heightened reality is clearly present but it is also trying to be a normal grounded movie and you have this disconnect. for me, Scarface is at its best when it embraces the heightened reality, the exaggerations, cranked to eleven. It doesn't work as a grounded film because of all the exaggerations and larger than reality portrayals.
 
Kilted Rob said:
As I get older, I find Scarface doesn't hold up as a movie for me Like it use to. For me, De Palma's films tend to two types. You have the normal grounded films like Carlito's Way and The Untouchables. Then you have the heightened reality films like Body Double, Snake Eyes, etc. The conversation between Voros Voros and BedrockBrendan BedrockBrendan, I think, highlighted why Scarface doesn't hold up, it doesn't fit into either categories. The heightened reality is clearly present but it is also trying to be a normal grounded movie and you have this disconnect. for me, Scarface is at its best when it embraces the heightened reality, the exaggerations, cranked to eleven. It doesn't work as a grounded film because of all the exaggerations and larger than reality portrayals.
Click to expand...

Rewatched Carlito's Way just last weekend. Another film I find endlessly watchable. The pool hall and subway sequences are among the best that De Palma has ever done. In the excellent De Palma doc he says that he considers CW his best film, 'I can't make a film better than that.' I think Blow Out is his best film but certainly CW is his most technically accomplished.
 
It's been at least twenty years since I last watched Carlito's Way. So many movies to still see...
 
Rewatching Delocated on Adult Swim, a hilarious and surreal black comedy by the PFFR crew who did Wondershowzen and The Shivering Truth starring Jon Glaser, Eugene Mirman, Todd Barry, etc.

Crushing on 'Jon's' girlfriend Kim played wonderfully deadpan by Zoe Lister-Jones and see that she is mostly working as a writer/director and did the recent sequel to The Craft.





41b8bfd80cf389d9be6f7ff55c5072fc.jpg


:heart:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top