El precio del poder

Una película de gánsteres extravagante, brutal, de casi tres horas de duración, sin dimensión espiritual ni emociones significativas (en comparación con la posterior Atrapado por su pasado), pero no le quité los ojos de encima ni un segundo y no sacaría ni una sola escena. Emocionalmente, duró dos horas. Un trabajo brillante en todos los aspectos cinematográficos. ¡¿Dónde están las nominaciones al Óscar para Al Pacino y el director de fotografía?! (14.10.2005)

Oliver Stone and director Brian De Palma turned Howard Hawks' original, straightforward gangster film into a grand masterpiece and populated it with well-developed characters. Unfortunately, they also heavily paid the price of the time, dictated by President Jimmy Carter's anti-communist policies. Tony Montana, a refugee from Cuba under the rule of Fidel Castro, became a symbol of anti-communist resistance, impressing the people who worship the red and white stripes with white stars on a blue background. But anyone who can overlook this dated aspect from the creators will enjoy this impressively crafted "journey to the top." Stone manages to avoid the "godfather" portrayal of the characters, where we can already partially guess the transformation of the "good guys" into the "bad guys." Here, no one can ever be certain whether someone will change and, more importantly, why. The most extensive and problematic development is that of Tony Montana himself, played by Al Pacino, on whom Stone reflects the influence of the most primitive contemporary factors, such as drugs or money. Brian De Palma approached it as a stylized journey, in which even the most brutal violence is necessary (as evidenced by the chainsaw scene and the ending). So as a whole, the film feels like a grand and comprehensive fresco, yet it is capable of delving into the most intricate details. While Scarface cannot be classified as one of the possible definitions of the gangster genre, it can certainly be considered one of its pillars, which is certainly no small feat. (24.07.2005)

I never thought I'd be disappointed with a De Palma film starring Al Pacino. The story didn't impress me much overall, I've seen the same thing many times before in better execution (thanks Scorsese). It had a decent start, but then the almost three-hour-long probe into the life of a gangster stopped entertaining me and I didn't care what happened to the main characters. Emotionally empty, there is no possibility of even a small degree of connection and everything is marred by the strange final carnage. The final impression is one of great dejection and the certainty that I won't watch it a second time, despite the great Al Pacino and his impeccable Spanish accent. (20.09.2003)

I still can’t fully understand the massive popularity of gangster movies. They force the viewer to sympathise with arrogant (and often incompetent) criminals that make their profession look like the coolest thing in the world. This is a behaviour I can’t stand in any form and that’s why these films leave me underwhelmed, and Scarface is no exception. The three star rating, however, is quite strong. The shootout in the end is awesome. (16.06.2009)

While I was excited during the escalating start (the scene with the chainsaw is full of tension and action), the unremarkable and gradually intensifying ending strongly began to annoy me due to De Palma's directorial style filled with static shots against a background of "roaring" music. Pacino was, of course, amazing, I believed every gesture from him from the first to the last (although I was annoyed that I couldn't really identify with his gangster character), and I probably can't help but admire him, but honestly, the other actors, including Michelle Pfeiffer, are not worth mentioning. Considering my expectations, the final feelings after watching the film are almost negative, because the famous Scarface is only a predictably solid average in terms of plot. (15.09.2006)