Simply Perfect

Fresh and Exciting

Best movie ever!

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

"Scarface" has a major cult following even now, 22 years after its release.It has also been widely criticized as being very tacky, unrefined, over-the-top and all bloated up! These are people who compare Scarface to The Godfather movies. It is true that on the technical front, (cinematography, screenplay, direction, etc.) Scarface is way behind 'The Godfather'.But it is also true, that what Scarface has and some other gangster movies lack, is the rawness, the sheer crude approach of the gangsters. The Latino gangsters in this movie look much more menacing and real than any of the polished Italian or Irish gangsters from other gangster classics like 'The Godfather' or 'Goodfellas'. This is one of the major winning points of Scarface and I strongly believe that this fact has been written off as "tackiness" by most critics! I have seen the original 1932 Scarface, and I must say that both these movies are way too different from each other and should be seen as two different movies instead of praising the original over the "remake"! Al Pacino has been criticized to be over-the-top and loud in this movie. But how about considering that that is precisely the way the film-makers wanted Tony Montana's character to be! He is this angry young man who takes hasty decisions and throws fits of tantrum every other minute! He is not the calm Michael Corleone here. He is Tony Montana, a very tacky, uneducated individual who doesn't really think much and gets angry all the time!There is definitely a very 80s feel to this movie. The soundtrack is all 80s! I love some of the songs, including 'Gina and Elvira's theme', 'Push it to the limit' and the title track instrumental.There are some memorable and beautifully shot sequences, including the famous chainsaw scene, the Rebenga hit, the first meeting with Sosa and Tony's visit to his mother's.About the performances: Al Pacino is brilliant as the angry Cuban refugee. He has reportedly mentioned that he enjoyed playing Tony Montana the most in his entire career. And it really does seem like he has enjoyed himself thoroughly in all his scenes! One wonders what "Scarface" would be like without Pacino. I just couldn't imagine anyone else portraying Tony Montana and in all probabilities, the film wouldn't be as effective without him!Steven Bauer shines as Tony's friend Manny.Robert Loggia is wonderful as Tony's boss, Lopez. So is F. Murray Abraham (as Omar) in a small role.Then there is some eye-candy in the form of Elvira played by Michelle Pfeiffer. She looks beautiful and is adequate in her role.The director does go a bit overboard during a particular part in the climax. Without revealing anything, I would only say that that was the only little part that suffers due to improper handling."Scarface" is definitely one of the most entertaining and one of the best gangster movies to ever come out. Enjoy it for what it is: a raw portrayal of the Drug Lords and their gangland!

This movie is just amazing and I could watch it over and over again. I never get sick if this movie. say hello to my little friend. I just love that part.

A bloody and violent rags to riches story about a Cuban immigrant and how it all ends. Pacino was the perfect choice to play Tony Montana, nobody swears like him! Even though he is clearly a bad man, he still has his own sense of honor and is likeable. It's easy to wish for him to succeed.. Soundtrack has kind of become part of the pop culture!

I saw Scarface when it first came out, and then again some 35 years later. Through all those years only few images from that film stayed with me - mostly how gorgeous Michelle Pfeiffer was/is. This did not compare favorably to other great films which I remember to great detail, and upon watching it again recently, I found out why. First of all, the main character, well portrayed by Al Pacino is far from an interesting of likeable character. His love of violence, dirty money and drugs may be attractive to some, but even when I was much younger, I found him entirely forgettable. There was not much reason to root for him, or even feel for him. "A dumb, violent newcomer with (almost) no morals gets in trouble? Let's see what's on other channels..." Then there is the story which is entirely predictable. What can happen to a violent criminal other than violence? And that's what happens. Unless you like watching violence in all it's bloody glory, you don't get anything from watching this film. And then the story itself, or whatever story there is, is painfully long - overstretched to saga proportions to give it some weight. In the end, between all the "f" bombs, low-brow action and dialogues, and characters destined for self-destruction, I fail to see where the attraction that this film enjoys comes from. In a way, I think the audiences have been had by their own penchant for cheap thrills. Shock value? Sure. Blood and foul language? Galore. But artistic merit or inspirited storytelling with strong characters? Not even close. This is one of those films that managed to garner praise despite it's lack of quality on all fronts, except for decent acting. Oh, and don't get me started on terrible music score... it only made the film age terribly, although it's age shows even without the score. As I was watching it, I could not help but think of much older films which managed to stay fresh, films such as "M" by Fritz Lang or "Rififi" by Jules Dassin. Heck, even lighter fare such as "Pehlam 123" holds much better over time than this overrated, pretentious piece of sub-par, cheap "entertainment", for lack of better word. All in all, a forced three star. I had to watch something afterwards just to detox from the bad experience that left me wondering why did I even waste my time on it in the first place, when even on the first viewing in the theater, back in the 80's, I was not terribly impressed.