Scarface

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. (15/09/2006)

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)

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. (28/11/2004)

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)

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)