I'm not the one or two take guy, but I'm not the 20, 30, 50, 70 take guy either. If I do a bunch of takes, like more than five or six, it's usually for some technical reasons.

When you're done shooting, the movie that you're going to release when you're done shooting is as bad as it will ever be. And then through editing, and finishing the effects and adding music, you get to make the movie better again. So I'm really hard on myself and on the movie.

When I move from being a cameraman to being a director I looked at a lot of other cameramen who tried to make the move. And in each case they moved up their camera operator to be the DP, which really meant they didn't want to give up being the DP, and really wanted to do both. And my feeling was if I was going to succeed as a director, I had to just be a director and give up the safety net of being a cameraman.

They want to let the audience figure things out and let the reaction shot get the laugh.

By definition a sequel can't be original. So you've got to figure out what worked the first time around.

I haven't read a review of one of my films for the best part of 10 years.

The first cut I do is usually between five and 10 minutes shorter then the cut that we release. Anything I think isn't working or might not work, I don't even put it in the director's cut. And usually it's the studio suggesting I put stuff back in, as opposed to studios saying, "You got to lose 40 minutes," they are always saying, "You've got to gain five minutes."