I prefer watching older films than newer ones. For some, old movies may be somewhat boring but I usually find them interesting. I remember when I was in college, I sat through 4hours of Cleopatra starring Elizabeth Taylor and I was hooked till the end. But that doesn't happen nowadays. I find those films very beautiful but I don't get dazed or transfixed anymore. Perhaps I lack the necessary patience or interest but I still enjoy watching a good ol' film now and then. Scarface (1983) isn't a very old movie but is considered a great crime-drama film. Let's take a look. The post may contain some spoilers.
Directed by Brian De Palma, Scarface (1983) is a remake of the 1932 film of the same name. There are quite a few differences between the two and even though the 1983 version is a remake, it is made to suit the era it depicted. The film tells us the story of a Cuban refugee who tries to make it big in Miami. With Al Pacino as the lead actor and Michelle Pfeiffer and Robert Loggia alongside him, the film packs quite a good bunch of actors. As much as I appreciate the great casting, it is a whopping 2hr 53mins long. I did feel as if it was just stretched too long - plus some of the characters' roles were so short that it almost seemed unnecessary.
Although, according to many reviews, Tony Montana is one of Al Pacino's greatest performances, I didn't see it that way. I believe I have watched better performances in other films than this. He still portrayed the same flare, drive, and passion but some was lacking. The character Montana came to Miami and unlike any other immigrants who were struggling to make a living, he wanted to be rich and powerful in a jiffy. Montana wanted a flashy lavish lifestyle and also had his eyes set on the wife of the man he worked for. He had the knowledge and wits to make it as a boss of the underworld but he never thought of the repercussions. He always had to look over his shoulder; made a lot of partners and enemies alike but he forgot that partners can turn into enemies when he'd no longer serve his purposes or create more trouble than they bargained for. His drug addiction had also sent him over the edge and he could barely keep functioning. So, even his wits and superb hustling skills weren't enough to make it in the underworld. As quickly as he climbed those ladders, he went down in flames even quicker.
The plot of the film is great but the film was too long-drawn that I was losing my interest and even at times skipped a few minutes. It portrayed a detailed picture of the underworld and how it operates. But my overall experience was not satisfactory. As I had said before, some of the characters were so short or barely visible that they almost felt unnecessary - for example, Gina. Also, I have this notion that remake of a film is never a good idea and perhaps this concept also clouded my judgment. I have the urge to see the 1932 film and maybe I'll enjoy it more.
Posted using CineTV
