Which do you all think is better, 1932, or 1983? Why?
If your wondering, yes I do have this thread also in the 1983 version scarface forums too.
EDIT- DECEMBER 15, 2007 Glad to see the thread still alive after over 2 full years... thanks for all the replys
9/10 the original is invariably the better film - (a) it was the first visualization and gets to WOW you (b) less effects equals greater effort in acting and/or plot (c) if it wasn't good, then why remake it.
A few exceptions but this one - especially in context with the time it was made - is very good.
I have seen the original 4 or 5 times and the remake only once.
Scarface (1932) is a masterpiece and of course far better. It is probably the best film of the year. It's very daring, fast and talky in a time where most films (e.g. Blue Angel, M) looked like a mixture of silent and sound movies.
Also, think what it would have been without the censorship pressure.
Two very different films (yeah, a story isn't what make a film), I love both of em a lot for their own merits (different but great cinematography, Paul Muni and Al Pacino are different characters but great ones). But I might say that I prefer the original, I like old-time gangsters and expressionism.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
There's definatly more similarities than that. Firstly, they're both based, or loosely based, on Al Capone. The '83 version is about cocaine which is probably the modern version of achohol in the 30s. Theres also plenty other things pointing to it as a remake.
share[deleted]
I don't hate on the 1983 version like some people do, I enjoy the film for being good entertainment.
Spoilers
If I had to say which one was better though, I like the 1932 version. Alot of the great/better scenes on the remake, ie. "the world is yours" scene, the lovo/tony scene, I just found more enjoyable in the original. I liked Cesca better than Gina and the scene with Cesca and Guino expressing their love right before Tony offs Guino felt alot more sad and overall worked better for me. It didn't come off as some random pairing like the 1983 version.
I will say that the 1983 version has the great "say g'nite to the badguy" scene and Montana's last stand as being parts that I liked better than the original.
1932 by far. I also don't hate the 83 version but the original is superior. When looking in context, this was early sound at its best! I don't think the genre has peaked since the early 30s talking in a technical sense.
shareWell I think the choice is pretty obvious here, the original was what it was. It was original, its stood the test of time and provided a plot that influenced nearly every gangster picture afterwards. The remake was fun, it was genuinely entertaining, but just as DePalma cannot stand up to Hawks, neither can his film. It was much too long and hasn't aged nearly as well, while one will remain timeless, the other will continue to age and eventually become a joke to the next generation.
Not to say I disliked the original, on the contrary I quite liked it, I just honestly cannot call it a film on the same level as the original.
Last film seen: Scarface, the Shame of the Nation 8/10
Just saw it the other night, and I loved it. I did happen to see the 1983 film first, and I wish fans of the remake would go back and see how it all began. I give the edge to the original film for its innovation and the fact that its leaner than the remake (a lil over 90 minutes). Both great films though.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Whys that dannmean1? suprised to see me on the same thread 2 years later? =P
share>>>>Whys that dannmean1? Surprised to see me on the same thread 2 years later? =P<<<<
Jeremy Bennett2005.
I don't quite understand your last post.
Do I know you?
Or do you know me?
Dan
1983 my preference.
shareI meant, why do you like that one better? No we do not know each other, I just meant, is it suprising that I'de still be on the same thread 2 years later?
oh lol. i like it better cuz i think they improved it...tremendously. its not corny or old hollywood gangsta (which isn't bad....its just fake to me). i thought 1983's was FAR more engrossing, passionate, violent, funny, sad, thrilling, you name it! plus it has Al Pacino, Paul Shenar, Robert Loggia, Mark Margolis, Michelle Pfeiffer and the rest of the awesome cast.
share[deleted]
Al Pacino hasn't gone anywhere Paul Muni hasn't already been.
The 1932 Scarface was a groundbreaking film. It was considered very violent for the time period and Howard Hawks and Howard Hughes were lucky that they got away with some of the stuff they did put in the finished film.
"Al Pacino, Paul Shenar, Robert Loggia, Mark Margolis, Michelle Pfeiffer"
Well of course the cast of the more RECENT film would be better known.
BTW, in case you haven't figured out yet, my vote goes to the 1932 film.
1983.The original is just another gangster movie like Public enemy or Angels with dirty faces but Scarface is unique because of DePalma's directing style and Al Pacino's acting.Plus it's so 1980's Miami you can love it only for that.
And everyone who thinks the violence in this was groundbreaking or excessive should watch the end of a film called Beast of a city.....
Al pacinos version is King ;) Just like Chris Reeve as Superman or Sean Connery as James Bond. ;)
shareBoth Public Enemy and Angels with Dirty Faces are more than unique enough. And as I mentioned, my biggest fault with '83 Scarface is precisely the lack of De Palma.
Beast of the City is also better than De Palma's film.
Great acting, great storyline, great cinematography, the symbolism, everything in this film is superb. Of course, I love old movies. The only reason this movie was after Little Caesar and Public Enemy was due to the fact that Hughes was fighting the censors of the time. If he had not had to fight to get this film released, it would have been first (of that era). It has more to offer than the other two and I am a huge fan of those, as well.
(There were silent gangster films, too.)
Credo ergo sum