Scarface (1983) Review

Almost thirty years after its original theatrical release, the brash eighties remake of Howard Hawks’ pioneering 1932 gangster movie Scarface has become a part of film, youth and criminal culture to such a degree that it almost seems redundant to question those who revel in reverence of it. But why is this film held in such high esteem? I’ll tell you why; because it is a film that pulls together a plethora of unassuming components to create an era defining spectacle that sits pretty (or ugly) in the middle of the eighties; between Martin Scorsese’s Raging Bull – a glorious adios to the brooding dramatic cinema of the seventies in 1980 – and 1990’s Goodfellas, which welcomed the quicker paced editing-driven movies of the nineties.

So, what of the parts? Screenwriter Oliver Stone delivers an overwritten hodgepodge of ideas and unsubtle one-liners as a script. It has an over-long running time of almost three hours. The direction from Brian De Palma is clunky and cliché ridden. The soundtrack’s grotesque, grandiose electro-pop marathon gives any discerning listener a headache; and Giorgio Moroder’s synth bursts have dated the movie so badly that – lacking the operatic finesse of a film ten years older – it seems more aged than its gangster-canon predecessor The Godfather. The acting is over-the-top and most of this precipitates from Al Pacino as the malevolent lead character Tony Montana.

Perversely, it’s the combination of these negative elements that cause it to be a classic: The script delivers some of the most memorable and oft-quoted lines in cinema history (“Say ‘hello’ to my little friend!”) and is often cited as one of Stone’s great early achievements. The film never feels long in play and always seems like a good way to while away any afternoon or evening. The music – such as Paul Engemann’s ‘Push It to the Limit’ about chasing the American dollar featuring lo-tech drum machines – characterises the era of the movie so adeptly that it would be impossible to imagine it with any other tuneful splurges. Lead actresses Michelle Pfeiffer and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio give performances that would elevate them both to the status of leading ladies in future films. And Al Pacino’s tragicomic anti-hero Tony Montana has, for better or worse, had movie-goers obsessed with the character since his inception almost thirty years ago.

The continued success of this movie could almost stand as an argument for the idea that a collection of wrongs just might make a right. *****

Review by Matt Henshaw

The Social Network redux review

With the film’s recent Oscar disappointment next to the triumph of the Kings Speech’s, there’s no better time to review the merits of 2010’s oxymoronic worst idea for and best film. Next to Tom Hooper’s tale of perseverance and triumph over the typical Oscar ingredient of disability, The Social Network offered no answer to Zuckerberg’s borderline asperger’s social ineptness. The opening scene, featuring the fastest dialogue since His Girl Friday by West Wing scribe Aaron Sorkin sees Zuckerberg compared to “dating a stairmaster”. It’s a brilliant comparison because Jesse Eisenberg’s speech patterns exist in monologue rather than dialogue, ignoring the attentions of girlfriend Erica(Rooney Mara, in a brief but crucial role.) The electronic style pitter patter that forms much of our daily Facebook conversation was born out of social abnormalities we supposedly avoid- an irony that director David Fincher adores. Poking his voyeuristic camera into the backrooms of deplorable Harvard parties and bored blogging students, it’s a dark reflection of our own love of the thrill of Facebook stalking. Perhaps too dark for the academy, it’s a film which says far more about its viewers than any other film release of the century so far.

Crucially, it’s too a film with an emotional centre namely in the relationship between Zuckerberg and co- founder of Facebook Eduardo Saverin (played sympathetically by Andrew Garfield). As with Fincher from Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman in Se7en to Pitt and Edward Norton in Fight Club, it features the breakdown of a good male friendship on a grand scale. Zuckerberg’s dark third act ousting of Saverin from the company is brutal and marks a dramatic highpoint in Fincher’s career in a violent emotional outpouring of Garfield. Yet crucially Eisenberg whilst prickly never makes Zuckerberg completely cocksure and displays a lack of faith in his most harmful decisions. Like Charles Foster Kane and other film icons before him, he is an ambitious man at the cost of those few dear to him and himself. There is indeed more implication on second viewing that one endlessly quotable line sums it up: “Your not an asshole, just trying too hard to be one”.

If one target of Fincher’s is the socially underdeveloped nerds who run the world now, another is that of the elitist society which bores vengeful geeks like Zuckerberg. The hilarious Harvard elite Winklevoss twins(both played by Armie Hammer) offer consistent comic relief as a well as an expose of a supposedly classless American society. Accusing Zuckerberg of ‘intellectual property theft’ after he alters their idea into his own Facebook, their numerous political wrangling are comic highlights of the film. From their already immortal line “I’m 6, 5, 220 and there’s two of me” to their manner of trying to politely accost Zuckerberg through the 'gentleman' politics of Harvard law , it’s observational as well as hilarious. On the other end of the spectrum for Zuckerberg, is the freewheeling Napster founder Sean Parker(played with energetic ease by Justin Timberlake) who best appeals to Zuckerberg’s ideology. In one scene, Parker seduces Zuckerberg over shots in a nightclub to encourage user growth and delay advertisers as its “uncool”. Zuckerberg’s idolatry of Parker’s social ease and pseudo rapport with face book users is all that comes close to revealing Zuckerberg’s reason for Facebook’s creation. Is it an American style individualism celebration giving power to individual users over their own social elites? Or merely a proliferated offspring of a class based historic university? Whatever the reason, Sorkin's screenplay leaves this ambiguous in so doing leaving us in disarray as to what truly defines this moment of history.


Though Sorkin’s script is already a modern masterpiece, for decades to come Fincher’s direction will be seen as tragically snubbed by the academy. Opening in a brownstone Harvard palette of elitism, later moving to the sunny excess colours and the dark seedy nightspots of Sean Parker’s Palo Alto, the film is masterfully moody. Trent Reznor’s score in particular adds a horror dimension to Facebook’s creation chronicle with pulsating electronica and occasional shrieking atonal violins. It might hold the clue to the film’s secret identity that’s it’s a really a monster movie about its subject of a social revolution began by social ineptness. It’s a wonderful irony that will see Zuckerberg amongst screen legends Charles Foster Kane and Jake La Motta as well as the worst Oscar snub since the films of these figures.

Following redux review

In July 2010, Christopher Nolan claimed $170 million necessary to depict dreams on the largest scale. Back in 1998, however, he only needed $6000 to create a unique nightmare. Following, a film noir thriller set in 1998 concerns young unemployed writer Bill. He becomes embroiled in a dangerous game after following individuals in the streets of London for inspiration for his novel.  Involved in burglary after being caught by the suave Cobb, he eventually becomes romantically involved with one of his robbery subjects. Nobody is what they seem and the film’s plot is that of a traditional hardboiled noir. Despite gaining critical acclaim and some awards recognition, the film did not gain Nolan a wide publicity. Yet now with his current Hollywood status, Following may accumulate the wider audience it deserves.


Yet to compare it only with his elaborate Hollywood productions would be unfair. Nolan invests Following with a simple economical filmmaking style. Lacking in dissolves or fades and using a plethora of close up and tracking shots, it’s a bare bones style for an essentially simple theme. As writer Bill becomes deeply involved with dapper burglar Cobb, it evolves into a distinct British tale of the smart businessman London ensnaring the exploited working class. The choice of cold, realistic black and white to reflect this dynamic is a clever one but Nolan allows some unhinged techniques to creep in. The early scenes of the actual ‘following’ in which Bill stalks subjects for writing ‘inspiration’ is shot in an unstable, shaky POV style. Varying with mostly simple techniques, Nolan injects some verve into the action - a technique reused later for Insomnia (2002).

The acting of the two leads is impeccable. Recalling Leonard Shelby in Memento and Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins, Bill is shown to be a man in search of a purpose. His early following and involvement in burglary are like the later character’s individual moral crusades - mere exercises to give purpose to empty lives. Yet neither Guy Pearce nor Christian Bale possessed the pathetic quality that Jeremy Theobald as Cobb conveys here. With a scruffy beard and raspy voice, he effortlessly convinces as someone in this lifestyle. A voiceover adds a consummate creepiness to his character; yet it’s hard not to feel pity in some of his more desperate scenes. His performance  is  overshadowed by that of Alex Haw as manipulative Cobb. Businessman like and all knowing, Cobb nevertheless has a philosophy which disguises his self  interested intentions. Stealing and analysing burglary victims’ possessions, he claims; “you take it away.... to show them what they had.” Masquerading as a philosopher and moral superior, he is really nothing more than an opportunistic, underhanded thief. But Haw highlights his most darkly comic and charming aspects- a plausible idol for the socially outcast Bill.


Their relationship paints the ultimate theme of the film. The key to what unravels an individual is in their inner lives and personality hence why Cobb steals small compromising objects from his burglaries. Bill reveals information about himself and who he is in his first meeting with Cobb whereas Cobb remains hidden and secretive. Individual emotion, honesty and lost artists like Bill have no place in Cobb’s role of control, foresight and cool professionalism.


The film isn’t perfect despite its successes. The tone veers into Guy Ritchie territory when a tea towel is asked for in cleaning up a murder. The non-chronological plot of flash forwards and flashbacks felt startling at its release but now feels less refined. Such a contrived structure, incorporated to simply confuse and disorientate, is disappointing after the form is meaning style of Memento. It’s the major problem which permeates this and so many of Nolan’s films. It’s hard not to feel like chess pieces in Nolan’s game and not feel manipulated by the plot structure and uncertainty of character motivations. Whilst we never feel cheated as an audience, Following feels at times more like an intellectual exercise than a fully fledged first feature. Though considering Nolan’s miniscule budget, the film is a rare achievement. By the astonishing twist ending, one can only wish a break from big budgets as one of his best works was made quietly.


Following Review by Tom Cobb