Only comparisons can explain the powerful "Scarface"s lack of critical acclaim

Rating: 9/10 (9 January 2009)

Anyone who watches Brian De Palma's re-imagining of "Scarface" has to wonder why it didn't get so much as a nod for an Academy Award. A powerful performance by Al Pacino, several notable supporting roles and a story that's so eye-opening and fully developed are a few of the top reasons anyone watching this film today would call it great. So why nothing? Was it ahead of its time, or not far ahead enough? The only possible explanation is the latter. Though 9 years had passed since the last Godfather film, clearly Hollywood and its critics were not ready for something similar yet not as immaculate.
Al Pacino is dynamite from start to finish as Tony Montana, a criminal immigrant from Cuba who works his way up the ladder of the cocaine business, becoming everything and losing it all. The story is the classic rise and fall of a nobody, of a man with nothing but an iron conviction, even if his values aren't the same as our own. Pacino nails the strong-willed no- fear attitude of Montana, but is equally as commanding when Montana borders on the insane and the emotional. He simply has a magnetism about him as an actor and that's something you have or you don't. Pacino flaunts it in this film and without him it wouldn't have been nearly as powerful.
You simply can't compare Montana to Michael Corleone of "The Godfather"--Pacino helms both roles excellently, but they're different characters who handle power in different ways. As for the rest of the film, to compare it to "The Godfather" is unfair. Not only is it unfair to compare any film to something as masterful as the 1972 classic, but they're not even about the same thing: one the Mafia, the other Miami drug cartels. Yes, both involve ordering hits and bloody ones at that, but it's a whole other story. Oliver Stone writes a great script full of memorable scenes and lines that are no less unforgettable than "The Godfather." The only places where "Scarface" can't measure up--and reasonably so--are in cinematography, art direction and directing. Brian DePalma does good stuff, and he should be praised for his work on the film, but it's not a stainless piece of film-making. Simply put, if you feel forced to compare, which perhaps critics in the early 80s did, "Scarface" can't hold a candle to "The Godfather," but there are a number of reasons it should not have been harshly judged.
In supporting roles, Motana's best friend Tony played by Steven Bauer is a refreshingly nice, likable, character; Robert Loggia as the big drug guy Frank Lopez also commands attention in contrast to Pacino's character; Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, given the difficult roller coaster ride part of Montana's little sister excels in her role, and even Michelle Pfeiffer, as stoic and loathsome as her love interest character is, has some moments. All in all this is a good ensemble--Pacino doesn't run the show as much as he steals the scenes.
When viewed independently from similar material, the only really noticeable weaknesses of "Scarface" are it's poor soundtrack choices and miserable electronic score when something orchestral would have brought out the best in this film. Whoever made the decision at the top to let the film be scored like that really shot a hole in the film that while small, was in a bad place.
"Scarface" is a great film that through its violence, swearing and general depiction of an extravagant but depressingly hollow and terrible lifestyle, manages to tell the story of the hunger and abuse of power in this country through one man in a complete and thorough way. There are no gaps in this storytelling and the script is full of lines that as sick, twisted and inherently flawed as Montana is, make him a compelling figure with considerably interesting things to say.