how amazing is that movie? I watched it again last night, and if it was already a must-be in my top 5, it got much better by the second viewing. the quotes and the acting I knew were amazing, but watching it by the second time I realized the plot is awesome too. well, I just wanted to talk about this masterpiece. now I have just one tiny question: as over the top as Tony Montana is, did he had to shoot that old guy (Sosa's friend) who was about to blow the car with the kids in it? I think Tony could easily avoid him killing the kids and not kill him too.

PS: I know we have a Scarface section in these boards, but I thought more people would see this topic here. if you moderator feel like placing it there, you have my blessing too

Scarface is my favorite movie of all time with my favorite Al Pacino performance of all time (not to mention 1 of my favorite pieces of acting of all time). The cast is very good and the movie is great IMO. I love it and it seems sometimes that 3 hours just isn't enough Scarface

10/10
For Scarface.

De Palma's one of those who knows exactly what he wants to do and, like Scorsese, fully understands the medium he's working with. If only he did something interesting with it.

Three hours of profanity, incest and over-the-top acting. Portentious, tedious character study which gives little insight apart from a scene-setting prologue telling us about the influx of Cubans to America.

Other than that, it has little social reference; Pacino's character study is more of a charicature than anything else, and Stone's script is (as always) quite risible in places. De Palma's style is nicely done, effective in the chainsaw scene, but overdone elsewhere (in all his films I've seen, he disguises shallowness with aesthetics).

Mick

I think Scarface is entertaining as hell. I've seen in many times and I will watch it countless more. However I watch it simply for entertainment. It's not really art per se, it's just there.

I heard awhile ago that Marty actually was going to direct Scarface and I believe he was going to have Robert De Niro play Tony Montana. I would have loved to have seen that and been able to compare to too, but how do you guys think it would have turned out? You think Marty's would have been better or is De Palma's unbeatable?

Scarface would be a lot better with Scorsese rather then DePalma.

Scarface is full of entertainment, I rate it *** though. It's been ridiculously overrated over the years.

It's a very good gangster film, but overrated IMO.

I don't think Scorsese was ever planned to be apart of the production; I do know that they had originally hired a seperate director who had an issue with the script or something, and eventually quit. Thus DePalma signed on.

Now, to be honest I thought this was over-rated, and over-hyped. Don't get me wrong -- it was good, I own the giftset and all, but don't expect me to have the same opinion if Pacino was not present in the cast (or at least replaced with an equal or greater replacement), then don't expect my little but present fan-dom to still exist. A De Niro/Scorsese version would have been interesting.

Otherwise, I feel that it was just missing something. Pacino's acting and DePalma's directing/vision was great, and the script could have gone places, but it was a little one-dimentional. It just seemed like an excuse to kill off several characters for no reason at all. And the mother -- she started off with a good story and contribution to the movie, but they gave her all of about 10 minutes at most on the screen. They deffinatly could have enhanced the movie by exploring Tony's family life, and maybe a bit further into his marriage and how his life was affected by his proffesion. Yeah, yeah, in the end it killed him, but that was just stubborness and deffiance of his limits and authority.

I'd give it 2.5/5 stars.

It wasn't anything new either. Rise and fall of a criminal, which has been done time and time again, despite what Martin Bregman says.

I used to really enjoy this movie but it lost its touch after i had viewd it a few times. Its just not as interesting as the godfather or goodfellas. But i do agree that Pacino gives one hell of a performance, though not his best.. that has to go to donnie brasco

Well it was a remake of the 1932 version

Yeah, but it wasn't anything new in the sense that it was a film many times before. Gangster rises to power, vices destroy him and lead to a bloody demise. I think it's a good film, but it's ridiculously overrated as I said.

Well I mean that's how almost every gangster movie is. Look at Goodfellas, A Bronx Tale and to an extent Casino, Raging Bull just to name a few. I'm not saying that EVERY gangster movie is like that, but for a lot of movies, that's pretty much the basis of the movie (which as you said is nothing new).

Goodfellas had a different approach and style that elevated it far above an average gangster film, same for Casino. A Bronx Tale is a good film, but not great.

And for God's sake, Raging Bull is not, has never been, and never will be a gangster film. Raging Bull is about a man's career downfall through his sexual concerns and paranoia. Scorsese pulled all of his skills together for that film. Everything about it is top notch: the directing, acting, sound, score, etc.

What's Scarface have that's in that league? It's direction is nothing special, and not much was even changed from Stone's script other then some corny moments like Montana using an Uzi and grenade launcher. If Pacino didn't do the movie and it was just another average Joe, it would probably be mediocre to me. All it is to me is a solid film with a good performance from Al Pacino.

Scarface is my 28th favorite film of all time, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna go "It's kickass ****!"

Well we agree to disagree. IMO it does kicka$$ and it's probably my favorite movie of all time.

Goodfellas definintely had a different style and approach that elevated it above the average gangster film, but the story was still pretty much the same was it not? The rise and fall of Henry Hill, and the same thing with Casino. I wasn't comparing the movies on which one was better than the other, I was simply saying that the story was more or less the same.

I say it's a mob movie because a central theme of the movie has to do with the mob. Sure it's not a Goodfellas, Casino or Godfather but the mob is still a pretty big part of the storyline and that's why I classify it somewhat as a mob movie.

What's Scarface have that's in that league? It's direction is nothing special, and not much was even changed from Stone's script other then some corny moments like Montana using an Uzi and grenade launcher. If Pacino didn't do the movie and it was just another average Joe, it would probably be mediocre to me. All it is to me is a solid film with a good performance from Al Pacino.
--------
I too think Scarface kicks ass, but that's just in the impact of favorites, I would never use that to justify any serious rating.

What central theme? A few connected characters are slightly involved in the film and it's somewhat? The central themes would be self-destruction and themes of sexual paranoia. Even in a Scorsese Virgin Film book I have that goes into very deep thought on every work he has done from commercials to films does not mention the mob aside mentioning who people like Salvy are.

There are even parallel themes between Taxi Driver and Raging Bull but the mob has no central theme at all.

While this thread is here, what do some of you guys think of the original? So far that's the only old gangster film I've seen. Hopefully I can get a few of Cagney's soon.

I thought the original was alright, I was surprised at how similar it was to the remake. I think some of Cagney's films are a lot better though. You should definatly pick up the Warner's box set; there are a lot of quality movies there.

Don V..if I remember correctly, you were watching a Bogart movie on TCM while posting here at the same time
So that means you got TCM - means you can watch all the Cagney movies you want,all the Bogart movies,all the old gangster movies and many more classics...so i dont understand how come you only saw Sacrface 1932?
TCM is by far the best channel IMO.

Ok, a few things :
(please read-I hope it will change your bad opinion about Scarface)

1)Scarface is NOT an action movie, while there are some action scenes they hardly make up 15 minutes of 160 mis.
Scarface is,like it or not, a drama, a gangster drama but still a drama. Its about acting.
Acting like you'll never see in any other movie.
Its about actors giving out all they got,its about showing emotions in an out-open scale never seen before.
The acting in The Godfather is mostly based on what is not said, the look on the face - the emotions kept inside, the cold stare.
De Niro does it best in Part II but thats hardly the best an actor could do.
Pacino holds a lot of emotions inside and we see that in the Godfather,thats great acting, but the real work is how you handle emotions out in the open in a movie like scarface,no holds barred, not with the Masquerade Geary was talking about,in Scarface Pacino is all he can be, thats why its Pacino's best performance.
Thats why the acting in Scarface makes this movie so great.
(BTW-Geary in GFII is not making fun of Michael,hes making fun of us and of the movie,Geary is the only "Mirror" in the Godfather movies)
back to scarface:
Can u really judge a film by the bad language? it is a great dialogue, but hard to accept by certain ppl. So they come up with words like "colorful and over the top" and they ignore the piece of art before them.

2)There are many ways to judge a movie. Storyline is hardly the most important.I hear again and again that its ony the rise and fall...been done before etc etc
A movie doesnt need to be original or have a complex story to be appreciated, you forget the most important thing about movies,the human part-the acting. Great performances make great movies,no matter the story.
On the other side, some directors dont care at all about acting,a good example is Hitchcock.
Hitchcock movies are a great success,ppl think of them as art,but are they based on good acting?hardly.
The camera,the atmosphere and other such elements have made his movies so great.
Hitchcock himself was known as director who dont spend much time about casting - he didnt really depend on actors for his movies.
What Im trying to say with all that,is that you should change the attitude that movie has to be original or complicated,there are so MANY other elements to make a great movie.
Scarface has superb acting-thats what counts.
It is art per se,it is THE ART PER SE -THE ART OF ACTING.
Its not the great dialogue-its what you do with it.

3)you say where would scarface be if it wasnt for Pacino?you right.
where would raging Bull be if it wasnt for De Niro?
You think Ray Liotta could hold a movie like Goodfellas if it wasnt for De Niro and Pesci?
I dont remember anyone mentioning how much they like Liotta or how great he is or his performance, and he is the lead star.
All you hear about Goodfellas is De Niro and Pesci-once again the actors who made this movie so great and such a classic till this very day.

To sum things up - each movie has different elements.
If you fail to see the other elements,you fail to see the art.
You cant go around saying Scarface is not all that cos it has no plot or has too much profanity.

Open your mind.

Was it In a Lonely Place?

Andway, yes I have it, but 80% of the time the movie I want is on 2 AM. In a few weeks or so there will be a full day of Marx Bro. movies for me to see.

I don't recall any Cagney movies playing lately though.

Sure, it would be missing something, but come on, Scorsese's direction is what impacted them the most. Raging Bull was very innovative.

And plot is a major factor in film. Overused plots are just that, overused. My opinion will not change. I can enjoy a film and still give it a shitty rating. There's a big difference between enjoyment and a film's greatness to me.

If Scarface didn't have the acting, it would be medicore to me. DePalma did nothing special with it. The script itself was horrible, written by Oliver Stone.

Fame, thanks for taking the time to try and defend the film...

Acting? What acting? The actors suffered from cardboarditis, which again is another thing I've never rated De Palma highly for: he doesn't know how to direct actors. Sean Connery gets praise for The Untouchables, but his performance was as cardboard and clichéd, not to mention utterly simple, as Sean Penn's in Casualties of War.

Some say the chainsaw scene is a stroke of genius, as we don't actually see the violence; apparently, it's why Tarantino (I've heard) loves the film so much, that one scene. But why dance and pussyfoot round a chainsaw scene when the film itself has profane language throughout? I thought it was more of a compromise than anything else. Scorsese would never do that. Scorsese goes all the way. De Palma simply wants to make a film which everybody remembers.

And with that, he probably succeeds. Because even I, who think this and its director are both ludicrously overrated on this board and in the film world in general, will never forget Pacino at the top of the stairs, pumped full of cocaine and ten times as many bullets as it would take to kill an elephant, going out with a bang.

And the final symbolism, "The World is Yours", only goes to show how much De Palma strived to make this poetic. It fails miserably on that account.

What's that? A film doesn't need to be original to work? Perhaps not, but if it fails to avoid any clichés in the book, it is bearly watchable.

Hitchcock's films may be more attractive for their cinematic skill than acting, but to discount James Stewart's role in Rear Window or Anthony Perkins' in Psycho is nonsense.

Thanks for reading,
Mick

Well you dont like Scarface, your opinion...and your loss.
But horrible script? how can that be when almost every line in the movie is a memorable quote?
Capo, if you cant see the acting in Scarface then please watch this movie one more time and tell me if you can find any actor who could play all those scenes the way they were made...and Im not talking about the last scene or the chainsaw...you cling to the only scenes where there was "action" for some reason.