Quote

Television audiences are ruthless - look what happened to 'The Killing.'

I think it's too easy often to find a villain out of the headlines and to then repeat that villainy again and again and again. You know, traditionally, America has always looked to scapegoat someone as the boogie man... there is a tradition in the most simplistic of action movies for there to be some horrible villain.

It's funny how the ruthless, murderous gangster has really been romanticized by the media. I mean, I grew up watching the 'Godfathers' and 'Scarface,' and they were the coolest. They're just really interesting stories with great characters. They're rock stars.

I love a good harsh horror movie, when it's done well. But there are times when it feels cynical. You can tell when a filmmaker loves the genre, and you can tell when someone's just cashing in a paycheck. Then it becomes a dumbing down - a fetishisation of violence that I react very strongly against.

This is the age of insincerity. The movies had the misfortune to come along in the twentieth century, and because they appeal to the masses there can be no sincerity in them.

A movie with nothing but violence is not a good movie. But one that is actually entertaining around the horror is one that people will remember and watch again and again.

If you look at 1983, the film of the year was 'Terms of Endearment.' 'Scarface' was lumped in under the gratuitously violent banner. I mean, we knew it was violent, that it depicted a violent time and place. But it wasn't the end-all of the thing.

I think violence has always been popular, way before movies started being made.

From the director's point of view, it's infinitely easier to do violence than to do a good dramatic scene.

I think there were some dubious feelings about it, that the first 'Scarface' would not be surpassed by the second 'Scarface.' We were wrong; it surpassed it. The acting talent, the cinematography - we were propelled into a real class action film. Long after I kick the bucket, it'll be played.