Montana or Camonte

The DVD that I have of the 1932 film has the original ending of Tony running down the stairs in a rampage, getting shot and falling over a rail, after which we see the "The world is yours" sign, although it wasn't nearly as effective as the climax to the 1983 version. The ending where he gives up was put as an extra and introduced by some film historian (I think Leonard Maltin). Anyway, since this is the board of the 1932 Scarface, it's no surprise that most posters say they prefer Camonte to Montana. I, however, like the latter more. What mjr1114 wrote is true - the first Tony didn't need to intoxicate himself with substaces to get his courage - he was like a monster at times, which makes him way more stereotypical, exaggerated and less realistic than the second Tony which is why I prefer Pacino's character. Of couse the original Scarface is a fundamental and grounbreaking classic, but that doesn't necessarily make it better than many of its successors. I think the new Scarface holds up better today because it certainly has a grander and more swift sweep than the old one and the chracters, motivations, dilemmas, etc. are more fleshed out. Of course, most of that is due to the enomous advancement in technical qulaity in the 51 years that separate the two movies. Last, but not least, you can see tons of 30's gangster movies in the same tone and with the same atmosphere as Hawks' Scarface, yet very few, if any, have recaptured the twisted glory of De Palma's gory cult Scarface. What I basically mean is that that there are plenty of just as good or better movies than Hughes' Scarface from the marvelous Golden Age of Hollywood, but very few modern movies are as great as the 1983 Scarfce, which I consider to be modern cinema-wise, despite being filled with 80's fashion.

I'm here, Mr. Man, I can not tell no lie and I'll be right here 'till the day I die