A different sort of DePalma movie

Rating: 9/10 (3 September 2003)

There are three conflicting elements in Scarface that make it both interesting and pointless at the same time. Conflict, both open and subdued, defines Scarface more than any other word.
Brain DePalma: Before the Untouchables, I would have to say that this is his best movie. He is not as creative visually as in other movies (Snake Eyes), but he uses the camera as an element of supporting the character rather than as a seperate character. Notice how in so many scenes he uses subtle (slow) pans and tilts to add an addition mood to the screen.
Oliver Stone: As opposed to DePalma's subtlety, Stone's script (both an adieu to cocaine and a not-so-clever knockoff of Macbeth) is not afraid to go all the way. So many elements here are obviously ripped by Quentin Tarantino for Pulp Fiction and (to a lesser extent) Reservoir Dogs. Who said he was original? Stone may not have finesse in his scripts, but he's not afraid to make declarative statements, whether they are true or not.
Al Pacino: I think Pacino spent too much time talking in a Cuban accent and not enough time developing character. He is constantly passive until his situation explodes, then he leaps into the inferno with both feet. To be honest, I don't think he's that good of an actor. He and DeNiro aren't as understanding of their directors or scripts to make formidable characters.
Overall, a different sort of gangster film that retreads the same ground with new takes and nothing else. If anything else, this can be considered the 80s point that launched the "drug empire" concept. 3 out of 5 stars.