Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Return
It's a marked step down from the original. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a bad movie - it's entertaining enough, and Hackman still does a fantastic job, but if you're expecting anything on par with the first one you'll be sorely let down.
(I know the question wasn't pointed at me - felt like answering anyway.)
|
That's basically what I was expecting, I'll probably check it out just as a fan of the first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Scarface: The Shame of the Nation (1932)
Scarface: The Shame of the Nation is often overshadowed by the remake starring Al Pacino and directed by Brian Depalma, and while it is difficult to compare the two (being made 51 years apart) I can say without any hesitation that I prefer the original version. I find the story to be better, the characters to be more interesting, and the perfromances to be superior.
The film revolves around the rise and eventual fall of prohibition-era gangster Antonio 'Tony' Camonte, trying to make his way up in the criminal underworld while also attempting to prevent his sister from getting involved in the shadowy world.
Paul Muni brilliantly plays Camonte and pulls off the task wonderfully. It is also nice to see Boris Karloff in a non-horror film for once. Scarface is executed quite well, mainly due to director Howard Hawkes' choice of portraying the gangsters as people just having fun, rather than the usual evil for the sake of being evil gangster of that time.
-9.5/10