The masterpiece that defines the 80's and the Gangster genre ...

Rating: 10/10 (3 May 2011)

Did you say "overrated"? Really? Are you serious? You mean "Scarface": the movie with zero Oscar nominations, and a Razzie nomination for Brian De Palma as worst director, the movie which many pseudo cinematic purists constantly denounce the "all flash and no substance"-ness, its new popularity among gangsters rappers, Al Pacino's over-the-top performance, a laughable script and so on and so forth... you mean THIS movie is overrated??? Sorry man, but if one thing, this movie is absolutely and criminally underrated! And its iconic status, its place in IMDb Top 250, and tenth position in the American Film Institute's Top Ten Gangster films, are only the kind of justices that cinematic Gods have owed this masterpiece for a long time.
Yes, "Scarface" is a masterpiece, because it precisely didn't try to be one and the result is not unintentional either: the writing, the direction, the acting, everything points out a deliberate will to create an entertaining gangster flick. But I'm not sure Oliver Stone, Brian De Palma and Al Pacino expected this movie to become one of the most revered, quoted and of course, emblematic of the gangster genre, yet it did. Why? One word: guts, the kind of guts that break the walls and rhyme with balls. This movie had it. It's made of the same vein of classic pre-Godfather gangster flicks such as "Little Caesar", "The Public Enemy" and of course, the original "Scarface : the Shame of a Nation", Hawks' classic to which this film is dedicated. Scarface has the virile magnetism and rebellious detachment of these films mixed with the exuberant flamboyance of the 80's. Not kitsch, not dated, the film couldn't have had a better setting, it's all about posing and showing off richness and power, it's a success story made during a time were it was indeed glorified.
This is the thought-provoking 'guts' of "Scarface" and why the film deserves its comparison with its more mature and respected predecessor: "The Godfather". "Scarface" is to the 80's what Coppola's film was to the 70's: a reference, if not a milestone. It brought something new, assuming a dazzling celebration of the gangster world appeal without the preachy morality of the 30's or any attempt of glamorization. Every single character is depicted as an unredeemable scumbag and that was before "Goodfellas" and "Pulp Fiction". They're not totally unlikable or amoral either, they're just victim of their own vision of succeeding the easy way.
Because "Scarface" literally pushes a certain idea of the American Dream to its bloodiest limit, to taste freedom and capitalism until getting an indigestion, to live the drunkenness of power until an ultimate hangover  so what did you expect the movie to be: a romantic Shakespeare tragedy à la "Godfather" or a realistic epic drama à la "Goodfellas"? No! The approach was right, it had to be a gripping fantasy about the Gangster world. It was naturally bashed by the critics, but at least, it could exorcise all the violence, and whatever was appealing in the lives of gangsters, with an acid but so flamboyant portrayal of the American Dream, before the same subject would be handled by a more tormented and cerebral Scorsese. Using a Scarfacian metaphor, the film is like a great sex with a painful orgasm.
How dare you blame the portrayal of Tony Montana, for being over the top? The guy is a thug suffering from a Napoleon Syndrome?! All he got in Cuba was an experience of being beeped by communism, which all naturally, encouraged him to change the position in the only country that could allow that, a country neighboring his homeland enough to be the object of a cult with a view of freedom, money and prosperity so idealistic it twisted his morality. Tony wanted the American Dream in an excessive way, because that's all the way he viewed America, as a fantasy, It had to be a fantasy from the eyes of an emigrant, an emigrant who dreamed of driving beautiful cars, having his mansion with his initials graved in his chair and of course  getting the blonde.
He wanted the world, and everything in it. He wanted money and power. And now you blame him for being over the top? Would you blame Norma Desmond to be too theatrical? Or Jack Torrance to be too weird? Tony Montana is a caricature only to those who can't see how caricatured the way the image of USA could be reflected, and to those blind people, De Palma even conceded that the movie's portrayal of Cubans wasn't reflecting blah blah, as if we needed to know that  come on, over the top? It's a movie and a damn entertaining one, whose "over-the-top"-ness is the extra depth the haters fail to see .
And the script, is probably one of the most memorable elements of the films. It drops so many F bombs, it's almost a punctuation mark creating delightful situations where we see Tony interacting with his sidekick, Steven Bauer as the unforgettable Manny, or his soon-to-be ex-boss, with his friends and enemies, until facing some anger management issues  Many people said it was Pacino's downfall, I think this was his rebirth, the new Pacino in his 40's, and his greatest role after Michael Corleone. The proof of Pacino's incredible talent is his ability to portray a range of gangster from Mafia boss to thug, in such a natural way, I'm sure he's an unsung icon to many criminals in the world. The script is just a verbal ode to the violence portrayed in this film, a violence that will leave red stains in your TV screen until it dirties your nice pajama  a violence reminding that for every fortune criminally earned, there is a Damocles sword upon your head waiting for a fatal mistake.
So call it violent, over-the-top, dated, flashy  I say, "Yes, man'g!" and this is precisely why "Scarface" is a masterpiece !