Scarface: Review By slysnide

Dec 12th, 2011 by slysnide
Overrated yes, slow paced yes, but with a badass coke raged climax!
  • OVERALL
    3.5
    GREAT
  • Story
  • Acting
  • Directing
  • Visuals
Originally intended to be directed by Oliver Stone--who's short career was deemed too inexperienced to be granted the director's chair--this masterwork with an unbelievable legacy fell into the hands of Brian De Palma, who didn't alter Stone's script, and had him along on the film to give his points, so Stone's artistic hand could still be felt in the final product.

Taking the same plot, as well as lifting many of the same exact scenes from the 1932 original, this remake unnecessarily prolonged the whole story by seventy minutes. Back in the thirties, films were fast and dirty. Expectations weren't high, so a fast paced gangster film with a simple story didn't require or desire extrapolation from its audience. But times had changed. Martin Scoresese and Francis Ford Coppola had redefined the gangster genre, turning it into a highly dramatic art form rather than slick entertainment, much like Christopher Nolan changed comic book films into realistic dramas. Gone was the humor, the exaggerated gun fights, and overacting on behalf of the greats like James Cagney. Now it was a slow paced family "do it by the book" drama, with little action, no overacting, and no exaggerated action sequences. Rather the genre had taken a turn for the worse in a way. Such a tale which could be told in ninety lightning quick minutes took nearly three hours of droll crawling at a snail's pace. The same can be said of "The Godfather" (1972) even. Yes it's entertaining, but only because Coppola jam packed it with 'A' listers to make up for what he believed was a mediocre story too slow to be worthy of a filmed adaptation. The things you do for money. Unfortunately the same can be said of this remake. It's only saving grace is that Brian De Palma maintained part of the overacting idea through a few jaw dropping scenes by his lead star. Except by today's standards, they're not jaw dropping, but still badass.

That lead star is none other than Al Pacino, who takes on the role of Tony Montana, a cuban immigrant to Miami from Cuba via the Mariel Boatlift. A fast talking, no bullsh*t, cut to the chase type of guy, for Tony your word is your bond. There is nothing else. If you break your word, you are nothing to him. You're better off dead even. And he demonstrates that in harsh violence a couple times. Literally a walking stereotype of a Latino coke dealing gangster, one would be hard pressed to actually believe that Tony has any redeemable qualities, like refusing to bring harm to the innocent, no matter how valuable the target is in comparison to the collateral damage that'd be caused from taking out said target. But it's true. It's ultimately what makes you love Tony Montana. He's a nice guy really, wanting a chance to succeed in the world the only way he knows how. By sticking to his morals, Tony becomes more sympathetic to the audience as the film drags on, as opposed to our perception of him in the beginning. Yet also like the original, Tony has the same faults, in that he's overly protective of his sister (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio) in a very hypocritical way, and being practically incapable of cooperating in a co-op. Pacino really takes out the big guns here. You'd never think this guy went on to be an Oscar winning Shakespearean actor who performs in public parks, but he did, and he does. The final coke raged shootout with an M16 sporting an M203 Grenade Launcher under barrel is the only true echo to the original film, but not in the way it went down, but rather the stereotypical, yet badass rage of the angry gangster. I can't even begin to speculate how many shots he fired off. But it was that epic, as was Al Pacino's performance.

Unlike the original, this film really capitalized on the concept of the American Dream. It is at fault for the film's lengthy runtime. By changing the format to a drawn out drama--though sporting the fun filled thirties like gangster we all know and love--the filmmakers were able to get this point across much more clearly than the original film did. Sure the dream is accomplished through illicit means, but the dream is attained as Tony Montana goes from a penniless refugee, to a loyal soldier, to ambitious coke dealer, and finally a ruthless kingpin with more character faults which precipitate his downfall. Despite it comes about from one mistake--as in the original--this film better gets across the idea that it was going to happen no matter what, that Tony's personality was just begging for it. Just seeing how Pacino plays off Paul Shenar while discussing the co-op you get the idea that he's already on the way down when he was in the midst of discussing a way to get even higher up. It's a mystery why these gangsters wanted to go into business with Tony. I guess it's just the things you do for money. But just like the neon sign from the original turned rotating globe says, "The world is yours." Tony certainly takes it.

Overall, the concept was great, but it dragged on way too long. I don't know, maybe because most people didn't think of gangster films that way in the thirties it needed to be longer here, but I got the concept in the original too. But just because it was done better here doesn't mean it needed to be this way. The climax was great, and Pacino's acting was better, though the character didn't have enough moments to really steal the whole show to the point where it's worth watching all the way through, rather than say watching the original, pausing before its climax, then watching this remake's climax instead. I can't say that it had enough humor through Tony's self aggrandizing arrogance, but that's a humiliating humor for the gangster, whereas in the original the character was humorous, rather than us perceiving it that way like we do here. So while this film's legacy may already be cemented, I'd say it could win out for the best gangster film of the eighties, but little else. In the meantime, Viva La Montana!!!

Do you like this review?

Comments (27)

  1. thedude-abides

    @slysnide Haha. Touche.

    6 months agoby @thedude-abidesFlag

  2. slysnide

    @thedude-abides: Oh, okay. Gotya. Makeup? What do you mean? I thought this was an innocent debate? :P

    6 months agoby @slysnideFlag

  3. thedude-abides

    @slysnide I'm sorry if I did. I meant what I said when I said your opinion on classic vs. non-classic/overrated means little to me personally, but I didn't mean to disregard it entirely as invalid. I think the points in which you argue against those films are more than valid, I just think they're not enough reason to completely disregard said films as overrated.

    As for your list, I agree with most of it, although there are a couple I couldn't disagree more with, however I don't wish to continue our debate on classic vs. non-classic. A few petty disagreements should never keep two men, or in this case a man and a woman, from their drink. Now, let's kiss and make up, shall we?

    6 months agoby @thedude-abidesFlag

  4. Bawnian©-Dexeus

    @slysnide Jesus, that's a great list

    6 months agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag

  5. slysnide

    @thedude-abides: I know you didn't say invalid, but you kinda implied it through that reference about me claiming those films were overrated. Now I'm going in circles.

    Anyway, as for classics:

    1) Star Wars (1977)--it reinvented a whole genre in a new fashion that's not been seen since the '30s, and it did it in an entertaining fashion rather than just changing the mood, and going with it. He really spent time on developing the characters, and all the classic "hero's journey" archetypes were intertwined perfectly. Not to mention it was an entertaining film I love even more now than back then. Not because the effects were new, but because they were cool, masterfully done without being out of sync with the rest of the film--like a movie which has those cheap projection screens when people are driving, since ya know, they're just in a studio. It looked real in other words.

    2) Raiders of the Lost Ark--once again, it reinvented a genre but by actually going to global locations rather than making cheap mock ups, it was more involving, more realistic. The story format was simple & exciting, and once again the characters were well developed without prolonged boring talking sequences as in many films. Rather it got right into the action to get us familiar with Indy's character. Then just one scene as a professor to get the other side of his personality. Very sweet and simple with action, adventure, and brilliant stunt staging for the scenes. Excellent action/adventure film whose format hasn't been duplicated, and hadn't been done before. Totally new.

    3) The Dark Knight--And again, it totally reinvented the genre without focusing on character origins like the predecessor. Two major characters redefined after decades in an impressive manner. There was proper balance between action, drama, and character development with great pacing. A greek tragedy like format which totally proved the potential of the comic book movie. However that last sentence was a reputation point, so it doesn't count. But the film remains entertaining and thrilling while delivering a whole new perspective on beloved characters.

    4) Predator--A truly hybrid film which starts out as a commando flick, and turns into a sic-fi thriller which doesn't overexpose the alien, and has an excellent costume & effects which keep you involved rather than looking too retarded to believe. And a great duel in the finale. One of my all time favorites.

    5) The Pink Panther (1963)--A romcom/caper which is more comedic than romantic. A hilarious characterization by Peter Sellers, with a story emphasizing character over plot. Not every scene had to develop a new concept or point in the plot. There was a lot of time dedicated to character development in a humorous way. A good caper flick.

    6) Halloween (1978)--A horror film which doesn't rely on blood/guts/gore for scares. It builds and builds till the final moment. The monster was frightening enough to be seen without spoiling the surprise, like in all those cheesy fifties monster films. The idea of the escaped mental patient wasn't humorous at all. The Shape was creepy, and the music marries the film arguably better than in any other film. Suspense is what the film relies on and increases throughout.

    7) Tora! Tora! Tora!--Arguably the best Pearl Harbor film ever made. No matte paintings or cheap projection screens. They did it for real with old fashioned camera tricks to make it look bigger. It also told the story from both sides, and didn't accentuate the event with dramatic music since the attack was a major chunk of the film. Great cinematography to boot.

    8) Crash--An excellent look at race relations in Los Angeles, where the LAPD is notorious for having racial issues. So many stories which intertwine at various times. It wasn't over the top, and didn't have to develop the characters much. They were like real people in realistic situations. A sobering film since it forces you to acknowledge these issues rather than making it one awkward scene in a film. It was the film.

    9) Letters From Iwo Jima--Told from the Japanese perspective of the historic battle, you learn why these teens were so ferocious with virtually no training having spent 7 months digging tunnels in a harsh climate ripe with bad water, dysentary, and the smell of death. The siege was intense, and the violence was unforgiving without the camera pulling away. It showcased the real horrors of war while getting into the psyche of the soldiers, colonel, and general rather than the stereotypical overly patriotic military guy who's cold as stone. They were real people, like real soldiers and superiors whose patriotism is more accurately portrayed without that drill sargent attitude. And it told a story you'd never heard before, as the japanese don't teach WWII in their schools so we don't hear their side of the story.

    10) It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World--An ensemble cast of true comedians who each brought their own unique talents than these cheap packaged crap you get today. It was a race to the finish which had a horrible remake called "Rat Race." Ignore that and think of these comedians. Each character they play and the journeys they take are tailored to their humor. You don't see that today. Every comedian tries to be different personalities that don't suit their humor. This film nailed it.

    11) The Wild Bunch--A realistic western that gold rid of that "High Noon" stereotypical westerns. There were no clear heroes or villains. Everyone was amoral. The violence was unforgiving with lots of collateral damage with plenty of seemingly irredeemable character qualities. There's no black and white. The violence was realistic. The finale was ruthless. It was the most realistic picture of the wild west ever seen.

    12) The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly--This on the other hand is the slightly more glorious version of a western, with a clear villain, a nasty bastard with irredeemable qualities, and an amoral hero who likes a few cash scams. The action and music was perfect, and the finale was among the most memorable for the staging and music. With a Civil War campaign as a backdrop, the setting in the harsh desert climate was unforgiving. While it was a long film, it was still entertaining, despite not going back and forth between characters too often. The pacing however was decent.

    13) No Country For Old Men--A film chalk full of metaphors and biblical themes which perfectly blend together. With a clear cut villain with a bizarre philosophy, and a good guy who realistically can't triumph over what he can't understand. But rather than hating on his enemy, he retires and acknowledges defeat. The monkey in the middle was a good man, pursuing a better life for his wife and not himself. He endangers himself first to save his wife despite not understanding the monster he seeks to confront. A guy meanwhile who completely believes in fate. It's not chance from a coin toss. Fate determines the result for him. Everyone's life journeys have justified their fates.

    Those are just a few.

    6 months agoby @slysnideFlag

  6. thedude-abides

    I gotta leave for work. Don't think I'm being a prude for not responding, lol.

    6 months agoby @thedude-abidesFlag

  7. thedude-abides

    @slysnide Right. An opinion is an opinion. That's I'm not calling your reasoning behind your opinions invalid. What I said was I disagree.

    Really, though, just so I'll get a better understanding of where you're coming from, which movies do you actually consider classics?

    6 months agoby @thedude-abidesFlag

  8. slysnide

    @thedude-abides: So then you're incorrect in saying I only claimed they were overrated, as you just said you disagreed with my opinions. Thus, since an opinion is an opinion, you can't call my opinion of them not being classics with my own reasoning invalid just cause the masses disagree with me. That's exactly what this whole conversation is about.

    6 months agoby @slysnideFlag

  9. thedude-abides

    @slysnide I remember you're reasoning behind it; I just disagree with most of it. For argument's sake, what movies do you consider to be worthy and deserving of being hailed as classics? Not your favorites, just the ones you think are the best or the most deserving. I'm just curious.

    6 months agoby @thedude-abidesFlag

  10. slysnide

    @thedude-abides: No, I gave specific reasons why those films were overrated. People only praised them for being the first to do something, like take horror out of a gothic setting, or telling a Civil War Era story from the Southern side, or making an extreme misconception of William Wallace. Nobody ever reviews these films. They only say they're the first to do something, or that there was good acting, and leave it at that. I'm the only one who's reviewed these films based on the content of the film over its reputation.

    6 months agoby @slysnideFlag

  11. thedude-abides

    @ejk1 Haha. I won't.

    I agree Raging Bull is the only film from the 80s that deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Godfather; I was talking about in terms of gangster movies. It's funny you mention Untouchables. I actually think that's overrated, lol.

    6 months agoby @thedude-abidesFlag

  12. ejk1

    @thedude-abides Well, I agree with @slysnide that Psycho is slightly overrated, and Gone With The Wind is boring in many parts, but I do love Braveheart, even though it is historically incorrect. I keep going back to that Sorkin quote in my The Social Network review where he said the story matters more than being historically correct (or something like that. I'm not going back to look for the specifics). I think you're right about saying the film is overhyped, but I can't get behind the idea that it is on the same level as the Godfather. I mean, I guess one can say it is if only we're talking about mob movies, but I like The Untouchables more than Scarface, so I don't know if I'd agree on that front either. The only film from the 80's that belongs in the same breath as The Godfather, in my opinion, is Raging Bull. Where Scarface leaves feeling cold, Raging Bull is a fireball. But again, it is a matter of taste here. We all don't like that same things, and it would leave us with boring conversation if we did. Therefore, do not leave your perch. It'll be fun to revisit from time to time.

    6 months agoby @ejk1Flag

  13. ejk1

    @slysnide Bogey's version of The Maltese Falcon is actually the third version of the film. In 1931, The Maltese Falcon was first made, and again in 1936 it was altered and named Satan Met A Lady, starring Bette Davis. This version did not have a maltese falcon as the sought after prize, but rather a gem filled ram's horn. For more info, go here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan_Met_a_Lady

    6 months agoby @ejk1Flag

  14. thedude-abides

    @ejk1 Not to put @slysnide on blast, I want everyone to know I respect her opinion, but she thinks Psycho, Braveheart, and Gone With the Wind, among many other classics are overrated. So, in spite of my respect for her opinion on countless other things, her definition of overrated means very little to me.

    Whether it's the best remake or not, it's in the conversation. It is definitely more impressive to start from nothing, even though Stone's remake is a far cry from the original. And I see your point on the under-appreciated argument. I actually feel the same way about the overrated argument in that I think overhyped is a more apt in this situation.

    Either way, I'm not backing off this perch. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here, but if nothing else, the three-to-one ratio in this debate backs up what I'm saying. Underrated, overrated, under-appreciated, overhyped, either way, it's a classic, and a fantastic movie. It's to the 80s what Godfather was to the 70s and Goodfellas was to the 90s.

    6 months agoby @thedude-abidesFlag

  15. slysnide

    @ejk1: Agreed with all you said, especially the starting from scratch thing. And they remade "The Maltese Falcon?" Was the '41 version the remake?--or whatever year that was--Or did I miss something?

    6 months agoby @slysnideFlag

  16. ejk1

    @thedude-abides I don't think Scarface is the best remake of all-time. The Maltese Falcon may have that spot for me, although there are others, including A Fistful Of Dollars. As to the argument of "Is Scarface overrated or underrated, I think @slysnide is correct in saying that the definition of overrated is when too many people give anything way too much praise that might be unwarranted. I think you're just using the wrong word. Instead of saying that it's "underrated," your argument is more suited to the term "under-appreciated." In that you have a strong argument, as it has grown in stature over the years, and yet the awards season of 1983 gave it virtually no recognition.

    As for myself, I've never been a big fan of the film--I think Pacino's performance is a little to over the top, but that is a matter of taste. I also don't believe this is Stone's best work because this wasn't an original work, but like you said, it is a remake. Platoon is a work he started from scratch, Scarface is something that had a solid foundation even before he began writing. Again, my opinion, but I think it is more impressive to start from scratch.

    6 months agoby @ejk1Flag

  17. thedude-abides

    @slysnide Well, I respect your opinion. For the record, I said I hated the Oscars; I never said their opinions weren't warranted. I think they get it wrong more times than right. Scarface being nominated for nothing, in my opinion, is just another example of both them getting it wrong and my hating them for it.

    6 months agoby @thedude-abidesFlag

  18. slysnide

    @thedude-abides: No, I don't agree. :P The fact that you said the Oscars don't matter, as did I, then their opinions aren't warranted. It is after all a popularity contest.

    Secondly, you list off opinions as if they are widely accepted facts. They're not, they're your opinions. It isn't necessarily the best remake, nor necessarily the best acting Pacino's ever done, likewise not necessarily De Palma's best, nor even Oliver Stone who did zero research for "J.F.K." and "Wall Street" was a simple story with only one grandiose speech by Douglas. Granted these are my opinions, but your listed points are opinions too.

    Thirdly, I already answered clearly in my review why I didn't think this was that good, and why the original was better.

    Fourthly, that IS the definition of overrated, when way too many people give a film praise that may not be warranted, or for the wrong reasons, as I can't pass judgement on their opinions being wrong or right. Opinions just are that, opinions. Same as mine, it's not set in stone as fact.

    Fifthly, I said it was overrated in the comments below, that too many people give it praise for perhaps, the wrong reasons, and that in my own opinion as expressed in my review, that the film wasn't nearly as great as it's reputation insists.

    6 months agoby @slysnideFlag

  19. thedude-abides

    @slysnide @moviegeek That's a fair point, and I completely understand where you're coming from, but I would argue that the same way a film can be seen as overrated because of it receiving undeserved Oscar recognition (Ghandi, Amadeus), a film can also be seen as underrated because of it not receiving any, would you not agree?

    Neither of you have addressed my argument. You both just brushed it off by saying it's overrated. Tell me, in what way is it overrated?

    1. It's one of the best, if not the best remake of all time.
    2. It's one of the best, if not the best performance of Pacino's unparalleled career.
    3. It's far and away De Palma's magnum opus.
    4. In a career full of writing achievements, it's arguably, and in my opinion easily, Oliver Stone's greatest work -- and most people don't even know he wrote it (which screams underrated) -- putting it in a class with Platoon, J.F.K., Born on the 4th of July, Wall Street, and Midnight Express. Yet, no one's arguing those as overrated.

    5. It was nominated for ZERO oscars.
    6. It's cultural influence is undeniable, and dare say the most by any film throughout history.

    Where is it overrated? Maybe it doesn't live up to the hype for you, in which case that's completely fair. But just because it's praised unconditionally by idiots who have probably never even seen it in its entirety doesn't make it overrated. To dismiss the film completely as overrated just because of what other people say is, I think, a terrible oversight.

    Are there any tangible film aspects, aside from Sly's notion of it perhaps being too long, that support your overrated claims? Or is it just overrated because of the annoying number of times it's been referenced in popular society?

    6 months agoby @thedude-abidesFlag

  20. slysnide

    @thedude-abides: I get your meaning on closet vs hoods. But I'm kinda on @moviegeek's side on this one. It's only received praise across the board. Just cuz the Oscars didn't acknowledge it doesn't mean it's underrated by any means. You yourself said you hate the Oscars, and everywhere else you go you'll find nothing but praise for this film.

    6 months agoby @slysnideFlag

  21. thedude-abides

    @moviegeek Haha. You obviously didn't buy my argument. Culturally speaking, I might agree. But critically, it's one of the 3 or 5 most underrated movies ever.

    6 months agoby @thedude-abidesFlag

  22. moviegeek

    @thedude-abides I don't know about UNDERrated :P

    6 months agoby @moviegeekFlag

  23. moviegeek

    Same rating as me :)

    6 months agoby @moviegeekFlag

  24. thedude-abides

    @slysnide Haha. Definitely. I hate the Oscars. The only reason I watch is because I hate the Globes even more, lol.

    Someone once told me, and this goes to the point about the rappers, that it's the closest thing there is to a black gangster movie (pre-American Gangster). And when you think about it, it actually makes sense. There are essentially two kinds of gangsters: Closet gangsters (the kind Coppola and Scorsese make movies about), and hoods -- or the kind who know how to hide it as opposed to those who don't.

    Blacks/Latinos couldn't relate to Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro walking around in thousand dollar suits, looking like anything but gangsters; but they could relate to an immigrant coming over to America with literally nothing and making his way in the world by selling drugs. I know how that might sound, but it makes a lot of sense when you think about it, and society I think reflects it. I thought it was an excellent point.

    6 months agoby @thedude-abidesFlag

  25. slysnide

    @thedude-abides: Thanks. I just saw "The Godfather" all the way through for the first time a couple months back. I mean I'd seen the whole film many times before, but never in one sitting, let alone forty minutes. I didn't like it. I agree that "The Thing" from '82 is among the best remakes ever. This film seemed lukewarm to me. I don't watch MTV, but have seen that poster in so many places that I could tell from watching this film that it was only speaking to those rappers and guys from the MTV generation cause they wouldn't watch anything else. So many metaphors in so many films, yet this is the only one that generation likes, or speaks of in such a higher metaphorical regard. Yet all their exploits into crime aren't nearly as epic. ;)

    That's surprising on the one hand that it didn't score any oscar nods, but on the other it isn't for both the reasons I stated above, and because the Oscars are a popularity contest plain and simple. Everyone knows the results before the show. Imagine how underwhelming it would've been when Coppola, Lucas, and Spielberg presented the best director Oscar in 2007 had Scoresese not won it? Yeah they knew he was the winner. Those things are always rigged. Hence why I started the MW Oscars. :P

    6 months agoby @slysnideFlag

  26. thedude-abides

    @slysnide Excellent review, friend. I liked this one better than the original. I actually think it's one of the 3 most underrated movies ever, and I think it only catches a bad rap due to all the annoying times it's been talked about in popular society -- most notably in the mansions of those with blown up posters hanging on their respective walls on countless episodes of MTV Cribs.

    I think it's by far the best remake of all time aside from maybe Carpenter's The Thing (I'd like anyone to challenge me on that point), I think it's by far Pacino's best performance (Godfather nuts aside), I think it's by far De Palma's greatest work, I think it's by far the best writing Stone's ever done, and I think it's by far the most influential film of the 80s -- not the best, but the most influential, as I alluded to in my earlier paragraph.

    Couple that in with the films that came out in the same year of it's release ('83), and one would be hard pressed to name five films better or more deserving of recognition that year than Scarface. All that said, and not a SINGLE Oscar nomination across the board -- not for Pacino, not for De Palma, not for Stone, and not for the film itself. That's why I think it's actually underrated as opposed to overrated.

    6 months agoby @thedude-abidesFlag

  27. Bawnian©-Dexeus

    Sweet read.

    6 months agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag