I recently watched another classic film -- or at least one that quite a few contend is a more recent "classic," Scarface. Made in 1983, the film is now over 25 years old. But it feels older and more dated to me than half the movies that really are considered classics.That age starts with the "period" setting in 1980, in the waning months of Jimmy Carter's presidency. The movie is steeped in high hair and shoulder pads, neon colors, and all the trappings of 80s. But there are tons of 80s films like that that don't feel so stranded in time to me.
The real problem is the casting. This movie is supposed to be about an influx of crime in Miami brought on by a mass of immigrants from the slums of Cuba. And starring as the "Cubans," you have a series of actors each less logical than the last. Al Pacino. Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio. F. Murray Abraham? Robert Loggia?! You would never make this kind of movie today and not cast people of at least a reasonably close ethnicity appropriate to the story. This is not a reflection on the actual performances of any of these actors. I've loved them in other films. But here they're simply too distracting to ever take the story seriously.
And it's a plodding and slow-paced story at that. Clocking in at nearly three hours, the film practically wants to tell you the life story of the title character. We don't get his life from birth, thankfully, but we do get every single detail of his rise from street rat to kingpin. And we get it -- lots and lots of drugs.
Really, the only thing I could find to like about the movie is some occasionally clever camera work and staging from director Brian De Palma. At least, in the moments where he's not to taken with showing off how long he can hold a shot without an edit. I certainly saw none of the glamor I feel that many have attached to the movie. I rate it a D-.
2 comments:
Well...on this classic movie sir...I can't agree with you more. I only saw this movie about two years ago myself.
I'd finally had it with seeing all the toys, reprint posters, comics, etc. about it and gave it a watch. I thought it was one of the slowest, most uncompelling, droning movies I'd seen in some time. It struck me that it was only really famous for the truly over the top performance by Al Pacino - and then add in other performances punctuated by bad accents and LOUD acting, it just hit me as a complete waste of time.
I get that it was revolutionary in its day for the blood and the style, but the acting and the story to me just make all of that secondary, no matter when it came out. It's popularity seems to be the basic tenet of "anyone can rise to the top" and is held dear by gangs and such today.
But as far as entertainment? I found the 1932 version from Howard Hawks with Boris Karloff that came with my copy of the 1983 version MUCH more fun and entertaining, and without all the baggage and distractions.
the funniest line of the movie, translated into the safe-for-TV edit:
"This town is one big chicken waiting to be plucked."
the mole
Post a Comment