input: Ya know when one looks at this Brian DePalma film today, I'm sure there has been allot of criticism about how dated it is. Also, about the violence. When I looked at this film on VHS when I was 20, I thought it was ulta-violent and gritty as well. But I didn't get 'it'.

A few decades go by and man, how I know how much I didn't get in this film!! This is a remake of an excellent film which was done back in the 30's/40's. How can you improve upon a classic? Ya don't. But you tell a tale that is brought up to date through the eyes of the "new immigrants" during the most greed ridden decade, the over indulgent 80's. DePalma, Stone and the gang present an ambitious, disturbing and darn right good film.

Yes....Disco was dying and New Wave/Punk were taking over but these immigrants from Cuba who had to make a new home in Florida couldn't tell the difference. It was exciting, it was what they wanted but how to get it???? To these immigrants, there was only one way to get it in Florida where they were..by having lots of money and to get the money, you had to take over running a drug empire.

Al Pacino was fantastic to me as Tony Montana, the "little train that could". What an amazing way to have your lead character look at America: to fight, kill, steal. lie, cheat all to get -- "the money, the women and the power."

That's what Tony saw as the American dream.

He wanted it, he wanted to live it and in his circle saw nothing wrong with how he went to get it. Tony Montana's command of the English language was heavily saturated with the "f" word but what did you expect, Emily Post's finishing school for him and his co-horts? Look at how they CAME to America, what they knew, what they were exposed to. This is the way Tony and his crew chose to "be all they can be in America." It was all about the power. Tony Montana would and did ANYTHING to achieve it..it all its violent, lying, stealing, crooked, thieving glory.

The part of the film that personified the 1980's to me, is the money laundering. Tony's crew bringing sacks of drug money to the bank. Did those around Tony and his crew care? At the clubs where he spent and drank? Nope. Money was money and with money, you get the power. Tony was living high off the hog. He and his pretty blond American trophy he married played well by Michelle Pfieffer.

After Tony Montana's rise to power, he finds out its really crappy up there. He's riddled with doubt, he's drug addicted, he's paranoid, he's surrounded by those who want to take him on in a bloody take-over, his trophy 80's American blonde drug addicted wife he finds out is a bore, he needs to keep atop of his empire because...he's going down. And down he goes in a horrific violent fashion, but again I ask, what do you expect?

This is the quintessential 1980's film telling you a warped tale of how some misunderstand the American Dream...to obsession. It's violent, bloody, overly so..but it drives the point disturbingly home. Not all Cubans thrown out of Cuba who landed in Florida in the 80's were anything like Tony Montana. Give me a break. But the showing of how miserable the 1980's were with its emphasis on greed and money as the only measures in the USA to "be somebody" and have power took its tool on these poor characters and their lives in America.

Makes you wonder -- has anything from then -- been learned today?

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: For that matter one of the worst FILMS ever made. Plot goes as follows. Slog through jungle looking areas for 10 minutes or so. Have Bo go somewhere and strip. Slog through the jungle some more. Give Bo another excuse to strip. Back to the jungle. Oh look! There's a Tarzan looking guy! Strip, Bo - strip. Kill the safari people. Tarzan looking guy has a fight scene. Saves Bo. Bo strips. Run credits. Run credits, run.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Spanish horrors are not bad at all, some are smart with interesting stories, but is not the case of "Second Name". It is badly directed, badly acted and boring...boring...boring, a missed chance for an interesting story.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: This 1934 adaptation of Somerset Maugham's novel put Bette Davis on the map as a movie actress. She might have won an Academy Award for her performance but the films was made on loan, so her studio didn't push for her. Her acting in this one doesn't come off well by today's standards. As the heartless waitress who jerks Philip, a sensitive medical student, around and nearly ruins his life, Davis is way too shrill, almost demonic. Director John Cromwell, who usually elicited good performances from his actresses, was perhaps overwhelmed by this one. Davis is watchable, for sure, but so strident and predatory as to seem scarcely human. I imagine the character of Millie as quieter, less feminine than Davis, with maybe a touch of the tomboy. Davis is such a strong, immediate presence that's there's no air of mystery to her, which makes Philip's attraction to her seem more overtly masochistic than it should be.

As Philip, Leslie Howard is excellent. His wan, somewhat wilted good looks are perfect for this failed aesthete. Nor does he impose a personal interpretation on the part, as, say, Dirk Bogarde might have done, which gives his work a rare clarity. He seems completely in control here, as he should be, playing a man with a rational intellect who is in the grip of irrational emotions he cannot manage or even fully satisfy, as the object of his affections moves him in ways he cannot understand. Howard was a fine actor, too often cast in standard romantic parts which compelled him to fall back on charm, which he doesn't use here.

It's been so long since I've read the book I don't feel comfortable commenting on the movie's faithfulness to it. I think it captures the spirit of the story well enough, and that it has in Howard a perfect Philip Carey. The sexual undercurrents are muted, and at times Philip behaves so masochistically that in the absence of strong sex feelings makes one wonder about the character's sanity, surely not Mr. Maugham's intention. Thanks to Howard's performance, Philip remains firmly in focus, as one can see in his various responses to and yearnings for Millie the extremes to which a reasonable intellect will go to understand the irrational, in himself and in others.

Overall, a very good film, a little stilted at times, due to its age, it evokes London nicely, and is well acted for the most part.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive