Scarface

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. (20.09.2003)

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. (24.07.2005)

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% (03.09.2018)

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?! (14.10.2005)

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. (16.06.2009)