saveespy

This is quite possibly one of the worst films I have seen in the past five years. Acting-nonexistent. Story-bland and screamingly obvious.Dialogue-some of the most unintentionally hillarious I've ever heard. Example:"I could crush your neck I love you so much!"I was rolling around on the floor laughing my head off at that one.This film and "The Guru" prove once and for all why Heather Graham is like a coffee table-looks good but serves little to no purpose.

I want the two hours I spent watching this absolute disaster area of a film back.

Where to start? David Lynch has well and truly excelled himself with "Mullholland Dr.", a haunting, mind-bending, poetic masterpiece that is, dare I say it, better than "Blue Velvet" (which, until I saw this, was my all-time favourite film).While still very Lynch in its attitude and character, it shows him maturing and exploring facets of human emotion that his previous films have only explored superficially. "Mullholland Dr." sees him move into the rarest of cinematic fields, along with Bergman and Kubrick, in the way that he adresses and looks at the human condition, psychology and the question of identity. I've only seen this film once, but my head is still spinning from doing so; every so often, images or scenes from the film, particularly the "Caberet Silenzio" sequence, repeat in my mind and make me want to rush off and see the film again. I had a similar experience a few years ago with P.T. Anderson's "Magnolia". In the nicest way possible , it reminded me a great deal of both Bergman's "Persona" and Roeg/Cammel's "Performance" in relation to the question of identity and who we are as people.The film also serves as a vicious satire on Hollywood; this is obviously Lynch venting his frustrations at trying to protect his sense of personal vision in his work within the Hollywood 'system', the most obvious moment of which would be the 'coffee' sequence which, to me, was quite possibly a thinly veiled shot at Dino de Laurentis, and Lynch's treatment by the 'system' after "Dune". One of Lynch's strenghts as a writer/director has always been his ambiguity; he once said about "Eraserhead" that if six different people saw that film and had six different interpretations as to what it was about and trying to say, that he would have achieved his goal. "Mullholland Dr." feels very much like this notion amplified. To me, this film can be 'seen' and interpreted in so many different ways. Everything about this film (acting, cinematography, sound and, particularly, use of music) just fits together so beautifully. Like "Fight Club", the less you know about this film before you see it, the better; all you need as a viewer is an open mind. A truly inspiring film that can remind you of why you love movies and what writer/directors are capable of if they refuse to become lazy and actually push themselves in new and different directions.A truly compelling film that will not be forgotten easily. A career best for Mr Lynch. Bravo. Can't wait to see what the man does next.

I recently caught up with "Scarface" on DVD. The three main people involved in this film, I feel, have never come close in their subsequent careers to matching what they achieved here.

First of all, the script. Absolutely flawless. Stone has always been too didactic and preachy for my liking ("NBK", anyone?), but here he was spot on. What amazes me now looking at the film is the way that it comments of the attitude and mentality of greed and materialism that was very much part of the 1980's while the film was still of that time; no flippant irony like films of ttoday that look back on that period. This is probably one of the reasons why it failed at the box office; people of the time didn't want to see the truth of what they had created.

Secontly, De Palma. The film is very much in the style of an opera, a Greek tragedy if you will. De Palma has always had an arrogant, ballsy visual style. It was a perfect marriage in "Scarface" with its subject matter. Even a small sequence like the one where he is left alone in the bathroom watching his T.V.'s, the way the camera pulls back to reveal physical emptiness, says so much about Montana so beautifully that words feel completely unnecessary.

Finally, Pacino.Like Jack Nicholson he is at times in danger of becomming a self-parody and lazy as an actor. However, this couldn't be furthur from the truth in "Scarface". The fact that Tony Montana is such a repellent character and yet you, as a viewer, are totally rivetted to and compelled by him is a major achievement on Pacino's behalf. I'll never forget the scene where he's on the phone to Mani after Elvira's left him and he asks Mani that, if she calls, to tell her that he loves her. Just that brief dlas of humanity within the monster that he has become.

"Scarface" is a modern classic of cinema. If you haven't seen this film, do so as soon as possible. This stands along side "Once Upon A Time In America" and "Goodfellas" as a film that completely trandscends its genre limitations and has so much, much more to offer than mere vicsceral thrills. In other words, a brain behind the brawn.