Went for grandeur, forgot about the title character

Rating: 5/10 (21 August 2009)

The name "Scarface" and a tribute to Howard Hawks is a bit misleading as this is not really a remake of 1932 classic. It is "Godfather" updated for more modern times and a bit more action and violence. One could call it "Godfather" on steroids or something like that. It is the same old saga of a small-time gangster's rise to power with different names, locations and perhaps personalities.
There are some novelties here compared to "Godfather" though. Along with intense action and violence there are plenty of humorous one-liners that in a way contrast the action. "Say hello to my little friend" accompanied by a blast from grenade thrower has since become a template for action movies to come. That undoubtedly contributed to the sentiment that prompted many people to praise "Scarface" as classic.
But in reality, everything that is good about this movie is owed to "Godfather" I and II. The attempt at grandeur, the pace, the time span and the overall style. Even some scenes, for instance, one of the most poignant scenes in the movie, when Montana character kills his sister's husband, are directly lifted from Coppola's classics. Pacino has the lead role in both "Godfather" and "Scarface" and here he plays Montana, the hungry, the angry, the mad, but in fact just a rougher version of Michael Corleone.
What's bad about "Scarface" is entirely down to Brian De Palma's direction and Oliver Stone's screenplay. The supposed grandeur of this epic boils down to drag. The movie is simply too long. Longevity helps the grandeur but not if it's full of scenes and dialog that contribute nothing to the story, which is the case here. De Palma's responsibility was to cut off the dead weight and bring those memorable scenes closer.
Stone's responsibility was to write a coherent story where all characters and situations were properly established and explained, foremost the title character. Unfortunately that didn't happen and the resulting script was at best anecdotal and at worst a mess. Stone chose to direct his efforts to his notorious obsession with governmental conspiracies. It's constantly been insinuated, through the film, that a lot of what was going on in the underground is in some way connected to the powers that be. Stone forces the dialog to get that point of his across over and over. It seems that he knows all about how government works but he has no clue how organized crime works. That's why we don't get inside enough to see what Montana bases his power and influence on. We only get to see what big shots he hangs out with and who he eliminates, but it's never established, for instance, why his people are loyal to him or where he found the money to start his own empire. "He's got balls" doesn't quite explain it.
It turns out that the character we should know the most about we know the least. Other characters may be clichéd but at least their actions and motives are more clear. In turn, Montana himself never learns anything. He exits the stage that is his life the same person he entered: raw, reckless and oblivious to anything but himself. Rather cartoonish, isn't it?
Funny how once cops proclaimed this to be the most realistic depiction of organized crime. The "realism" bar has been raised many times since. The movie is still good to see for its few scenes that are guaranteed to stick and for its loud message that "crime (allegedly) doesn't pay", but keep your thumb on fast-forward button.