Scarface

Scarface is an extravagant, brutal, almost three-hour gangster flick with no spiritual dimension or significant emotions (in comparison with the later Carlito’s Way), but I never took my eyes off of it for even a second and I wouldn’t cut a single scene out of it. It felt like it lasted only two hours. Brilliant filmmaking in every way. Where are the Oscar nominations at least for Al Pacino and the cinematographer?! (10/13/2005)

I never thought I'd be disappointed with a De Palma film starring Al Pacino. The story didn't impress me much overall, I've seen the same thing many times before in better execution (thanks Scorsese). It had a decent start, but then the almost three-hour-long probe into the life of a gangster stopped entertaining me and I didn't care what happened to the main characters. Emotionally empty, there is no possibility of even a small degree of connection and everything is marred by the strange final carnage. The final impression is one of great dejection and the certainty that I won't watch it a second time, despite the great Al Pacino and his impeccable Spanish accent. (09/19/2003)

I still can’t fully understand the massive popularity of gangster movies. They force the viewer to sympathise with arrogant (and often incompetent) criminals that make their profession look like the coolest thing in the world. This is a behaviour I can’t stand in any form and that’s why these films leave me underwhelmed, and Scarface is no exception. The three star rating, however, is quite strong. The shootout in the end is awesome. (06/16/2009)

Oliver Stone and director Brian De Palma turned Howard Hawks' original, straightforward gangster film into a grand masterpiece and populated it with well-developed characters. Unfortunately, they also heavily paid the price of the time, dictated by President Jimmy Carter's anti-communist policies. Tony Montana, a refugee from Cuba under the rule of Fidel Castro, became a symbol of anti-communist resistance, impressing the people who worship the red and white stripes with white stars on a blue background. But anyone who can overlook this dated aspect from the creators will enjoy this impressively crafted "journey to the top." Stone manages to avoid the "godfather" portrayal of the characters, where we can already partially guess the transformation of the "good guys" into the "bad guys." Here, no one can ever be certain whether someone will change and, more importantly, why. The most extensive and problematic development is that of Tony Montana himself, played by Al Pacino, on whom Stone reflects the influence of the most primitive contemporary factors, such as drugs or money. Brian De Palma approached it as a stylized journey, in which even the most brutal violence is necessary (as evidenced by the chainsaw scene and the ending). So as a whole, the film feels like a grand and comprehensive fresco, yet it is capable of delving into the most intricate details. While Scarface cannot be classified as one of the possible definitions of the gangster genre, it can certainly be considered one of its pillars, which is certainly no small feat. (07/24/2005)

Thanks to Brian De Palma and the always excellent Al Pacino, the 170 minutes went by much faster than I would have expected. (10/28/2003)

Probably the biggest movie debt I've had and I'm very glad I took the time to watch it after a long time, because Scarface hasn't aged a day in 40 years. This is an excellent gangster movie that keeps you entertained, shocked, it’s suspenseful and fascinating for the entire two and a half hours. Al Pacino is excellent, but at times he got on my nerves with his behaviour, his sister is hot and so is Elvira. The action scenes have balls even today and blood is not spared. Perhaps the best part is the rise of Al Pacino from nothing to the absolute top. A great cinematic experience and actually a gem among gangster films. 95% (09/03/2018)

While I was excited during the escalating start (the scene with the chainsaw is full of tension and action), the unremarkable and gradually intensifying ending strongly began to annoy me due to De Palma's directorial style filled with static shots against a background of "roaring" music. Pacino was, of course, amazing, I believed every gesture from him from the first to the last (although I was annoyed that I couldn't really identify with his gangster character), and I probably can't help but admire him, but honestly, the other actors, including Michelle Pfeiffer, are not worth mentioning. Considering my expectations, the final feelings after watching the film are almost negative, because the famous Scarface is only a predictably solid average in terms of plot. (09/15/2006)

I saw Scarface years ago, but even though I can vividly recall many details from the distant past, I didn't dare to review this film because it didn't really stand out to me. Now I have seen it for the second time and I have to admit that, considering the high ratings from fans, it brought me great disappointment. Brian De Palma made one of my favorite gangster films, Carlito's Way, but this time the story of a Cuban criminal felt very dragged out, the main character uncharismatic, and the ending of the film is simply and plainly stupid. The whole final battle for the luxurious villa is like something from a very bad action movie. Michelle Pfeiffer is indeed beautiful, but she doesn't have much room to act, Al Pacino does his best, but this time he seems to be overacting, and most importantly, there's quite a bit of filler in the film. Perhaps the only thing that pleased me was the confrontation with the Colombian gang in the opening part. Emotionally, I felt completely indifferent about the heroes and anti-heroes. Overall impression: 45%. (11/22/2009)

De Palma's films are best seen in their original form and on the big screen because otherwise, they lose much of their power. This new Scarface should be seen mainly as the ultimate homage to Howard Hawks, James Cagney, and all the tough guys from the original world of classic Hollywood gangster films. And if we get the added opportunity to feast on Michelle Pfeiffer's bony junkie character, who built her entire career on this film and closed the door on Grease 2, I have nothing to complain about. (02/09/2010)

This film has many deaf spots where the editor’s scissors should have been involved to ruthlessly shorten it. Brian De Palma knows how to create an atmosphere, but he can't maintain the pace. A big credit goes to the actors. Al Pacino is unforgettable and practically carries the whole film on his shoulders. With his Spanish accent and sneering face, he captures attention for the entire 170 minutes. (11/28/2004)

A very, very good film, I like it very much... But I'm still not giving it 5 stars. It simply not on the level of Carlito's Way, and that's because Tony Montana is a bastard who you can't really root for. However, all those responsible for Scarface did a very good job.__P.S. Anyone who doesn't hold their breath even once during the chainsaw scene has something wrong with them. (10/31/2009)

160 minutes of unrelenting viewer's orgasm that does not fade with age, on the contrary, its cultured filmmaking spirit and genre purity emerge more and more noticeably. It might not be as psychological and multi-layered as Scorsese's top gangster films, but it’s much more nimble, visually bold and raw, without a shred of positive emotion or gratuitous calculation. An excellent script, which cannot be faulted for a single superfluous scene or dialogue, an old-fashioned style wrapped in the rich colours of a world of violence, dirty money and drugs, and the brilliant Al Pacino in his most iconic and quoted role. This is his film first and foremost, which is perhaps a bit of a criticism towards the not-so-substantial supporting characters and direction, but the effect, hand in hand with Tony's swearing, unpredictably explosive character, is flawless. A great genre film, one of the most interesting of the 80s.... (03/30/2012)

When I was lucky enough to see the original film from 1932, I must say that Oliver Stone (screenplay) and Brian De Palma (direction) did an amazing job and presented the world with a completely different film that is very intense, and right after the first encounter with Montana, you will know that Al Pacino will rule. This is an incredibly raw film that is nothing but a description of self-destruction of a man who wants everything. And I simply love it. (01/09/2014)

A remarkable portrait of a man who stopped at nothing and no one in pursuit of his goal, who didn't give much of a shit about anyone, to put it plainly, and who was ultimately destroyed by his own ego, greed, and a gnawing sense of his own exceptionality and perfection. One can even admire him for that stubbornness and "single-mindedness" (not in a completely normal way, but you develop something close to admiration, however perverse it is). Moreover, when such a portrait is created by Oliver Stone, Brian de Palma takes the directorial reins, and Al Pacino gives one of his best performances (if not his very best), the result must be worth it. The overall impression is fantastic, Scarface is an incredibly epic, raw, and gritty drama dominated by the portrayal of the main character, which even with its truly lethal length is incredibly suspenseful and never bores you for a single second. Moreover, de Palma conveys the whole story in a very evocative way – as Tony Montana gets into bigger and bigger shit and gets more and more fed up, the viewer (at least I certainly did) feels an anxiety proportionate to his gradual fall and the fact that it plainly and simply cannot turn out well. This adds a thriller dimension to the whole film, which combined with Al Pacino’s unrivalled charisma leaves you with few reasons not to root for Tony :))) (08/18/2013)

Ever since 1972, gangster movies have had just one teeny-tiny problem. There’s no way they can avoid being compared to The Godfather. It’s a shame, because otherwise I would have enjoyed Scarface even more. But that's only ifs and there’s nothing you can do about it. Coppola's work (and the entire trilogy) is better in all respects - great acting performances, technical execution, atmosphere of the time, music and, above all, story. Scarface seems really intriguing at the beginning, but over time, the story becomes dull, flat and uninteresting. Although it's not entirely boring, it's not surprising either and it never once deviates from the established track. I don't know if it's just my subjective feeling, but I think the story is very sketchy, even though the movie is 170 minutes long. Aggressive development right from the start, an empire built in no time out of practically nothing, and then, before you know it, the main character turns into a psychopath on the verge of a nervous breakdown, losing his fame. For some reason I expected exactly this kind of development, including how things end up between Tony and Manny. Anyway, the story is very predictable and easy to guess (and I’m normally rather inaccurate in my predictions). Unfortunately, a pretty much average gangster movie that I might appreciate the second time around, which I don’t think will be anytime soon. (07/22/2014)