I don't think the audience goes and thinks of the movie as a piece of art - there are some independent people who may go and have a higher appreciation for filmmaking. It is a great art form, but I don't think you look at a painting and a movie with the same eye.

I love movies; I grew up loving movies. I've always loved movies. I never thought about making movies until I took art classes and then I started studying different artists. As you study paintings, you see light and shadow, of course - Rembrandt, Eugène Delacroix. You start to understand the relationship between people and art, and images. For me, between movies that I watched and art, it was like, I'd love to make moving art. Moving pictures.

One hundred percent, I mean, many of the Sergio Leone movies were with Clint Eastwood, and that's what it is.

Sometimes violence in a very real way is much faster and more impactful because it feels real and you're watching it happen and you're watching your star do these things, so it's not like he's doing superhero moves.

I'm a product of older filmmakers I guess, the past where you get to make movies and scenes are what they are. You know if you think about Scorsese back in the day when he was making Taxi Driver, or Coppola or Frankenheimer, Sidney Lumet, they're making films where you witness violence in a real way.

Well, I mean, the original is certainly the jump-off, it certainly is what it is, you know, I grew up around that era so I watched all those shows. The basic concept is there, it's just a different movie. Totally different actors, different filmmakers, different script, but same concept.

You'll see a consistent, like the tea, the tea bags you saw there-you'll see a consistent-did you see the cafeteria? I mean the diner?