In other words, a remake. In order to remake a film you have not only to love, but also to respect the original. This does not mean that the remake must always be faithful to the original. Although, the new affected artists should not only have a new concept or a different take on the source material, but an appreciation of the core ideas of the original and an appreciation of the inherent issues of the same work as well.
The use of back-projections, painted backgrounds and the decision to flatten the imagery maintains a subtle conversation with the original, in the same way the modern techniques of cinematography and special effects declare its autonomy as a film.
However, it is certain that the bond between an original film and a remake is inseparable and equally strong even when the remake seems very different. The fact that De Palma recognized this aspect is what led him to make Scarface right.
It was made by the true filmmakers. Overpaid tools are often hired to create a pastiche of PG 13 material and the result is a rushed and unnecessary film. They worked hard and they risked, but only because the film was a part of them.
Scarface gives the feel of a movie that had a true vision. Everyone hates bad movies or even mediocre ones. Some believe that they may be an inevitable evil of cinema in general, but the question is what actually makes them not good? An interesting position on this matter would be that these movies are not about people and human relationships. All stories are about people or beings with human behaviour being observed through their personal interactions.
Although, especially but not only in remakes it seems that instead of observing human relationships through the lens of real life, bad or mediocre movies observe through the lens of other movies. Scarface is an exception and you could say because the phenomenon which is described is more common nowadays. However, every astonishing film is good because it captures human experience with nuance and insight and it observes moments or feelings or situations that may show things for ourselves that we did not know.
Scarface is not a remake. The nature of most remakes is usually to tell the same story, with the same context even if the film was made for another era. Scarface is an adaptation.
In a first level of reading Scarface is about a gangster, who happens to be an Italian immigrant and is involved in illegal liquor trade business. Cuban immigrants and cocaine took the place of Italians and beer. He's absolutely nails the character, the accent and the evilness of Tony but at the same time you have to wonder what decision was made to make him so crazy, over-the-top and wild. He's really like a wild animal and while I love watching the performance it's easy to see why so many would be turned off by it or question the wildness.
As crazy as the performance is, I think the scene where Pacino addresses some "good" people in the restaurant sequence is among the best work of his career. There's certainly no moral code here and I'd question some of the decisions made but if you just want a long, wild and violent ride then they don't get much better than this. Words alone cannot express how much I love this movie. The first time I saw it, it blew me away. When I watched it again recently it hadn't lost any of its impact.
De Palma here crafts an epic tale in what I consider to be his finest film. Although it runs for over two and a half hours, this is never less than engrossing, something that is partially due to the excellent acting we have on display from the ensemble cast. Al Pacino has never been better as the volatile Tony Montana, making the role his own and his performance is a totally convincing one right down to his appearance and accent.
Steven Bauer is also very good in an understated role as his partner, his role always takes the backseat when compared to Pacino's but it is still a pivotal one. Michelle Pfeiffer and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio are the addicted wife and loving sister respectively, and as both of their loves are ruined, we feel their pain with them. The supporting cast includes great turns from Robert Loggia drug lord , F. The film does start slowly but the build-up is worthwhile.
De Palma's trademark excessiveness turns up in the form of a number of brutal shootings and, especially, a gruelling chainsaw murder. Pacino has dug his own grave and has destroyed his business and either killed or alienated all of his friends and family. He sits alone in his huge mansion, snorting from a pile of cocaine on his desk. It is at this point a small army invade the mansion and execute all of his staff; he must then battle them alone in a bloody massacre in which the outcome is foretold.
I love this ending, with all the violence it holds, and I love the way that Pacino's body is so pumped full of drugs that he doesn't even notice it when he gets repeatedly shot. Who can forget the classic line "Say hello to my little friend! A classic, re-watchable movie with the director and stars all at the peak of their game.
SnoopyStyle 18 July His friend Manny Ribera Steven Bauer gets a contract to kill a political prisoner for green cards for both of them. They're soon working for drug dealer Omar Suarez F. Murray Abraham to double cross some Columbians. Tony takes advantage and becomes a hit-man for big boss Frank Lopez Robert Loggia. His mother Miriam Colon disapproves of his work and tries to separate him from his adoring sister Gina Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio.
Al Pacino gives one of the most memorable weird performance of the world. Director Brian De Palma brings an ultra-violent sense to the material. It brings almost joy to this violent villain character. It reminds me of the old WB gangster movies where violence rules. This pushes it to an even higher level.
It's a new icon of the gangster movies. Hitchcoc 3 January So many have already commented on this movie that I don't have much to add. I just want to say that this violent black comedy has one of the most memorable characters in all of movies. It's also one of the most quotable films of all time. As the immigrant Tony makes his way to the top by dropping people in huge quantities and manipulating a system that plays into his hands.
He is a juggernaut and why he rises as he does when he is often clueless is quite amazing Pacino takes his Corleone character to the Nth degree by pretty much taking the humanity out of him. We love him; we hate him; but we certainly can't ignore one of the most off-the-wall performances of all time. Al Pacino gives a splendid role for the exposure of Montana's vulnerability in each of its aspects.
However Castro also takes the opportunity to clear out his jail and over people with criminal records come over. Among them are Antonio Montana and his friend Manolo, who do a killing for crime boss Frank Lopez in exchange for their green cards. When they carry out another job for Lopez, they are welcomed into the fold and they start to rise up the organisation. However Montana is ambitious and greedy and will not be content until he reaches the very top of the tree.
This film seems to have been raised up over time to the point where it is mentioned in the same breath as such superb films as The Godfather and Goodfellas but I must admit, having just seen it for the third time, that I simply cannot see why people seem to hold this in such high regard. It is a good film let me say, but it is not anything more than that.
Comparing this tale to the Godfather is a joke. Like Tony himself, the film is all about excess and it gets a bit tiring as a result. The story is ambitious and quite enjoyable but it is no more than that. Certainly it will not be remembered for it's well written characters! Likewise in the supporting characters, there are no complex or even 3-D characters, they are all very simplistic and match the film's overblown nature.
It is mostly for this reason that I consider the performances to be mostly poor. For some reason people hold this up as one of Pacino's best performances and I really wish I could understand where they are coming from. Because he has no character to work with Pacino has no choice but to just chew up the scenery. If you look up the word 'ham' in a dictionary you will not only find the description of 'meat from a pig' but you will find a reference to Pacino's performance in this film.
Bauer is quite good but he has little to really work with. Pfeiffer has even less to do and is pretty wasted literally!
Overall this is an OK film that is ambitious but ultimately is not worthy of being mentioned in the same sentence as things like the Godfathers of Goodfellas. It lacks any sort of complexity or subtlety and is just energetic and noisy rather than being well written. One of the most recognized quote from a movie ever. Even to those who haven't seen the movie.
It's sort of Pacinos equivalent to De Niro "You talkin to me? Not comparing those movies of course. If you want to compare movies, you could compare this to the 30s original with Paul Muni. A movie that Pacino watched in a cinema and made him want this movie. Made him want to be as mesmerizing and have a powerful role. Add Oliver Stone and others to make this happen and you have an amazing movie. Now at the time it was released people were disgusted by this. Thinking of Tony Montana as role model or maybe fearing he could be just that.
And he has become a cultural influence and to some an idol. The movie did not intend it or the character to be viewed as such. You can't blame the movie for how people reflect and adapt to what they see. You can blame the critics for not giving it enough credit. While the original set a standard and was used as a rough blueprint some scenes are reminiscent of the original , this did many original things that we had not seen before, like a chainsaw scene.
So not for the squeamish or the ones who are easily offended. All that taken into account it is a travesty Pacino did not win an Oscar for his performance. It's an even bigger travesty he wasn't even nominated! Actually the movie had even a Razzie nomination The movie may be long but it needs time to unfold.
It is bigger than life, has many tips of the hat to the original the world is yours and might be one of the few cases where the remake is at least as good as the original. Highly recommended to anyone who loves action movies and dramas combined. Let 's "Scarface" be always remembered as the film that first introduced the 'F' word firing machine gun. The first thing I did in researching the picture was to see how many times it was used, and sure enough, the word in it's various forms is used two hundred twenty six times.
So if the picture runs just under three hours, that's more than one per minute. Anyone know if that's a record? Well I'd read and heard a lot about this film over the years but tonight was my first time to see it.
I really wasn't all that impressed. As far as gangster films go, this didn't engage me like the "The Godfather", the best of them all, or even as much as a couple other personal favorites, "Goodfellas" and "Miller's Crossing". More than one reviewer here described it as over the top for it's excessive violence and Pacino's maniacal characterization of Cuban refugee turned drug lord Tony Montana, and I would concur.
I guess it was OK if you go in for that kind of stuff, but I was looking for more of a compelling story to go with the mayhem and drug deals. At first I wasn't convinced that this was a remake of the movie of the same name starring Paul Muni.
On reflection though, the key elements are there, including a more violent reaction by Montana to his sister Gina's Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio sexuality and the kind of men she attracted. Personally, I go for the classics in black and white so I found the original more interesting with a run time of just about half of this film. Early in the picture when he's being grilled by the authorities, Tony admits being a Bogart and Cagney fan, but I thought it would have been much cooler for the writers to insert the names of Muni and George Raft instead, both of whom were in the original "Scarface".
In Miami, a determined Cuban immigrant Al Pacino takes over a drug cartel while succumbing to greed. While this was inspired by the original "Scarface", it is not exactly a remake something that writer Oliver Stone would not have accepted. Today, Hollywood loves remakes and "re-imagining" films, but they rarely get it right.
This got it right -- it is so far removed from the original that the respect and influence are there without taking anything away from the classic. Apparently, De Palma was added as director when Oliver Stone was turned down for the job because of a recent flop. Who would have made the better picture? Hard to say, but it seems great that De Palma ended up with the honor -- this film is in IMDb's Top and the highest-honored film in De Palma's career.
If he had made nothing else, he would have gone on to be known for this for eternity. Stone, likewise, has gone on to be best known for "Platoon" and "JFK". I've never seen the original "Scarface", but the remake is not something that you'll forget easily. After arriving in Miami, he soon becomes a drug kingpin, distributing cocaine everywhere, not to mention getting all coked up himself. As one might expect with such a person, he gets into all sorts of bloody situations; in one scene, he and his friends commit what can only be described as the "Florida Chainsaw Massacre".
Pretty much the whole movie shows Tony's violent escapades. I should warn you that this movie is not for the squeamish in any way, shape or form.
But don't worry: the violence is not gratuitous. Overall, the movie was an interesting counterbalance to the s' obsession with optimism. In "Scarface", all optimism is eliminated early on. Maybe it's not a masterpiece, but it is something that everyone should see just to understand Miami's mafia.
I had heard a lot about this controversial gangster crime thriller remake of the classic, from director Brian De Palma Carrie, The Untouchables , and written by Oliver Stone, I can definitely see the stir it has caused.
Murray Abraham to pay money to Columbians for some cocaine. No episode of the MTV series "Cribs" is complete without some musician pointing pridefully to a Scarface photo collection or a set of Scarface window blinds or an exact replica of Tony Montana's white sofa. This cross-cultural identification has exacted a rather large price, as Tucker is careful to note. The misogyny that drives so much gangsta rap, for instance, derives in part from de Palma's reduction of women to "disco dollies and white-silk fantasy figures.
Tucker's a bit too eager, maybe, to paint a trail of blood from "Scarface" to the ghetto, but I confess that just when I thought he was overstating the film's influence, a Netflix ad popped across my computer screen, and there it was: Tony Montana in his white disco suit. An editor-at-large with Entertainment Weekly who, I should disclose, once favorably reviewed a book of mine , Tucker does an expert job of tracking "Scarface's" provenance, from Armitage Trail's novel to Howard Hawks' film version a far more concise work than de Palma's remake and, in its day, nearly as controversial all the way to "The Untouchables" and such end-of-the-pipeline effluents as comic books, video games and ringtones.
Tucker is an astute and persuasive and deeply informed cultural observer, and in "Scarface Nation," he has tucked just the right amount of tongue into his cheek. The only thing he couldn't convince me of was the movie's esthetic value. I've seen it twice, and each was enough to last me a decade. What makes it so exhausting, I think, is Pacino. He's in virtually every scene, and like Paul Muni, who played Tony in the original film, he is in hock to his own ambition.
His performance suggests that it's not enough to be good, a great actor must be Great. This determination is so at odds with the pseudo-operatic silliness of "Scarface" that it produces camp at fairly regular intervals.
Contrast the extravagant surface effects of this movie with Pacino's minimalist work in the second "Godfather" installment, where he limns the death of Michael Corleone's soul with such precision that your own soul seems to freeze in response, and you'll see that something truly sad died with Tony Montana: a great actor's bullshit detector. All things considered, I can just about forgive Scarface. I'm not sure I can forgive "Scarface. Louis Bayard is a novelist and reviewer.
His books include "Mr.
0コメント