MovieChat Forums > Scarface (1932) Discussion > the remake is obviously 'better'...

the remake is obviously 'better'...


Come on people! While I enjoyed the 1932 original, I do not see how anyone can possibly judge it as a better film than the remake. The 1983 version is much more absorbing; there is much more development and depth to the characters; the physical violence doesn't look ridiculously fake (those 1932 punches and slaps...LOL); the acting is much more professional (Muni was good but some of the other performances were pretty awful by modern standards)

The original may have been ground-breaking for its time, but it is clearly inferior by today's standards. However, it is fascinating to watch as a period piece.

reply

Completely agree. This is one of those rare times when I prefer the remake more then the original. Tony's downfall just happens too fast and it doesn't feel so emotional, especially when he kills Rinaldo. I'm not saying it's a bad movie, it's worth seeing if you like these old gangster films.

By the way, does anybody know what's the body count for this movie?

reply

Agree. Al-Pacino did great job being Tony Montana. Scarface 1932 is a good base for Gangster movies.

reply

The remake was horrible. I caught the original 1932 version on the late late movie one night and couldn't stop watching it. Maybe I'm a bit unusual in the fact that I can watch a film in the context of the time it was filmed in. And for the time, it pushed as far as it could. People really should try to watch a bunch of the 'pre-code' films if they can find them. But the remake was so horrible that after 20 minutes of it I completely hated it. I couldn't stomach watching another minute of it so I stopped and never watched the rest.

reply

Funny thing is that the original is almost forgotten and the remake is part of the American popular culture...

-------------------------------- Movie critics are mostly crazy!

reply

Both films are part of "American popular culture". One is just more popular with, and more accessible to, contemporary audiences.

Both were successful, targeted mainstream audiences, and were subsequently influential upon American cinema. Scarface (1932) clearly influenced Scarface (1983) after all...

reply

Funny thing is that the original is almost forgotten and the remake is part of the American popular culture...


What? Scarface (1932) is part of the National Film Preservation board, the remake is not!
You know, "preservation", to keep preserved. It's definitely not forgotten.

reply

not forgotten by filmhistorians
but normal people of today havent seen it.
just film enthusiasts and really old people.

it is forgotten, like nearly all black and white films are.
go and ask someone who is 25 if he/she has seen this film
or: if they have the intention to see it

reply

The remake doesn't really kick into gear until the 40 minute mark, so you're not giving it the proper chance here. How can you judge a very long movie after the first 20 minutes. The first 20 mins of Pacinos Scarface is just him coming to America and doing that first little job, a first taste of real crime, give it a chance, you won't be disappointed.

The original is excellent also, no doubt, and there are some scenes that are almost copied directly from the original in the remake, and work amazingly.

20 minutes, lol, come on man. The movie barely starts by then. What is it, the accents bother you? The setting? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and frankly, I think you're trolling.

"You were assimilated, resistance was futile!"

reply

there is much more development and depth to the characters
You say development/depth; I'd say bloatedness. Listen, I'm a De Palma fan. As a teen, I went through the "Scarface is my favorite movie" phase as everyone does. But growing older, I don't think the movie holds up. Pauline Kael was right in calling it "a De Palma movie for people who don't like De Palma movies". Watching it, the lack of personal attachment is glaringly obvious. Stone's sledge-hammer, verbiose literal style of writing clashes badly with De Palma's purely visual style of filmmaking (a similar thing happens with Michael Cimino and the Stone scripted Year of the Dragon, although its final results are much more remarkable than Scarface). And those two unresolved elements - a lack of personal commitment/love of visual style - leaves the film somewhat garish, almost complicit in the excess and shallowness that its supposedly criticizing.

Hawks film, on the other hand, may not be as prestigious/self-important (depending on how you look on it) on first glance, but its succinctness and pulpy lack of pretensions is exactly what makes it the better film on repeated viewings. It's just a no-nonsense, white-knuckle film, shot like a tabloid headline come to life...
Tony's downfall just happens too fast and it doesn't feel so emotional
...An element like this works to its advantage. Its not just his downfall; the film covers all the territory of De Palma's but does it in half the time, at break-neck speed, and furthermore, manages to pull it off. It moves as quickly and furiously as the moments of violence that drives it. Paul Muni and Al Pacino both chew the scenery, but only Muni seems like he's suppose to. Pacino's performance, on the other hand, was the end of his brilliant 70s run as a subtle, understated actor, and the first signs of him becoming the ham that he is today.

I think it was Robin Wood who remarked that it was interesting how De Palma so often borrowed from filmmakers like Hitchcock, Antonioni and Godard in his "original" works, but when it came to do an actual remake, he borrowed almost nothing of Hawks' style. And its too bad: Hawks sense of pulp and "fun" could have really helped enliven his film. The Untouchable comes closer to capturing that sense of white-knuckle sensationalism. Carlito's Way seems to have a lot more personal depth to it (plus a better Pacino performance). His Scarface, while not without its merit, doesn't really hold together. Give me Blow-Out or Body Double any day. And especially give me Hawks version.
but it is clearly inferior by today's standards
What standards? American film-making is arguably in as worse a state as its ever been today. One of its problem being the refusal to accept alternate styles of filmmaking. Thats what Hawks film has: a style, no more or less correct in essence than the "flash" and "realism" of De Palma's film.

reply

well put. i am a huge Depalma fan. i own almost all of his movies, me favorietes being Dressed to Kill, Blow out, Body Double... and althought i love depalmas scarface, as u quoted Pauline Keil it is a movie for people who dont like depamla movies. i wasnt even goin to comment on the other statments by people here becaue its just stupid. the acting is better? its from 1932 haha!!! u cant compare that. that is moronic. whatever. i kinda just wanted to give a thank u to a fellow depalma fan. and hawks version is much better.

H.W.

reply

Obviously, the acting styles are indeed bound to be different as the first one´s from the infancy of talkies, but still the expressionistic facepulling and grimacing Muni occasionally does, looks just silly. And since I haven´t seen him in any other movie, I have no idea if that´s what Hawks wanted him to do (why on earth would that be?) or was he just an incompetent actor.

And I´m a big DePalma fan - and still consider Scarface his best film.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

"or was he just an incompetent actor."

Wow, where to start. The crashing ignorance of that statement is breathtaking. Paul Muni didn't receive six Academy Award nominations as Best Actor for "incompetence." And his movie career was secondary to his stage career, where among other roles, he starred and won a Tony for Best Actor in Inherit the Wind.

For some people, films didn't exist before color and special effects.

"Stupid people are a fact" - Me

reply

[deleted]

i enjoyed the original and also think the remake is better too

"Jimbo, Calling Betty would be a dead f---k thing to do" - Ted, Friday The 13th: The Final Chapter

reply

Although I like both versions and I always watch this version first before the more "well-known" version(w/Al Pacino). But if I had a choice it's definitely the Al Pacino version that I believe is the better version. The remake has way better acting and has more detail than the original version. Something that a lot of fans of the remake don't know about is that this version of Scarface is in existence. When I tell people that the Al Pacino version is a remake, they're shocked and they always ask how it's a remake. My response is that I tell them that if they read the summary on the back of the VHS copy, it states that the 1983 version is a remake and at the end of the last scene when Sosa's main hitman is walking down the stairs after killing Tony, the names of the people who the film was dedicated to appears on the screen before the end credits. I tell them that Howard Hawks was the director and that Ben Hecht was the main writer of the original film. I also tell them that certain scenes and characters in the original version are similar and different in the remake. Like I've said, I like both versions of the film, but "hands down" it's definitely the remake with Al Pacino that's the better version of Scarface.

reply

[deleted]

It's tough to really compare the two. The remake does not remind me strongly of the original. The original being made in 1932 using the technology and methods of the day being compared to the DePalma one is nearly impossible for me. Plus the storyline was changed enough as to really feel different as a story. Both versions had strong lead performances with Muni being good and Pacino being called Razzie worth although I liked him in it. One thing for sure, Pfeiffer was much better in the female lead than Dvorak. Her acting was terrible.

reply

One thing for sure, Pfeiffer was much better in the female lead than Dvorak. Her acting was terrible.


Dvorak played Tony's sister. Mary Elizabeth Mastriantonio (sp?) played Tony's sister in the 83 version. Karen Morley played the cool blonde who Tony steals from his boss in the original. I notice Dvorak got top billing, but I would consider both female roles to be supporting roles, not leads.

Difficult to compare acting styles between the two versions.

I like both films. No reason you have to pick one over the other.

I can say this: I think all four actresses were extremely sexy in these roles.

"Push the button, Max!"

reply

ha ha! for me Dvorak was the only one who played well in this movie.
the mum and Tonys girlfriend were just terrible

reply

Since both films were 'edgy' AND good, it is impossible for me to "decide" which is better. OK. I'll say this....."Scarface 1932" was more brilliant than "Scarface 1982" for it's time. I believe two hundred years from now, they will be considered equals, although the Howard Hughes version will get 'juice' for being first.
For the record, my favorite quirk about the two films is this: every "in your face" situation created in the remake was clearly subtext in the first film.
In it's day, the original was a far more daring film.
Unfortunately, the film has dated enough for that to be lost on newer, more casual viewers, who are probably expecting more, especially with todays big directors heaving constant praise on it.

reply

[deleted]

I hear you. My only quibble would be how the film works "In it's time". I believe "Scarface 1932" pushed the envelope as far, if not further, than the DePalma version. In fact, other than Hollywoods 'self imposed' censorship in '32, I don't see much difference between the two films, other than the obvious. The script was risque, Muni was over the top 1930's style, Al was over the top 1980's style. The incestual vibe is there (crazy risk in 1932). If anything, the 1932 version is more.....tongue in cheek? It seems to border on comedy during certain moments. Of course, having seen DePalmas version a bunch of times, I do find myself laughing at some of Pacinos line readings. With the exception of the "Look at choo now, you stoopit "blank", I don't recall laughing that much in the theater when it first ran.

I'm going to give a comparison opinion from left field now. When DePalma, Pacino, etc, set out to do "Scarface 1982", I believe they played it straight, albeit over the top, which I thoroughly enjoyed. I would say the same for Faye Dunaway in "Mommie Dearest". I'm not comparing the films, just the way the stars portrayal, in years of hindsight, have almost become parody. I'm sure that wasn't the intent. Of course "over the top" comes part and parcel with that risk, but in these two films, I find the "over the top" scenes dominate both films.

My biggest knock on "Scarface 1932" pertains to it's 'dating'. It seems very theatrical now. The whole "X" thing, etc. Good for it's time, a bit hokey now. It's stagey, like a lot of early talkies were.

Overall, I agree with your main points.

reply

Yeah I don´t think the funny stuff in Scarface ´83 was unintentional in the least - although I guess it may seem so to people not familiar with De Palma´s style; he´s always had this bizarre, anarchic sense of humour to his stuff. I´m quite sure he recognized the inherent ridiculousness of the dialogue in scenes such as the "f-ck you" -"f-ck you" one-upmanship between Pacino and Murray Abraham. I do think however that had Stone himself directed the film - as he originally wished - it would have most likely fallen completely flat as he´s a very earnest film-maker (to the point where Platoon, for instance, is a good candidate for the best comedy of 1986 - hardly intentionally so though). Montana lived over the top and De Palma´s style is over the top which is precisely the reason the final shootout rises beyond the cartoonishness, into something cathartic.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

Yeah I don´t think the funny stuff in Scarface ´83 was unintentional in the least - although I guess it may seem so to people not familiar with De Palma´s style; he´s always had this bizarre, anarchic sense of humour to his stuff. I´m quite sure he recognized the inherent ridiculousness of the dialogue in scenes such as the "f-ck you" -"f-ck you" one-upmanship between Pacino and Murray Abraham. I do think however that had Stone himself directed the film - as he originally wished - it would have most likely fallen completely flat as he´s a very earnest film-maker (to the point where Platoon, for instance, is a good candidate for the best comedy of 1986 - hardly intentionally so though). Montana lived over the top and De Palma´s style is over the top which is precisely the reason the final shootout rises beyond the cartoonishness, into something cathartic.

I agree 100%! Your analysis and analogies are spot on, IMO. At the time, DePalma was the only guy for this.

reply

--Come on people!

Come on where?

--While I enjoyed the 1932 original, I do not see how anyone can possibly judge --it as a better film than the remake.

The original is so much better that the two can't even be compared. But they have to be compared because of DePalma's allusions to Hawks.

--The 1983 version is much more absorbing;

What is your definition of "absorbing"? If it's about scowls, gyrations, and flailing of limbs, the 1983 version wins out, but I didn't realize that this was a prerequisite for a good movie, except maybe "Death Race 2000" or "The Killer". The original expects the participation of the viewer, unfortunately.

--there is much more development and depth to the characters;

The characters in the 1983 version are cartoonish, shallow, and empty. The characters in the original display much more logical motivation. The relationship between Scarface and his sister in the original is more subtle, more believable, and more complex. It's because of the character development in the first film that I find the overall effect to be a truly tense affair.

--the physical violence doesn't look ridiculously fake (those 1932 punches and --slaps...LOL);

Really? Looks pretty convincing to me, probably because the violence is less pronounced and serves as a precedent/antecedent rather than a focal point. Less is usually more for me, probably because I've seen so many Lone Wolf/Drunken Master films...

Did you really Laugh Out Loud?

--the acting is much more professional (Muni was good but some of the other --performances were pretty awful by modern standards)

Interesting. Scarface is probably Pacino's worst performance outside of Revolution, it's full of the usual bag of tricks that worked better in Glengarry Glenn Ross and Carlito's Way. Pfeiffer is miscast, as is Abraham, and the rest of the performances are cardboard cutouts.

The 1983 script is atrocious, shot selection is hilarious, pacing is leaden, and the music is some of the worst this side of Time Bandits and Excalibur(though typical of the 80's).

If today's standards or "modern standards" are so much better than than earlier film standards, then why do the majority of great films (with the exception of maybe those of Tarantino, Rodriguez, Aranofsky, and Spielberg) reflect the standards of those times? And why would DePalma dedicate the 1983 version to Hawks and Hecht?

The earlier Pre-Code film is raw, loaded with symbolism, and anchored by a brilliant performance by Paul Muni. I find it to be terrifying in comparison to the latter film, which is truly a "period piece", even an anachronism of its time. From that frivolous standpoint, I can appreciate it!

I give the original 8 or 9 stars, the remake gets 3, though on camp value, I'd give it a 4.

reply

I totally agree with u about "Scarface". The original was sharp, quick and (for its time) pretty brutal. Also the incestuous feelings Scarface had for his sister were VERY raw for 1932.

As for the remake--I love DePalma bjut its one of his worst films. For starters Al Pacino (a wonderful actor) gives one of his his worst performances--even worse than "Cruising"! He overacts nonstop and uses the word *beep* well over 100 times. The original was cquick and only about 90 minutes. The remake drrraaagggssss it out to 2 and a half hours! Way too slow. The gunfights in the original were fast, brutal and shocking. The remake shoves blood and gore in your face. It's not shocking just sick. Also the incest was handled subtly in the original but it's still disturbing. In the remake its made explicit and naturally has Pacino's sister telling him to *beep* her while shooting at him! I found that more funny than disturbing!

I think the on;y people who like the remake are those who need pointless nudity, tons of swearing and explicit bloodshed to enjoy a movie. The original has it all over the remake.

reply

@axsmashcrushallthree Bravo! (Not to mention kudos for knowing the difference between "its" and "it's.")
I'll add that I was thrilled when I was finally able to buy the original on DVD without having to buy the expensive box set in which it was included as an extra.

reply

No.



I wanna find out why I'm working - the answer can't be just to pay bills and pile up more money.

reply

[deleted]

nakuk; WRONG, the remake was OVER-LONG and dragged in many spots. Its editing was "inferior" by 1930s' standards let alone 21st Centuries. You are a 'prisoner of the moment'.

reply

The reason why the remake is better is because it was realer.Even though it was a remake it's what was really going on in the late 70's-80's.It was The Godfather updated made simple and more bloody for a coked out 80's audience.It's over the top to an extent because the streets are that crazy with all kind of characters.Scarface is the best gangster movie because it gets right to the core of the underworld simply.One man willing to kill or die for the power and one of the best endings ever.Oh yeah and the music was that *beep*
http://www.datpiff.com/Maestro_Lungs_LochMaestro_LungsBo_ThirstPg_The.m169288.html
http://youtube.com/lochofmceo
http://twitter.com/loch121
http://reverbnation.com/loch

reply

It was The Godfather updated made simple and more bloody for a coked out 80's audience.
Except that doesn't sound like reality at all.

reply

There´s far more "reality" in Scarface ´83 than there is in any of The Godfather movies. All the issues of "honor" and "loyalty" that the Coppola´s epics mainly concern themselves with is a load of hogwash that´s got nothing to do with real organized crime. Of course, that don´t mean the first 2 installations aren´t great films though; they´re every bit as outstanding as De Palma´s work.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply