Scarface details
| Format: | 15 DVD |
|---|---|
| Starring: | Boris Karloff, Paul Muni, Ann Dvorak, George Raft |
| Director: | Howard Hawks |
| Genre: | Drama - Thriller |
| Studio: | UNIVERSAL PICTURES UK |
| Collections: | Our Favourites |
| Name | Discs | |
|---|---|---|
Scarface |
15 Feature |
DVD Information
| Run time: | 1 hour 26 minutes |
|---|---|
| Rental release: | Currently unavailable |
| Main languages: | English |
Write your own review
Most helpful review
Perfect ultra-violent gangland drama from pre-code Hollywood
By johnny_friendly from London, England , 31 Dec 2005[Highly rated reviewer]
Prior to 1934, American cinema was free and unecumbered by any censorship restrictions. What this meant in practice was that as far as filmic subject matter was concerned, anything was permissable - drugs, sex, nudity, violence and general amorality. Of all the films from this era, Scarface (1932) was perhaps the most celebrated. It was considered to be so outrageously violent for its time that it prompted the introduction of the Hays Code, a 'moral' code that all films were required to adhere to which didn't disappear until 1968. Scarface (1932) is without question one of the great masterpieces of cinema. Although Little Caesar & The Public Enemy had already been made, this particular gang-banger pushed the life of a hoodlum into the realms of epic territory. Still very theatrical, but encompassing many sub-plots within the major one to make it much more than just a rise-and-fall. Many of the elements of the Brian De Palma remake are here including the incest overtones which are actually MORE pronounced here than the 1983 version! (i.e. she's into it). And then there's the terrific humor. Dig the fake Italian accents! And the character who plays 'Tony Camonte's secretary' has to be one of the great comic performers in history - he's hilarious! And how does Scarface (1932) compare to the remake? Well, the De Palma version chiefly benefits from the unmatchable charisma and intensity of Pacino but basically it's just a remake of a classic, in the true sense of the word. Scarface (1932) pretty much justifies the invention of cinema alone.- Was this review helpful to you?
- (6) Yes |
- No (1)
All reviews
(21)Hugely influential on the gangster genre
By Bassman71 (619 reviews) from Didsbury, England , 28 Aug 2012Bodyguard rises through mob ranks, becomes second in command, gets out of control, other gangs fight back, carnage.
Obviously dated film but hugely influential on the gangster genre and you can certainly see parts of it in The Godfather and Goodfellas.
The acting does seem a little wooden or over-dramatic at times but the violence is still quite shocking so I can’t imagine what it was like back in the 1930s.
Paul Muni isn’t the greatest actor but he looks the part and has a certain swagger about him that you just can’t take your eyes off.- Was this review helpful to you?
- (0) Yes |
- No (0)
acceptable crime drama
By itstinks (681 reviews) from North of Reading , 22 Jun 2010The basis of the Brian De Palma overblown, over violent and over acted version of the same name.
This version also is a little over acted and was probably quite violent for its time.
Amazingly it also had the incest overtones.- Was this review helpful to you?
- (1) Yes |
- No (0)
Gripping but stagey
By Slurs from Scotland , 26 Apr 2010Casually chilling violence from an obviously doomed leader. Interesting to see gangsters coming from somewhere other than Warner's, and worth watching, but Warner's did it better.- Was this review helpful to you?
- (1) Yes |
- No (0)
The first and greatest Scarface
By wr1ter2b (12 reviews) from Canterbury , 12 Feb 2010I think most people think of Pacino up to his nose in coke when they hear the word 'Scarface'. This 1932 version is way better, in my opinion, if you can look past some of the sermonizing voiceover. Muni's portrayal of the gangster is far more chilling, in my opinion and the relationship with his sister has overtones of genuine tragedy. Scarface is far from the card board cut out he is in de Palma's version. You can see so many later 'Gangster' films in this one, including what they've 'borrowed'.- Was this review helpful to you?
- (0) Yes |
- No (0)
QUITE GOOD FOR ITS AGE
By a customer from London , 13 Aug 2009I have to say that this film was actually not too bad considering how old it was....1932 is quite a long time. I did feel that the story was not made clear enough and had it not been for the fact that I have watched the remake with al pacino it wouldnt have been as enjoyable but nevertheless good for its age. Worth seeing if you love the al pacino one...its quite interesting the way the stories are very similar yet so different at the same time- Was this review helpful to you?
- (0) Yes |
- No (0)
