henrypaulmerklein As a Character, Scarface will remain timeless. His costume design and charisma makes him as memorable as the Godfather. But unlike The Godfather, Scarface feels much longer. If you are expecting a action packed gangster thriller. turn around. This film is predominately made up of Scarface going around talking about cocaine, doing cocaine, selling cocaine. So much cocaine. like a lot of cocaine. its very boring.

Dalbert Pringle No conflict here. I hate this movie.Al Pacino's Tony Montana was terrible. Pacino is a grossly over-rated actor whose career has gone on for far too long now. He really should have stuck to playing such roles as a gay-wannabe like he did in Cruising. Yeah. That's the only sort of part that I think Pacino is most suitable for.For nearly 3 hours (!) this stupid movie did nothing but bask and wallow in a gross excess and unpleasantness and then, in the end, offered no new insights, except that (get this!) "crime doesn't pay" (which isn't any sort of new news at all).If you honestly want to see an excellent production of Scarface (and some superb acting, as well), then check out the original version, starring Paul Muni, from 1932. It puts everything about this inferior, up-dated film to absolute shame.

caseyt-48511 Al Pachino is one of the worlds greatest actors. He usually plays the tough guy, but it's how he plays that guy. It's different every time and he manages to find what makes each of his classic characters unique. Aside from Michael Corleone, Tony Montana is Pachino's most memorable role. This film follows the classic story of the rise of and of an American gangster in the same vain as The Public Enemy, Little Ceaser and GoodFellas. Montana's success is the American Dream gone wrong. Throughout the whole movie we as the viewer want Montana to succeed and fail. He's an awful person but he has his moments of heroism that make us still care about him. Director Brian De Palma and writer Oliver Stone made a film that broke down barriers and was not afraid to take risks. Pachino and the rest of the cast provide some classic moments and amazing Performances. Scarface is one of the most violent movies ever made and shouldn't be watched by the squeamish. But if you can handle the blood and guts, Scarface will leave you breathless my little friend.

Nobody-27 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.