Witch Scarface is better and...
hey is scarface (1932 version) better than the 1983 one? where can i get this movie so i can finally see it?
shareYou can get it at Amazon, no?
share
MovieChat Forums > Scarface (1932) Discussion > Witch Scarface is better and...
The new Scarface gift set includes the 1983 Scarface DVD and the 1932 Scarface DVD.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Such hostility. The new scarface owns the original. Yes, blood and all.
shareThe old scarface at least didnt bore me with side plots to make the movie longer, the original was a much smarter thought out movie, sure 1983 had alot of blood but if you want to watch more blood go watch japanese slicer movies, thats all it is.
sharePapps is like that guy. Never watches and hates the oldies. A shame, really.
Been draggin' my heels with a b*tch called hope
let the undercurrent drag me along
-AXL
[deleted]
Much like John Carpenter's "The Thing" and Howard Hawks's (again!) earlier adaptation of John Campbell's story, both Scarfaces are excellent films which should not be pitted against each other but rather treated like two different gems... say, a sapphire placed next to a ruby. One would not try to decide which one is shinier, but would rather admire both of them.
[deleted]
They're both amazing. I love these two movies, keep in mind they're set in different eras (1930's and 1980's) and different characters. Still, like kahkahroach said, You cannot simply compare them! They're both masterpieces.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
A british gangster? hahahahahahaha. peace one
Word, the kid got a thing for big curves
might find him down on Sesame Street with big birds
Yes. I agree too. Both Scarface movies are great. The more you watch them the more you find similarities. I could go on and on how the scripts are the same. I just give a few examples. After Tony Montana meets Frank he is talking to his friend Manny and he says, "That guy's soft." The conversation is very similar to Tony Camontes conversation with his friend Rinaldo after he meets Johnny. Tony finds out how his boss tried to kill him the same in both movies. Johnny Lovo and Frank are also killed the same way. Other than those all you have to do is watch these movies and every time you see them you'll keep finding similarities. While I was watching the 1980's Scarface I kept saying to my friends, "They said the same thing in the original."
Both of these movies are great. You can't have one without the other.
Beautifully put Vassago.
shareno, there isn't any cursing or blood seeing as how censors would never allow such things back in the 30s, and this film is better for it. The remake was alright, but hearing the f word every 3 seconds and seeing gallons of blood, doesn't make it a better movie.
Also, De Palma is not and never has been an original director. The guy thinks he's Alfred Hitchcock. Just watch any of his other movies. There are so many things in the remake that are the exact same as they are in this movie, including most of the dialogue. Conclusion, the remake makes for some good friday night entertainment, but the original one is a true classic.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Although I do like your list, I'd have to say that Mad Max was better than Road Warrior, and that the Godfather was better than the Godfather part 2. Don't get me wrong, part 2 was better than most other movies, I just like the original better.
shareAliens was not better than Alien. That's a completely personal thing, and I'd say the original was better than the second one. Alien was more of a horror movie while Aliens was an action movie anyway.
share[deleted]
the only thing Scarface (1932) and Scarface (1983) has in common is the title.
share[deleted]
Let me put it this way: DePalma's version ended with a dedication to Howard Hawks and Ben Hecht, the director and writer, respectively, of the original. It should have been an apology. I prefer the original WAY more: it's shorter, better acted and seems to flow. Not to mention that Paul Muni's Antonio Carmonte didn't go over the top like Al Pacino's Tony Montana. Also, Carmonte's sister was a victim of circumstances while Montana's sister really was a slut. But, then again, who brings the most shame on the Montana family: the drug dealer or the bimbo? I was captivated by the '32 version, I nearly went to sleep during the '84 one.
s to the left of me.
s to the right.
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you!
[deleted]
Just because De Palma isn't original doesn't mean he isn't good. Just look at Carrie, that movie was one of the best Stephen King adaptations ever.
"The values I should in high regard don't mean a thing to me"
-Sonata Arctica, "Misplaced"
I have not seen the original Scarface, but to say that Pacino's Scarface is not a classic is a completely false statement. The movie explores the cocaine world so thoroughly and completely, it could not be considered anything but a classic. Tony Montana is one of the most over-the-top, volatile, and flat-out fun characters ever to grace the big screen. I am a huge fan of the classic gangster movies like Little Caesar and The Public Enemy, so I'm sure I would like the original version better, but the '83 Scarface will always be on my favorites list.
share[deleted]
I just saw the original Scarface the other night and I loved it. Hawks told a good, exciting story, and I found that even though it didn't have the immense slam-bang action and violence (i.e. chainsaw scene) of the original, it was able to be shocking with the implied, continuous violence (i.e. when Camonte rides around shooting, derailing cars, etc). But the big thing for me was the lead performance. De Palma did a very good job as director, Stone wrote a decent enough script, but for me Scarface is one of Pacino's most over-rated performances. The accent is an extremely exagerrated Cuban (I've talked to a few Cubans in my time and they said that it's way off and even ridiculous), and he goes over-the-top in his usual bravura that just doesn't work for me. It wasn't necessarily a bad performance, but it wasn't a good one either. Muni, on the other hand, was terrific in the film, making a definite line to his brutality and code, and not going over-the-top. For me, this was the deciding issue. The original Scarface is likely to be in my top 100 films list, but the remake, not so.
shareI've never seen the original 1930's scarface but i've seen the 1983 remake and i thought i was one of the best movies i've ever seen but in my opinion some parts were exagerated like what filmjack3 said al pacino's accent is over exagerated because i'm cuban and my accent isn't like that no one in my family's accent is like that and not even my family friends accent is like dont but dont take it the wrong way i'm not trying to be mean or anything because i thought he had a cool accent just not a cuban one besides that i thought the movie was pretty cool i just wish manny didn't have to die becuase i though manny and tony made a good team. P.S. sorry if i spelled anything wrong
shareBoth versions are great...
Look, all Cubans don't speak in the same manner. There is no right or wrong way to carry an accent. And somebody tell me, how was Gina Montana a slut?
because of there are 50 years between the films, i have to consider scarface 1932 a real masterwork. i have seen the pacino version first and i was shocked that the classic had everything that the 80s scarface made so fantastic (except the soundtrack and the better known scenery). Our grandfathers knew something about film making.
shareDe Palma's 1983 version of Scarface is a good film, though I believe Howard Hawk's 1932 version to be the best. I see the 1983 Scarface as the 1932 version with plastic surgery; The violence is increased, the dialogue simplified, and Al Pacino is cast as Tony Montana.
shareI prefer the original WAY more: it's shorter, better acted and seems to flow.
Are you serious? Some of the acting in the original is rather piss-poor. Karen Morley's performance was craptastic, and the managing editor's acting was awful, but at least he was barely in the movie. And, the original would have been more violent if not for the censors. The remake has a better, more developed story, superior dialogue, and the original threw in some stupid comdey. IMO, the remake is better and more entertaining. share
"And somebody tell me, how was Gina Montana a slut?" umm... she was locked in a mans bathroom stall snorting coke with some guy... thats a little trampy...lol
My dad was born in cuba and he kinda talks like that, although Al is a little exagerated.
"You are like a child, you don't see the knives people hide."
The 1983 version is fairly memorable and entertaining at times, but the idea of it being one of the greatest movies ever made is ridiculous. The 1932 version is infinitely better.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Bono, you're my hero! I have often been made to feel like I'm less of a man for not liking the '84 version. This is just one of those moments when I feel that less is much more.
s to the left of me.
s to the right.
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you!
[deleted]
I'd rather just pretend that the remake never existed. However, now I'm seeing all of these people in SCARFACE clothing. Apparently, it is now a licensed fashion line. If I see one more t-shirt or something that says "Say 'hello' to my lil friend!" on it. . .
s to the left of me.
s to the right.
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you!
Well I want to pick apart why you think the original is better and just insert my opinion. Remember, NO ONE IS WRONG HERE. It's just opinion.
1.) The remake is waaaay too long. Believe me, I have no problem with movies this long, as long as they're not stuck in neutral. "The Godfather" is longer than 170 minutes. The DVD version of "Seven Samurai" is a full half hour longer.
(1) Yeah I can see your point here. The remake is a little longer than necessary. But I wasn't THAT bored during any part.
2.) Al Pacino is a great actor, but his performance as Tony Montana is so far over-the-top as to be unbelievable.
(2) Here I can't really say about the remake (It's either realistic as some are like that, or just hokey. You have to ask Pacino) but I have a lot to say about the original. I thought the original was done MUCH MUCH worse than how any Tony could have been done. He was WAY over the top, and extremely fake. HE was the charicture here. It seems like the actor was trying WAY to hard to be a gangster, which they didn't know how one acted.
3.) The original "Scarface" is directed with a skillful hand by one of the greatest storytellers in filmmaking history, Howard Hawks
(3) I didn't see anything special about how it was directed at all. Just looked like another action movie to me. With technical flaws thanks to the shoddy cameras back then. The remake is fine, nothing special, but the higher quality makes it an easier watch. Brian also didn't have to worry about censors. I am not huge on violence, but it was the direction the original Scarface was taking too. They just couldn't show it. And no "look away" shot isn't always better.
4.) This has been mentioned elsewhere, so I won't beat it to death, but the soundtrack for the remake is painfully dated
(4) It could be just me here, but I LOVE the music in the remake. I think it is excellent and shows an actual range of the movie to me. I mean, in the 80's it was a Gangster movie, now in the 00's it's a Period gangster movie. It gives it a really rich feel to me. The original has the same thing. Except I don't really like 30's jazzy music so it loses points there. Like the dance scene came off just so much worse than the remake for me.
5.) I generally enjoy Oliver Stone's work, but was it really necessary to include the f-word so many thousands of times in the screenplay?
(5) It was a little excessive to me too, but at least they talked a little more realistically. I am sure it wasn't spot on, but the original was just so hokey that it's almost comical. Also the original had to watch for censors too, so they lost some of their point.
So all in all I think the remake is superior, but it is NOT a masterpiece.
Me and my Spider: http://www.wcsscience.com/biggest/image2.JPG
[deleted]