VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Pluskylang Great Film overall

ShangLuda Admirable film.

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

arjunflamingfeather Unexpected contact to the film 'Scarface' brought reviewing movies to deeper research about attempting to succeed in a mission to view 'Al Pacino' films. The movie did strike a resemblance to 'Al' but his last name gives him credit to view his film and because of that the miser in us is not going to be a coward. Activity to shoot such a picture with ingredients like 'drugs' or 'chessboard' from the poster shows that the knowledge we have of cinema needs another alter ego to persevere. The self did not succeed to bring a revenue singularly; did with sight and through sound of guns and visualization of events that can lead to catastrophe or millions of dollars. 'Scarface' a movie that shocks; stuns a loaded gun to be prepared for the legal battles to control the usage of a substance that is yet allowed in 'Coca Cola' syrups. Man's historical evidence shows that ate and sniffed curiously every metal and tried to turn it into gold like an 'alchemist' but did he put 'cocain' leaves into his mouth; he has. Proof that man has always been a 'rogue' or sexually active; like in the temple art works found with nudity and sexual acts being depicted. Drugs with 'Al' is the creations that were concocted but did they render the actor to be considered a movie icon like in 'Serpico'.

Amin Gulamali I enjoy watching classic movies. In a movie market saturated with superhero films fueled to success with CGI effects, the classics often are refreshing with unique plots and fascinating characters. Scarface though, is a highly overrated movie and should not be considered a "classic." Scarface lacks character depth, an interesting storyline, and good acting. Gangster life is hard to relate to. Money laundering, prostitution rings, drug dealing, and hit jobs are far from the daily experiences of working a 9-5 and maintaining a social life. However, viewers can relate to characters like Michael Corleone in the Godfather through the dilemmas he faces balancing personal ambition with family politics. We are captivated by the Goodfellas Tommy DeVito who quickly transitions from being playful to murderous. Characters in Scarface are not interesting or relatable because they lack depth. Tony Montana is a predictable overly masculine character. He is willing to run through anyone, anything, or any rules to get what he desire, but predictably like most brutish characters, his nature destroys everything he obtains. Most of the other characters are defined in relation to Tony Montana and lacks interesting traits of motivation. The plot of Scarface is way too simplistic. Montana arrives in Miami and quickly rises to power and then quickly loses it all. This could work with interesting characters in a surrealist genre, but in a movie that frames itself as somewhat historical at the beginning the unrealistic plot (coupled with the laughable accent acting) doesn't work. The acting is also subpar. Don't get me wrong, Al Pacino is one of the great actors, but the role of Tony Montana is not great him. Most '80s Cuban refugees in Miami spoke Spanish especially with other spanish speakers; Cuban accent most characters have to make the movie more realistic and replace Spanish is badly acted and makes the characters too cartoonish. I think this movie receives more credit than it deserves from viewers who drool over gore and are glued to its icon names (Scarface, Tony Montana, Al Pacino, Michelle Pfeiffer, Oliver Stone, and Giorgio Moroder). Sure, some of the violent scenes are thrilling and interesting especially the finale with the memorable "Say hello to my little friend!" quote, but this just not justify high praise.

judemom The performance's are great it's well filmed good action a fine ending but the script is awful about 30 percent of the dialogue is good but the rest is terrible i know that a lot of people like this film but i just don't really see anything to like about it and for the first 30 minutes i can't even tell what al pacino is even saying he just mumbles the movie is also way to long the movie is overrated in my opinion but yeah this film is just not for me sorry.

Nobody-27 I saw Scarface when it first came out, and then again some 35 years later. Through all those years only few images from that film stayed with me - mostly how gorgeous Michelle Pfeiffer was/is. This did not compare favorably to other great films which I remember to great detail, and upon watching it again recently, I found out why. First of all, the main character, well portrayed by Al Pacino is far from an interesting of likeable character. His love of violence, dirty money and drugs may be attractive to some, but even when I was much younger, I found him entirely forgettable. There was not much reason to root for him, or even feel for him. "A dumb, violent newcomer with (almost) no morals gets in trouble? Let's see what's on other channels..." Then there is the story which is entirely predictable. What can happen to a violent criminal other than violence? And that's what happens. Unless you like watching violence in all it's bloody glory, you don't get anything from watching this film. And then the story itself, or whatever story there is, is painfully long - overstretched to saga proportions to give it some weight. In the end, between all the "f" bombs, low-brow action and dialogues, and characters destined for self-destruction, I fail to see where the attraction that this film enjoys comes from. In a way, I think the audiences have been had by their own penchant for cheap thrills. Shock value? Sure. Blood and foul language? Galore. But artistic merit or inspirited storytelling with strong characters? Not even close. This is one of those films that managed to garner praise despite it's lack of quality on all fronts, except for decent acting. Oh, and don't get me started on terrible music score... it only made the film age terribly, although it's age shows even without the score. As I was watching it, I could not help but think of much older films which managed to stay fresh, films such as "M" by Fritz Lang or "Rififi" by Jules Dassin. Heck, even lighter fare such as "Pehlam 123" holds much better over time than this overrated, pretentious piece of sub-par, cheap "entertainment", for lack of better word. All in all, a forced three star. I had to watch something afterwards just to detox from the bad experience that left me wondering why did I even waste my time on it in the first place, when even on the first viewing in the theater, back in the 80's, I was not terribly impressed.