Witch Scarface is better and... - Scarface (1932) Discussion

[–] vesa_karppinen-1 18 years ago

In my opinion Hawks' Scarface and DePalma's Scarface have nothing in common apart from sharing the title and few very minor details. I love both films but I don't consider the 1983 to be a remake of 1932 film.

reply

[–] Tresix 18 years ago

How could you not see it as a remake? The only changes are the main character being Cuban instead of Italian and he sells drugs instead of illegal liquor. As with the original we have (1) a young man and his best friend brought into a life of crime by an older man; (2) the young man is obsessed with his sister; (3)he becomes so powerful that his criminal mentor tries to bump him off; (4) the young man really hates the man in his sister's life so much he kills him (although the sister in the remake really is a slut); (5) ends with a big shootout. "Nothing in common"? Check again.

s to the left of me.
s to the right.
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you!

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Tresix 18 years ago

The original is a fictional account of the events in the life and criminal career of Al Capone (the main character's name is "Al Carmonte", the same initials). Only they have Carmonte getting killed while the real Capone was still going strong at the time of the film's release.

s to the left of me.
s to the right.
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you!

reply

[–] whatwhere78 18 years ago

I LOVE Pacino, don't get me wrong, but Paul Muni's performance if FAR superior!

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] derirre357 18 years ago

To me the original is nothing special. It was nice catching the similarities between the two, but really - the acting from these movies is just so unnatural and over the top, that it makes Pacino's performance look low-key. Not to mention Tony Camonte's death - like a wounded duck. It wasn't bad, but saying it's better than the 83 version is like saying a 1932 Ford is better than a 1983 Ford. Scarface 1983 is a lot better.

reply

[–] meinhardjensen 18 years ago

The new one is for kids and people who don't understand movies. The old one is a good movie and should only be enjoyed by movie fans.

reply

[–] derirre357 18 years ago

Are You serious - the plot is 90 % the same, so is the moral of the story, the only difference is how it is executed and You can't convince me that a 1932 movie is better executed than an 1983 movie... whether directed by Howard Hawks and produced by Howard Hughes or not...

reply

[–] wallizada1 18 years ago

If you like movies such as Miami Vice (2006) or games like Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (2002) Than the '83 version is for you.

-Now thats some evil sh*t!

reply

[–] mjr1114 12 years ago

The fact that someone would make the assumption that a more modern would automatically prove that it is a better executed film than an older movie just shows a lack of logic. The proof has been in many failed remakes of older films.
The original version was extremely well executed. DePalma 'borrowed' greatly from the original. The glaring difference, more gore and cursing. Same story overall, different setting. The original was tighter, all around. Ben Hecht was one of the greatest screen writers ever.

Credo ergo sum

reply

[–] Trouter2000 18 years ago

Yes it is far far better then the 1983 version. I mean to start with you have Howard Hawks, one of the greatest American directors of all time directing the original, while in the remake you have the pretty average Brian DePalma. In the original you have marvelous black and white, with just a regular amount of violence. In the remake you have to deal with color, and gratuitous amounts of bloodshed.

i liked the remake, but it is in no way even on the same level of the remake.

reply

[–] c-corleis 18 years ago

I like the 1932 more... it was set (and filmed) in the era of Al Capone. The modern is well made, but it is... too modern for me. The original had the Tommy-Gun instead of a M16 with Grenade-launcher... and i like the good old fashioned Tommy-Gun much more! ;-)

"What happened mother? Why did we all run?"
"Man... was in the forest."

reply

[–] whiteb766 12 years ago

As a semi-literate film watcher, I had always wondered where a movie so bad as Al Pacino's Scarface had been conceived. I will be trying to find the original to see how horribly Pacino has butchered the ambitious would-be crime boss role. I am convinced that actors as bad as Pacino, Jack Black and Madonna have somehow ingratiated themselves to the denizens of The Bohemian Grove and sold their souls.

reply

[–] alexmoviefreak 12 years ago

both are great, I really love and appreaciate both but the first one with Paul Muni is a bit better.
But I love the Giorgio Moroder Soundtrack of the 83' version too and Al Pacino is just perfect!

Both are masterpieces and both are worth to watch!!

reply

[–] mattie0218-1 12 years ago

WHICH Scarface is better and...

reply