Scarface (1932) User Reviews (425)

Arguably superior to De Palma's remake

[tghoneyc · 9/10 · 8 November 2004]

Many purists would jump at this as being the definitive "Sacrface," but so much had changed in the fifty-one years between the two movies that it is nearly impossible. Whereas the Al Pacino cult classic spanned close to three hours and included almost every imaginable cause of death, this version is a mere hour and a half, give or take a few minutes, and unlike the remake, takes place entirely in Chicago.

Made as an anti-gangster film, with a message buried under the many bodies that pile up, this is a surprisingly brutal movie for its time, and got a reputation as such. This was just before the so-called "Golden Age" of cinema, and in a time like that, chances are a movie this unapologetic wouldn't get made. But it is a masterful gangster film.

Paul Muni is Tony Camonte, a pseudo-Capone psycho who believes in doing the dirty work himself, is a sleazebag. He talks in a lisp that holds him apart from the gangsters of Cagney and Bogart as a man who, even then, seems ethnic. To boot, his "secretary" is an immigrant who is only semi-literate and can't hear people well on the phone. Boris Karloff shows up as an Irish gangster, Gaffney, who falls under Camonte's gun. Aside from an entire segment where Camonte goes seemingly from point A to point B with the same tommy gun and kills off the competition, this is a brilliant milestone in the gangster genre, and probably the best of the era. Even now, it proves what people could accomplish by mere suggestion, sparing much of the language that is in movies (and, indeed, used in real life) today.

"Scarface" is most often brought up in discussions on the gangster movie

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 8/10 · 8 May 2005]

"Scarface" is the film of the Thirties which is most often brought up in discussions on the gangster movie…

According to Hawks, he directed "Scarface" with the idea of telling the story of the Capone family as if they were the Borgias living in Chicago in the Twenties.... This may well be- true… At the time, however, there was much publicity to suggest that "Scarface" was the Capone story – which it certainly wasn't…

It was a very good, exciting gangster film, and it stands up well when viewed today, more than 70 years on…

Paul Muni gave a great performance as Tony Camonte, the scarred gang-leader, but it bears little resemblance to Capone as he really was… Camonte is tough, ruthless, a handy man with a gun and – at the end – a figure hysterically afraid of death as he battles it out with police from his steel-shuttered fortress…

Capone was certainly tough and ruthless, but he tried to avoid gunplay himself and employed others to do his dirty work… He was not cowardly, and he did not die in battle…

"Scarface"should be seen and remembered as a film devised to exploit the Chicago of its day – and it must be remembered that Chicago gang wars made front-page banner headlines all over the world… It is the story of a battle for power between two gangster figures: Tony Camonte and Gaffney, played by Boris Karloff… A secondary plot hinges on Camonte's strength of feeling for his sister, Cesca (Ann Dvorak), and the romance between Cesca and Camonte's henchman, Guino Rinaldo (George Raft).

Eventually Camonte kills Rinaldo in the belief that he has violated Cesca – though the pair are actually married… This is the famous scene in which Rinaldo, whose trademark throughout the picture is his constant flipping and catching of a gold coin, drops out of picture as he dies... and the coin this time falls to the floor…

Gaffney, the rival gang-leader, is sometimes likened to Edward "Spike" O'Donnell, with whom Capone fought a war for control of the Chicago South Side…

In the film, however, the Gaffney character is totally unlike the real Spike, who was a rough-and-ready criminal of Irish descent with a tendency towards practical jokes… He and his three brothers, Steve, Walter and Tommy, did just about everything in their time, from bank robberies to strike-breaking, with a little pick-pocketing on the side… "Spike" was a devout Catholic who attended services regularly... yet his most-quoted remark is: "When arguments fail – use a black-jack."

The rise and fall of a power hungry mobster.

[michaelRokeefe · 7/10 · 31 July 2001]

Howard Hawks directs this harsh and frank and sometimes humorous look at a small time gangster's(Paul Muni) taste of success before his mob world crumbles around him. This is one of the best gangster movies of the 1930's. Very well written and full of terrific characters. Fast paced and free flowing story line.

My favorite scene is when the Muni character first gets his hands on a machine gun. This arrogant, violence driven mobster becomes child like with a brand new toy. Others in this fine crime drama are Osgood Perkins, George Raft, Ann Dvorak, Boris Karloff and C. Henry Gordon. Also notable are Karen Morley and Edwin Maxwell as the Chief of Detectives.

Ambition, greed and pride come before a fall. The mob way or no way is a tough way to live. Excellent flick.

Muni, Robinson and Cagney

[sryder-1 · 10/10 · 4 April 2006]

Inevitably, Scarface will be compared with the near-contemporary gangster films, Little Caesar and Public Enemy, and Paul Muni with their stars Edward G. Robinson and James Cagney. What does it tell us about that era: that all three careers took off with portrayals of gang leaders? The three performances significantly differ. Robinson rises to the top by the use of a crafty intelligence as well as violence; Cagney by a type of shrewdness and personal charisma. Paul Muni's Tony Comonte is neither intelligent nor personable; his manners are crude; and at times he is almost childlike in his behavior: for instance, when he is enjoying a play and is interrupted after the second act, summoned to do another killing,and leaves a henchman behind, who can tell him later how it came out, then is delighted to hear that the "guy with the collar" didn't get the girl; rather, the rougher suitor. He can be described as cunning and animistic: a young wolf who eliminates any rival who stands in his way; finally the leader of the pack One can be moved by Robinson's last words, "Is this the end of Little Caesar?" or by Cagney's body falling through the open door of his family home, he having been killed off-screen. Comonte's death is that of a trapped or cornered animal, wordless in a beautifully staged sequence,as brutal as his life, depicted for the audience in every detail. Of the three portrayals, Muni's comes across to me as the most chilling, in its enactment of instinctive evil. How ironic that He would later win his greatest fame for his performances as Emile Zola and Louis Pasteur.

"Do It First, Do It Yourself, And Keep On Doing It"

[bkoganbing · 10/10 · 20 January 2007]

Unlike James Cagney and Edward G. Robinson in their career making roles as gangsters, Paul Muni after Scarface was able to avoid being typecast for his career. Only rarely did Muni return to a gangster part in his career.

It must not have been easy for him because Muni is absolutely mesmerizing as the totally amoral Tony Camonte. After Scarface was released Muni was inundated with offers to play gangsters which he rejected. Interesting because without knowing it another of the cast in Scarface, Boris Karloff, would be ultimately trapped in the horror film genre. Muni assuredly avoided Karloff's fate.

Another cast member, George Raft, got his big film break playing Muni's right hand man. For Raft this was art imitating life, these were the people who were his pallies in real life, there was never any acting involved. Raft never really had too many acclaimed performances away from the gangster/big city genre.

Camonte is the ultimate killing machine. He knows only one law the law of the jungle. He'll rise by any means possible, use anyone it takes, kill anyone who gets in his way. He has only two weaknesses, an obsession that borders on incestuous desires for his sister Ann Dvorak and a kind of affection for his factotum Vince Barnett. That's the kind of affection you have for a pet.

Barnett who usually played drunks and hangers-on got his career role out of Scarface. What comic relief there is in the film he provides. He's got some good moments as a 'secretary' trying to take a phone message with bullets flying all around him. Had he been not dispatched to take the message the machine gun bullets would have found their mark easily in the taller Muni.

Scarface is also art that imitates life. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of the history of gangland war in the Chicago of the Twenties will recognize Muni as Capone, Boris Karloff as Bugs Moran, and Osgood Perkins as Johnny Torio. Capone could have sued, but right about then he was having much bigger problems with Internal Revenue.

We can't forget Karen Morley who played Poppy the girl who likes to go with a winner. She shifts from Perkins to Muni and away from Muni when it becomes necessary. In her own way, she's as amoral as Muni.

Scarface along with Public Enemy and Little Caesar set the standard for gangster films. The updated 1983 remake with Al Pacino in Muni's part is a good film itself and got a lot of its audience with some really gory scenes.

Muni did it with talent alone.

not flawless, but still great

[claudecat · 12 February 2003]

I just watched "Scarface" for the 3rd or 4th time, and was surprised to find out that I no longer find it utterly perfect. Vince Barnett's vaudevillian comic bits are too long, and the constant underscoring of the film's anti-violence "message" is awkward. But I still think the film has a lot of great things in it, and I would definitely recommend it. As everyone else mentioned, Paul Muni is excellent as dopey gangster Tony Camonte, and this time I was knocked out by Karen Morley's performance as a no-nonsense moll; I hope I can find some other films of hers. I'm not sure the movie works as the anti-violence film it claims to be: Although Tony Camonte has a lot of faults, the non-gangster characters are mostly undeveloped and dull, if not downright problematic, like the police inspector who apparently likes to beat up arrestees. Edwin Maxwell's tough-talking Chief of Detectives has the right idea about the "lice" who shoot innocent bystanders during their crime sprees, but his character is a bit too one-note to compete with Paul Muni and George Raft. In fact, I think George Raft's character is subtly made into the hero of the film, despite all the illegal things he does. Interestingly, the film is probably just as violent as many modern pictures--there are an awful lot of gunshot victims--but because it's in black and white, and each killing goes by quickly, audiences of today might find it rather tame. But Hawks makes excellent use of sound to try and convey the horror of some of the crimes: a woman screams chillingly, a dog barks in the distance. Did this film help rouse the public against Prohibition-era gangsters, or did it just continue the public's romance with them?

Hot Bullets for Brotherly love.

[colm-7 · 7/10 · 19 March 2000]

‘What are you going to do about it?' Hawks' question begins this film along with a claim that it is ‘an indictment of gang rule in America and of the callous indifference of the government'. This film is not an indictment against organized crime and crooked politicians but rather an entertaining rise and fall story of an ambitious and arrogant gangster wrapped around an impossible unrequited love for his own sister. Loosely based on the life of Al Capone, it is wanting to know when this wild cannon will get mowed down in gunfire as he continuously ups the stake to increase his power, that keeps me riveted, not the depiction of a wronged society.

Pocked with symbolism and shadowy cinematography, Howard Hawks takes us right into the underworld of the gangster through the life of Tony Camonte (Paul Muni), the rough but charming gangster whose goal is to take total control of the bootleg beer business, with the help of machine guns. Realistic car chases, crashes, rat-tat-tat drive by shooting and plenty of violence are shown to us as part of this gangster's working day. While it follows the Classical Hollywood Style and low-key lighting for the stark dark world of crime, the film runs at a steady building pace. This gangster life is exciting – it comes with girls, silk robes and fancy cars, but it is always choked with danger from enemies, a double-crossing boss to police who are keen to do final judgment on the spot. But it is this danger that increases the urgency of Tony Camonte to ‘take over the world' and with this urgency is the chance that he will make a mistake - and we wait for this mistake. Each scene tops the last in terms of the stakes and danger. He does make a mistake and that is revealed in a slow build up with warning signs splattered as often as machine gun fire. All of his actions up to that was part of a strategy to gain complete control of the booze empire; once he crosses a sacred line, he is doomed.

In the life of Scarface, we see his personal life as the only son in a poor fatherless broken home with a reproachful mother and fun loving sister whom he protects violently. We see his career life with his smart Brutus style crime. He is a keen strategist with a strong grip on reality. He can clearly spot weaknesses in his bosses and his enemies and then quickly take advantage of them. Camera close-ups to his steely looks let us know he is always on the verge of violence or a joke but you never know which. He disregards authority but recognizes the power of the gun. His strategy is made clear when he points to the machine gun in his hand ‘There is only one thing that gets orders and gives orders and this is it'. In an earlier scene he tells his right hand man Guino ‘Do it first, do it yourself and keep on doing it'. This clearly shows how he intends to go about his goal. However, what does he really want? This is symbolized in an obvious way by the neon sign for a travel agency outside his apartment window ‘ The World is Yours' But why does he want it? This is hinted throughout the film as we jump into both his personal and 'business' life and spot his own weakness.

Though Tony seeks the pretty girl the real girl he wants is his sister, There are several examples in the film where the relationship was less than squeaky clean - see if you can spot them, but look at the poster for this film shows Tony going for his Sister in a lecherous way with her in a skimpy dress. No sign of supposed love interest, Poppy the platinum blonde. This relationship with his sister certainly makes the movie more interesting and is a theme often copied in more difficult American showpieces such as in Arthur Miller's play ‘ A View from the Bridge' (1960) . The production code was not in full use until 1934 but the censors had plenty to say about the indecent relationship between the two, requesting that some scenes be reshot. His sister is quite a cookie; passionate, sexy and has designs on the opposite sex. ‘I have adult ideas' she tells Guino.

The film makes plentiful use of symbols. The X for death is used liberally, I spotted 5 scenes with the X, see how many you can find. This X seems to symbolize the fatalistic nature surrounding Tony; when he decides someone is to die, death itself comes and helps him out. Other techniques such as a man whistling every time someone is killed is copied in more recent movies like Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction when Jules recites Ezekiel from the bible before killing people.

The film opens with a statement of purpose as an ‘indictment' against gangsters. But the film clearly is no such thing. There are however, several scenes where this opening statement ties in and each scene has it's own purpose though they definitely distracts us from the ‘full' life of the gangster we are connected to and I wonder why they are really there. The police chief, symbolizing the good solid American, elucidates what is wrong with gangsters, lawyers and politicians. The ruling-class meetings discuss the problem and decide that it is the lack of gun laws and illegal immigration that supports the gangsters. These topical issues are cited as root cause. Whether they are or not is irrelevant, what is important is that they incite public reaction. The opening statements only purpose is to get the viewer even more riled up about the film. Hawks cared less about society's gangster problem than his film as he rejected censors requests for inclusion of changed scenes.

The movie's dark substance is complemented with humor and romance. There is a running joke throughout the film where Scar face's secretary can't answer the phone properly until the very end, which is funny. Sexual humor surrounds Scar face's ambition to claim Poppy. In an early scene she is bent over with her rear to the camera and says ‘Why don't you do it' (in reference to sending flowers), the next shot is of him giving a protracted gaze in the direction of her butt only to be moved on by Johnny Lovo.

‘What are you going to do about it?' Well, enjoy this well made, fast paced gangster flick! A great show of tough monkeys, sultry dames and great car chases. A film about blind ambition for an impossible love.

Scarface was one of Howard Hawks most famous movies and is the standard for the gangster genre, influencing future directors such as Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola. Though Scarface was not the first gangster movie, similarities and copycats followed quickly and often.

Say Hello to the Original Scarred Madman...

[Don-102 · 10/10 · 8 April 1999]

The early 1930's produced a whirlwind of mobster films, commenting on the real-life problem of organized crime throughout Prohibition America. LITTLE CAESAR and PUBLIC ENEMY were the first significant films of the genre, but not until Howard Hawks tour-de-force smash, SCARFACE, did the public get to see what was going on. Hawks' film came out in 1932 and has been a mainstay in filmmaker's minds and fans alike ever since. Scorsese, Coppola, and especially De Palma, have all drawn inspiration (and the '83 remake) from Hawks and Ben Hecht, the picture's screenwriter. Paul Muni was loosely based on Al Capone, and SCARFACE begins with yet another message to the government telling them to get off their butts and rid the country of Tony Carmontes everywhere. I think the picture works more as brutal, realistic entertainment than moral message. In hindsight, SCARFACE made it all look fun.

This searing flick looks so spooky and dark, you truly get the feeling of the real "underworld" and how uncompromising it was and still is. Some brilliant images grace the screen: the passage of dates on a calendar by machine gun; Muni's gruesome scar; an opening murder scene done with such subtly the mere sound of Muni's whistle triggers doom; a sideshow of possible incest between "Tony" and his tortured sister. No joke. It appears almost blatantly in varying scenes of building jealousy and murder. Many of the elements show up in De Palma's remake, such as the sister, her relationship with Tony's best friend, and his disapproving mother. The original packs more substance into a shorter film and is clearly better than the flashy remake (which I also loved).

This was one of Howard Hawks' 1st films and he continued to make pictures that differed so completely, one after the other. SCARFACE is his landmark film, a must-see that was considered by many to be unreleasable to the audiences of 1932. It is a predictable rise and fall portrait of a brooding goon, however the techniques and blunt force of the film make you come back for more. Watch it before the Pacino remake and see what you think. They are excellent representatives of Hollywood storytelling then and now. Keep an eye out for a svelte Boris Karloff in civilian clothing (a rarity) as a sinister enemy of the scarred one. He rolls quite a memorable strike in a bowling alley. A masterpiece of character, story, mood, and bullets flying.

RATING: 10 of 10

Classic gangster picture is a mixed bag

[gbill-74877 · 7/10 · 7 February 2018]

If you're in the mood for a classic gangster film with a lot of action and violence, this one may suit you. Paul Muni is in the role of Tony Camonte, an up and coming gangster with a scar on his face that resembles a giant cross. He's far from saintly though, and aggressively pushes to expand his territory, piling up bodies as he goes, and lusting after both his boss's girlfriend (Karen Morley) and his own sister (Ann Dvorak).

Muni exaggerates his facial expressions a bit too much, but he's fantastic in some scenes, such as the one where he fixes an icy stare at his boss (Osgood Perkins), when he finds he's been betrayed. As an aside, some of his expressions reminded me of James Franco; see if you agree. As for the rest of the cast, it's a mixed bag. Perkins (incidentally, Anthony Perkins' father) isn't all that convincing as his boss, he's just not tough enough. It's interesting to see Boris Karloff (and in one scene, bowling no less), but he doesn't quite seem to fit. Ann Dvorak is strong as his sister who has just turned 18 and is looking for a good time. My favorite scene with her is when she tries to get Muni's right-hand man (George Raft) to dance. Raft turned in what I thought was the best performance, understated but tough, flipping a coin menacingly (so iconic!), and really looking the part.

Most of the scenes director Howard Hawks gives us aren't all that special from my perspective. The ones that stand out are the St. Valentine's Day massacre execution shot, which had seven shadows on a wall mowed down by machine gun fire, and then later, a body dumped out of a moving car with the ominous note "stay out of the North Side."

The political messages in the film are heavy-handed, but it's interesting in that they span both sides of today's political spectrum, arguing for tougher gun control laws, while at the same time, to deport illegal immigrants. It's also interesting that while the film ostensibly states it purpose is to show true events to spur action against gangsters and violence, it seems to do a fair bit of glorifying them, just as 'The Public Enemy' had the year before. Oh, how America loves its guns and gangster films, and how well this film fits in with understanding its character, and a long history of violence.

This is certainly a decent film, especially if you like the genre, though I liked 'The Public Enemy' better, mainly because of Cagney. Muni himself is far better in 'I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang' which he also did in 1932, and I would recommend it over 'Scarface' as well.

Preferred far more than the remake; Hawks, Hecht, and Muni are first-rate here

[Quinoa1984 · 10/10 · 22 January 2005]

In an attempt to try and snap some sense into the public and the government about the crime wave (mostly in due to Al Capone, who was a major inspiration for Tony Camonte), Howard Hughes and Howard Hawks brought to the screen one of the landmark early gangster pictures.

It's a film that does take its subject seriously (while on one hand one argues that the film is an indictment of crime and peoples responses, one could also argue that it's a subtle indictment of the prohibition), however it's also an exciting, and sometimes wickedly funny, take on a genre that would flourish in the thirties and forties. What comes most surprising (and I mean that as a big compliment) is how it hasn't lost much of its vitality in seventy years. The implied violence in the film is, in fact, shocking in places, and while it lacks the blood content and major shocks of the De Palma remake, it doesn't compromise to showing the (slightly Hollywood-ized) truth of the matter- crime doesn't pay, but sometimes it's all people know.

Tony Camonte is played by Paul Muni, in a performance that wonderfully ranges from angry to sarcastic, funny to romantic, and just down-right crazy; it's no wonder that Pacino was inspired by his performance to take on Tony Montana in the remake (though one could argue that Muni's bravura presence and delivery in this film out-ranks Pacino's in the later). He is surrounded by supporting players that also give very good work as well, with the story being told in various threads that work perfectly. There's one semi-comic story around one of Camonte's assistants who is rather illiterate and slow (though it's also a subtle commentary on the lack of prospects for immigrants at the time). Another (which was given much prominence in the remake) involves the power-struggle between Tony and his younger sister. And then there's the good-old mixture of solid, fascinating bits with the cops and other criminals, not to mention a boss that has to control Tony's manic ideals of taking over the city (and, perhaps, the world).

I once heard Quentin Tarantino in an interview say that Howard Hawks is the 'single greatest storyteller in the history of cinema'. Although that could be a heavily debatable statement, with this film Hawks proves that he definitely can do so very well, and of the few I've seen of his so far, this is my favorite. On the technical side of things, some of the technique is very straight-forward, but then there is also proof that Hawks was a step-ahead of the crowd that would bloom out in the film-noir period a decade later. Shadows used with a fine flair; great over-head and dead-on shots of cars riding and shooting; a couple of really keen close-ups.

Add to that a script from Hecht that doesn't go too deep into character for too long, and you got your basic powerhouse gangster picture. And, believe me, it's a must-see if you're into the genre, or if you'd like to have a comparison test with the highly revered remake.

When the gangster film was born...still stunning...

[Doylenf · 7/10 · 7 December 2005]

SCARFACE set the style for all the Warner gangster films to follow, gritty, fast-paced and full of violence. It was a cycle that seemed to come to a fitting conclusion with Cagney's WHITE HEAT seventeen years later.

Aside from Howard Hawks' brisk, no nonsense direction, the biggest asset of SCARFACE is PAUL MUNI, with the swarthy actor riveting in the role of the merciless gangster who gets his comeuppance in the final scene, squealing like a cornered rat so that the pre-code censorship would be satisfied by a crime doesn't pay sort of ending.

A close second to Muni is GEORGE RAFT, flipping that coin in true gangster movie style, and doing nicely in a secondary plot that features his attraction to Muni's teen-aged sister, ANN DVORAK, who appears to have a close relationship with her obsessed brother.

Hawks and Howard Hughes apparently had many censorship angles to soften before the film could be released but this is still pre-code stuff that has a sharp enough edge to make it watchable today.

Interesting to note that the actor who plays a double-crossing crime boss is played by Osgood Perkins, father of the late Anthony Perkins. He bears no resemblance to his famous son. As an opportunistic gangster's moll, Karen Morley is stunning as Muni's love interest.

Other gangster films of this era were just as effective--films like LITTLE CAESAR and PUBLIC ENEMY--but this one ranks among the most memorable of the early thirties.

If you like gangster films, this is one you can't afford to miss.

Trivia note: Interesting to note the scarcity of background music throughout. It would take awhile before this would change drastically, especially at studios like Warner Bros. where Max Steiner flourished.

A Monster Who Whistles Opera Arias

[theowinthrop · 10/10 · 25 September 2006]

According to a book about the films that Howard Hughes produced, while SCARFACE was being produced in Hollywood, the director Howard Hawkes got a visit from two rather unfriendly gentlemen. They had been sent by their employer, one Alphonse Capone of Chicago, to find out the truth that the movie Hawkes was directing was about him and his career. Hawkes assured them that it wasn't, as everyone knew what a smart man Mr. Capone was, while the central figure in this film ended up dead. Somehow Hawkes' reassurances worked, and the great director did not find his career ended prematurely with a "cement kimono" or a severe case of lead poisoning. How he was able to get away with this I can't figure out. Capone was known (behind his back) as "scarface" because of a knifing scar which was given to him (and which he well earned) when he insulted the knife wielder's sister in the Red Hook area of Brooklyn in the late teens of the 20th Century. The name of the anti-hero at the center of the film is "Tony Carmonte", which sounds vaguely like "Capone". He is brought to the city to bump off the old boss by Johnny Lovo (Osgood Perkins), just like Capone was brought to Chicago by his uncle Johnny Torrio to kill Torrio's friend and boss "Big Jim Colosimo" in 1920. Maybe various incidents are not precisely like those Capone did, but enough were left in to leave little doubt. SCARFACE is to Capone as ALL THE KING'S MEN is to Huey Long and CITIZEN KANE is to William Randolph Hearst.

SCARFACE has frequently been put into a select group of gangster films that popped up between 1930 and 1932 (LITTLE CAESAR and THE PUBLIC ENEMY are the other two that are grouped with it). Each has elements of real violence in it, and it is amazing that Paul Muni, Eddie Robinson, and Jimmy Cagney all became stars from these three performances. This is not to knock their performances (they are all great ones), but the acceptance of the three stars as stars for portraying such anti-social types is incredible. My guess is the growing disillusionment of the public with federal and state and local government in the depression may have affected the audience's low threshold of normal tolerance for the gangsters in society. Suddenly they were supermen who knew how to get things done and how to force their views on society.

Muni's performance has been likened to that of an "ape" or "gorilla" man, as his body movements are not very gentle bur forceful and all threatening. He is only capable of feeding his own desires at everyone else's expense. Yet Muni does manage to leaven this monster's habits. First, most of the people he deals with are little better. Lovo is not as obviously murderous as Carmonte, but he brought him to Chicago, and (until Tony starts muscling Lovo out of his center of power and his relationship with Poppy - Karen Morley) he turns very nasty. George Raft's Rinaldo is loyal to Tony (until he romances and marries Tony's sister Cesca - Ann Dvorak), but he is a merciless killer to all of Tony's enemies. Tony's habit of whistling an air from an opera before he shows his vicious streak is mirrored by Rinaldo's now celebrated coin flipping. Vince Barnett's Angelo is the type of low-live hanger-on that services these criminals. We tend to like Angelo because he is so stupid at times (and his death scene is a pathetically sad one) but he is not a good citizen. As for the opponents of Carmonte in the underworld, a typical one is Boris Karloff's Gaffney (a British criminal? - possibly based on Owney Madden, the English born, New York criminal). He is not only vicious when his gang was active, but his Gaffney mirrors Carmonte when he is in hiding, trembling about being bumped off (as Tony does at the end).

Tony does have some cultural pretensions (unlike Capone, who openly preferred sports like baseball and boxing). Not only his whistling habits, he also enjoys plays - we see him watching a production of RAIN by Somerset Maugham. He likes the character of Sadie Thompson and he even notes how the production keeps a steady stream of rain going on stage. But it is pure veneer. He leaves the theater to commit a murder.

He also shows a degree of incestuous interest towards Cesca. It leads to a growing series of confrontations with his sister over her behavior with men (he wants her to remain pure, at home). He even kills the loyal Rinaldi before he learns the latter married Cesca. Yet it is a curious relationship - Cesca is the last loyal member of his mob, and dies for him at the end.

As a study of uncontrolled brutality run amok, SCARFACE is still powerful. One might say that Muni's performance goes over the top, with lines about allowing his machine gun to "spit". But so did Al Pacino in the remake, introducing his enemies to "his little friend."

1932 over 1988

[loveandjoy1188 · 6/10 · 13 March 2019]

I enjoy the early mobster movies and their representation of prohibition in America. I am intrigued to see the original movie before the censorship cuts that were demanded. I think the best part of the movie was the childlike manor that came over Muni where he gets his first machine gun. It's conveyed in such a way that the audience feels that way for him. This movie was enjoyable, much more so than the remake.

Disappointing

[nightowl86 · 4/10 · 3 March 2010]

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The very beginning of this film was intriguing, but as a whole, this film was boring to me. I felt like this was not Paul Muni's best performance. His performance as Tony Camonte was over the top and not very nuanced to me. Most of the other performances of the supporting cast were wooden, one-dimensional, or over the top. Karen Morley gave an interesting performance as the reserved Poppy, as did George Raft as the quiet Guino Rinaldo. I do wonder if it was the performances, the writing, or just the acting of the time that made me feel this way. Despite the action scenes and violence, the plot seemed predictable and not very interesting. The moments of comic relief were not very successful either. This film also seems very dated. Overall, I was just disappointed, because I heard this was a classic, and I had higher expectations.

Easily one of the best gangster films ever

[preppy-3 · 10/10 · 9 July 2005]

Film chronicles the rise and fall of Tony Camonte (Paul Muni) an ugly, stupid and violent gangster.

This film was originally shot in 1930 but was held from release until 1932 because the censor demanded cuts. Watching it, I can only imagine how bad the missing material was. The film is full of shootouts and gun fights--they're quick, violent and just incredible. The body count has to be in the triple digits. The best scene has Boris Karloff as a gangster (!!!) shot to death in a bowling alley. As incredible as the violence is, the film condemns it--they make it clear that Scarface and his gang are cold-blooded killers and nothing more.

Also the film has PLENTY of sexual innuendo. Ann Dvorak plays Scarface's sister and it is made clear that she and her brother are VERY interested in each other. Also she does a very sexy dance in front of George Raft which is more than a little suggestive. I'm surprised that the censors let all this get by! The acting is superb. Muni plays Scarface as dumb, stupid, violent and ugly--and, in a way, very sexy. When he shoots down people it seems that he's actually getting a sexual charge from it! Also Muni, a very handsome man, was purposely made to look ugly. He looks more like an ape than human. George Raft as his best friend is also good--cold-blooded and heartless. Dvorak overplays it a bit but she is incredibly sexy. Hell, even Karloff is good as a gangster! The film is very well-directed by Hoaward Hawks--he pulls no punches. The script is quick and intelligent--it never stops moving.

After it was released (to great acclaim) in 1932 it was abruptly pulled--many people said glamorized gangsters (which is just ridiculous). It didn't surface until 1979 (Francis Ford Coppola helped get it re-released) and it was finally recognized for the classic it is.

Quite simply a GREAT film. Don't miss this one!

Ahead Of Its Time, Action-Wise

[ccthemovieman-1 · 9/10 · 11 March 2006]

Action-wise, this movie was 60 years ahead of its time, at least in terms of the amount of action in it. I think it's safe to say most classic films, including the crime movies, are much slower in pace than today's fare. Not this one.

Since they didn't show much blood in these old films, it isn't gory but it is action- packed with few lulls. Paul Muni, as "Tony Camonte," the head gangster, is compelling and fun to watch. He's tough-as-nails until the end. The women n here - Ann Dvoark and Karen Morely - are interesting, too, as is one of Muni's sidekicks, a big dumb guy who was funny. Don't be fooled by the billing of George Raft and Boris Karloff. They got it because they turned out to be big names later. In this film, they have very small roles.

This is Muni's show, though, all the way and few actors could ham it up in his day like him. It's a wild ride for the full 93 minutes.

p.s. To anyone misreading my opening remarks: more action doesn't always mean more interesting. Some times it does; some times it doesn't.

Realistic

[eibon09 · 10 July 2001]

An uncharacteristic film for Howard Hawks because its one of the few films by him to have no heroic characters at all. Does not have the same kind of male bonding that is part of the director's resume. Scarface(1932) is the film that put Howard Hawks name on the film map. Its Hawks excellent take on the gangster genre made popular in the 1930s.

Scarface(1932) was made during the pre code era before the Hays Office began a tough censorship campaign that lasted three decades. Scarface(1932) was very violent in its time and was one of the movies that was targeted by the Hays Code. For thirty plus years films and movie makers were squeezed out of any artistic freedom due to the tyrant rule of the Hays Office. Many of the pre code films took chances with subject ideas that were considered very taboo in the early 1930s.

Scarface(1932) was scandalous because of the incestuous obsession of Tony Camonte for his little sister, Cesca. For this reason and many others the film was way ahead of its time. The incest angle is the most daring and gutsiest aspect of Howard Hawks Scarface(1932). Foreshadows a similar relationship seventeen years later in White Heat(1949).

The letter X is a dominating motif of Scarface that appears thougout the motion picture. X in this case does not mark the spot but does mark death. X appears whenever someone is about to be killed. X seems to have another meaning that meant something to the director.

Tony Camonte is loosely based on the famous Prohibition mob boss, Al Capone. In fact, Scarface(1932) was inspired by the career and life of the notorious Al Capone. The film takes its title from the nickname Al Capone received as a young man after receiving a scar around his face. On a humorous note Al Capone was such a big of a movie with a character that was loosely patterened after him.

My favorite part of the movie are the coin flipping antic of George Raft. No other film has made flipping a coin look so cool. Its the trademark of Tony Camonte's best friend and right hand man, Guino Rinaldo. This type of stylization made a star out of supporting actor, George Raft.

One difference between the Howard Hawks and Brian De Palma versions are the big illegal activity of thier time period. Also, Tony Montana is Cuban while Tony Camonte is Italian. Another difference between the 32 and 83 version is that Violence in the former is implicit for the most part while mostly explicit in the latter. Last but not least, the 83 remake shows a little more sympathy towards its main character than the 32 version.

There are three reasons why the Howard Hawks original is better than the Brian De Palma remake. First, the acting, direction, and writing are top rate. Second, the incest sub plot is not played with an over the top relish like in the remake. Third, Paul Muni makes a more convining Italian than Al Pacino does as a Cuban.

Ben Hecht did an excellent job in writing the screenplay for the motion picture. The characters are developed in a realistic manner and the violent scenes are brutally descriptive. Scarface(1932) would be the beginning of a long fruitful director-writer relationship between Ben Hecht and Howard Hawks. Ben Hecht fills the story with interesting sub plots and memorable moments.

Scarface(1932) is a motion picture in need of an appearence on DVD. Scarface(1932) was Howard Hawks second foray into the gangster genre a year after the release of his first, The Criminal Code(1931). Boris Karloff gives a terrific performance in a rare non horror picture appearence. Scarface(1932) is still as powerful and tough in 2001 as it was in 1932.

Mafia Madness!

[CubsandCulture · 7/10 · 11 April 2019]

There is a scene that occurs about half way through this film in which a cop, a newspaper man, and couple of random people get into a protracted discussion about what has to be done about the mafia menace. The scene is terrible. It explicitly spells out the theme of the story-the wages of sin are death-while browbeating the viewer to get on the case. Some of the ideas put forward during that scene-enforcing the deportation act for example-are morally suspect. It stops the film's pace dead. The film is so much worse for including the scene.

Hawks' and Hughes' production is right on the edge of being a stylish early gangster film and being a self-parody of the same. Hawks' visuals are very inventive; they are primitive Noir-like use of deep shadows and high contrast black/white. It is really easy to see the German expressionism influences that goes through horror than crime to film Noir by this film being the connecting material. The use of the Tommy gun ripping off the dates of a calendar to show deaths and time passage was especially striking in that regard. The film tips into more parody than it should have because of the moralizing scene; it really does undermine the effect of the film.

The acting is scene chewing operatic caricature. Muni, especially, is quite overstated. It makes the film entertaining but I find it hard to get into the story with such comedic overtones.

This is the godfather of the gangster subgenre. It is not hard to see the bones of other works. But this film's influences and flaws explain why the gangster subgenre is as limited as it is. The film is entertaining when it shouldn't be.

Must-see seminal gangster film

[ROCKY-19 · 9/10 · 14 August 2006]

Paul, George and Boris get it started.

Anyone who has seen the wide array of gangster films over the past 80 years will find so many images originating with this gritty tale mixing portions of Al Capone's story with the Borgias. Viewers who know just the basics of Capone can identify most of the characters by their real-life names. This is so much more than simply the original version of the Al Pacino cult flick. Paul Muni, a brilliant and flexible actor, is the lowest of low-lifes, base and amoral with incestuous leanings. There isn't a hint of respect for human life. There is nothing glamorous in his portrayal of Tony or in the film at all. As repellent as he is, Muni is riveting.

Of huge importance in the long-range scope of crime film is George Raft's image here. Though his Guino "Little Boy" Rinaldo is a still man with few lines, he leaves a whammy of an impression. His constant flipping of a coin - suggested by Howard Hawks - created a prototype for nearly all gangster films and spoofs to follow. It was also an inside joke in "Some Like It Hot." Every gangster film needs a sharp-dressing wise-guy coin flipper - and you'll even see it in softies like "Singin' in the Rain," "Guys and Dolls" and even the weasels in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" This is where it started. When other gangster film stars got a "break-through," it was in a starring role. Raft's came here, as a killer and ladykiller hovering in the background with a face the camera loved like a woman. It helped that he was surrounded by plain and ugly thugs.

Like the cinematic use of the X's, Hawks used the coin flip as a signal of death. And there are a lot of deaths. Such imagery by cinematographer Lee Garmes contributes significantly to the power of this film. By the time Raft meets his stunningly restrained end, the audience has already had the warning of it telegraphed through these images. While this is a very black, violent film there is also bleak humor, such as Boris Karloff's fate in a bowling alley. And the added scenes sternly disclaiming the adulation of such criminals can also provoke a laugh.

How it was rather than why it was

[1930s_Time_Machine · 7/10 · 6 October 2022]

This uses a very different approach to story telling compared with its contemporary Warner Brothers gangster films. This shows how it is rather than explaining why it is.

Unlike James Cagney's Public Enemy, Paul Muni's character is not likeable in any way. It's impossible to empathise with him or develop any feelings for him. Empathising with him however is the last thing on earth you'd want to do, he is a vile monster, more horrific and terrifying than any of the monsters being made over at Universal because he is real.

If you watch films from this era you will encounter loveable rogues or bumbling gangsters possibly helping the likes of Joan Blondell to put on a show etc. But this is real life; it reflects the sickeningly brutal reality of organised crime making existing during the Great Depression even more unbearable.

Even though this is 'pre-code' because of censorship, you don't get any backstory from Ben Hecht's fabulous script explaining why this man is the way he is. This is about a moral sickness rather than a character and that does make this movie feel a little cold. Muni's flawless performance explodes onto the screen fully formed and utterly psychotic and violent and just to hammer home the point, he's even having an incestuous relationship with his little sister. All that makes him sound like a pantomime baddie but Hecht draws on his experiences as a Chicago journalist making this thug totally authentic and believable.

Unlike The Public Enemy which blames society for Tom Power's character, Tony (Capone) Camonte is just evil. Characters exactly like this were terrorising the very streets of Chicago as audiences strolled by to watch this very film in the picture houses. Innocent bystanders, women and children were being callously left dying in pools of their own blood in crossfire between rival gangs of thugs without a second thought.

It's not easy viewing but because it's so engrossing you cannot tear your eyes away from it. Like the 1983 gory (and horrible) remake with Al Pachino, it's got a strong message. It's just as bleak and soulless but there are a few touches of humour to make it more palatable. And also, thanks to Howard Hawks, you can have a little fun spotting the X motifs he has hidden in every scene signifying a death is about to happen - every death has got one!

It blazes with the irresistible urge of a machine gun...

[jem132 · 10/10 · 25 May 2006]

...And never lets go of it's frantic pace. Howard Hawks 'Scarface' is an amazing product of the 30's, a Pre-Code gangster film that broke many, many boundaries.

Muni's Tony Camonte is an ugly, ape-like figure who is supposed to represent Capone (scarred cheek and all). Camonte is psychotic, primitive, volatile and ambitious, ardently believing in a sign that beams 'The World Is Yours'. His Napoleonic delusions and drive lead him to break more than a few vital 'mob rules', and he quickly goes from being the hunter to the hunted as he rises in power.

The first time I viewed Muni in the role I thought he wasn't very good at all, with over-the-top gesturing and crude attempts at psychology...then I re-watched. Now I believe that Muni's performance is one of the best you'll find in in the gangster/crime genre. So, why the change of heart? Well, at the time I wasn't very exposed to early 30's (talkie) acting styles, so I thought he was overblown. Then I realised how convincingly brutal and animalistic Muni is in the role, and I was bowled over with his skill. Needless to say, I'm a Muni fan now.

This film is Pre-Code and has, to put it bluntly, a lot of sex in it. Most of the women we see in the film are prostitutes like Poppy, scantily clad tart who Muni leers over. But the most interesting sexual element is the incest angle. Muni may make a play for Poppy, but it's blatantly obvious that it's his kid sister Cesca, who he lusts after and truly loves. Their encounters are raw and brutal, but tinged with a steamy, very sexual element. In one encounter, Muni rips off half of Dvorak's dress, revealing her bra, in anger and jealousy. In another, he shoots down Cesca's lover/husband Guino Rinaldo because he believes that Guino has violated her (what Tony wishes to do to her himself?). Strong stuff.

Dvorak is quite good in her role, nailing most of her scenes with an effective manner. She overacts a little, but her last scene with Muni is great. She's also sexy. George Raft seems to be doing little more than coin-flipping in his role, and it does bug you after a while. But he has a strong screen presence despite his lack of dialogue, so he comes out of it OK. Karloff even portrays a gangster! I'm not too sure whether it comes off that good, but it's an interesting role for him and he does get the best death sequence in the film.

This is a very fast paced movie; the action never lets up. Hawks made a name for himself with this film, and his direction is a credit to the film's success. The only thing I wonder about is the material that would have been left on the cutting room floor...

Hawks is having a lot of fun here with Camonte. The film is very entertaining, and one gets the sense that the moralizing typed prologue is only half-hearted, slipped in occasionally to appease film executives who couldn't possibly be seen to be glorifying the mafia (How times have changed- look at Penn's 1967 effort 'Bonnie And Clyde').

The expressionistic lighting and sets would contribute to the noir genre that took off in the 40's.

10/10.

Scarface (1932) ***

[JoeKarlosi · 7/10 · 21 June 2008]

Okay, controversial discussions are really starting to crop up at this time, and this one may be another. I finally obtained the single DVD of this Howard Hawks film, and to tell you the truth, though I liked it, I think I enjoy the DePalma 1983 re-do with Al Pacino a bit more. Some thoughts...

I have often lashed out against the idea of remakes, and finally I think I've come across the perfect single film example of why right here with SCARFACE (1932). Because there's always the possibility that a newer version can "replace" the old and become more popular, perhaps even more definitive. For me, I saw Pacino's SCARFACE in the theater in 1983 when I was 21, and I really had a great time with it. To me, this was "Scarface". But I also love old movies, and especially the 1930s ( I bought Warner's Gangster DVD Collection, and I loved every film in the set) ... so I was excited about seeing this Paul Muni classic at long last - and all the while I found it necessary to keep in mind what period the movie was made, and how powerful and important it was for its day. I had to review it within its proper perspective.

As a 40-something today it's very rare, if ever, that I am able to step inside the shoes in the sense of how a young kid might feel today when watching "old black and white movies", and yet that's exactly how I felt a lot of the time while watching the 1932 film! It was definitely exciting, full of over the top action and gunplay, and I'd imagine quite a shock for its day! But at the same time, I couldn't help remembering how I felt in the theater 25 years ago thrilling to DePalma's "epic". It seemed like the 1983 version really enhanced and yup, even improved on certain aspects of this now somewhat "dated" (and I hate that term) 1932 classic.

Some of the acting here was really way-out theatrical style. I often had to struggle to try and understand what Paul Muni was saying, and sometimes the really fast-talking old gangster dialogue, "see", kind of eluded me. Much as I love Boris Karloff, he's just not very convincing to me as a gangster this time, and I think here was another example where it looks to me like he's "acting", and it doesn't come off as natural. I thought all the scenes with Tony's "young" (she sure as hell didn't seem so young!) sister were pretty poor, and I think they were bested in the '83 film (although some of them at the end of the Pacino film bordered on absurdity too!).

When Muni angrily "offs" his friend, I didn't get anywhere near the emotional jolt I felt in the '83 movie; it just didn't seem to me that their friendship had been played up long enough or deeply enough to feel the anguish of the lead character. Which brings me to the feeling that, in general, most of the characterizations in the DePalma movie were more realized, better drawn.

Now, I am a believer in trying to judge a movie as its own entity... but now and then there is no denying that this type of situation arises where a remake, a sequel, or whatever else you'd care to use as an example, comes along and "spoils" the full intended impact of an original earlier classic, depending on when you've seen it. It's a rarity for me, I've found; this is not something which happens to me with any degree of regularity. It happened with the 1978 version of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (I caught the '78 remake first, and then the '56 original seemed trite by comparison). Other than this, I can't recall a single other example... I recall liking the 1991 CAPE FEAR, but when I saw the 1962 original it was still strong (owing greatly to Robert Mitchum).

One last thing for now -- I haven't seen the Pacino SCARFACE in several years now, but the last time I did it didn't even hold up as well as I'd remembered either ... I thought it had become kind of like a parody or satire, in a way. Sometimes my rating on movies may change, and I think the last time I saw the 1983 version I gave it three stars, too - just like I am giving the Paul Muni movie (I'd have to revisit the DePalma film to be certain). Be that as it may, two movies can get the same amount of stars but yet one can still be "preferred" over the other. It's not that I didn't enjoy this Howard Hawks film; it's just that I couldn't help thinking I would have loved it much more had I never seen the 1983 one. I know this isn't really fair, in a way, but our reviews are at least partly a reflection of ourselves and our past experiences and influences. *** out of ****

What a sensational film! What an actor Paul Muni!

[pzanardo · 10/10 · 22 March 2002]

One of the best directors ever makes one of the best films ever: Howard Hawks makes "Scarface". Everything is outstanding in this masterpiece of cinema, the exciting, neatly told story of the raise and fall of Tony Camonte (Al Capone's alter-ego). Powerful script, magnificent black and white photography, excellent camera-work, an important and courageous social message, just four years after the St. Valentine's massacre.

Great action and great psychological design of the characters are perfectly woven into the story. One brilliant, innovative idea follows another. An example is the not-shown-scene of the St. Valentine's massacre. Another beautiful intuition: a key-point of the story is the arrival on the scene of the machine guns, destined to bring the gang-wars to an unheard-of level of violence. Look at Tony's scaring bliss when he handles the terrible weapon for the first time... The montage is extraordinary. Take the celebrated bowling-hall scene: we have a dozen of distinct, splendid shots, perfectly tied together. "Scarface" has a pace impressive for intensity. Not a single second is wasted in its narration.

The cinematic language attains its highest level. Look how Guino Rinaldo (the great George Raft) is introduced. A man is reading a newspaper in a barber shop. The approaching siren of a police-car is heard. Without even leaving his chair, the man throws his gun in the basket of towels, and, impassive, he restarts to read. In few seconds we have got a precise hint of the personality of Guino: smart, cool-headed, laconic, professional. Soon we will see that in fact he is the cornerstone of Tony's power and success in crime.

Another gem of cinematic language. Tony and his boss Lovo in the chamber of Poppy, Lovo's girl-friend. Poppy is doing her make-up. Tony tries to chat with her. Poppy doesn't pay attention. She is even rude with him. Her dressing-gown has slipped, showing Poppy's legs. Tony peeps at them. Poppy clearly notes it and she DOES NOT fix the dressing-gown...

George Raft, Ann Dvorak, Karen Morley (Poppy), Osgood Perkins (the spine-less boss Lovo) make a fantastic job. And then there is Paul Muni as Tony Camonte... how good an actor he is could only be eye-witnessed, words can't describe the power of his performance. Tony is cruel, loathsome, brutal, hideous: we all hate him. Tony's clash with Lovo, with the sadistic suspense he deliberately creates, is a really ghastly scene. Nonetheless, Muni succeeds to be even touching, when Tony shows his childish enthusiasm for bad-taste "expensive" stuff, ties, silk shirts, luxury restaurants etc. Tony's final nervous breakdown is essential for the moral message of "Scarface", but it could have been a weakness of the film. Yet Muni is so great, so intense, that he can render Tony's disgusting sudden cowardice in a smooth, realistic way, and without provoking in the audience any sympathy for the gangster (an important aim for the film-makers).

A crucial theme of the movie is Tony's morbid affection (to say the least) toward his sister Cesca (Ann Dvorak). Well... "Scarface" would deserve a book, not just a comment. Let me skip this important motive of "brotherly love", which is extremely difficult to judge correctly, in my opinion.

How can a comic character like the illiterate "gangster-secretary", who never gets the name at the telephone, fit so well in the tragic, action-packed story of "Scarface"? The answer is: Hawks' artistic genius.

"Scarface", Muni, Hawks... That is great Art of Cinema.

Pretty good film, but 1931 seems to have been a bit better vintage for Warner Brothers gangster films

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 29 October 2006]

This movie is a thinly veiled biography of Al Capone. Some names and incidents were changed, but many were left intact (such as the nickname "Scarface" and the St. Valentine's Day Massacre). The biggest difference was the ending. In the film, Scarface died in an expectedly melodramatic way, whereas in real life, Capone slowly wasted away due to the ravages of syphilis.

For the most part, the film is what you'd expect from a film about gangsters, but it was a little more crude in its execution. In contrast, Warner's other two big gangster hits from the year before, LITTLE CAESAR and PUBLIC ENEMY, seemed more polished and with better, less shrill acting (particularly Muni's and Dvorak's). I definitely prefer these other two films.

About the only really unusual and unexpected thing about the film was its strongly implied incestuous relationship between Scarface and his trampy sister. While they never exactly said they slept together, their relationship was very, very unnatural and the audience was left to wonder and draw their own sordid conclusions! The addition of this plot element and liberal sprinkling of violence and sexual innuendo isn't all that surprising, really, as Howard Hughes produced this film and these are pretty much the norms for his films.

A film without an ounce of subtlety or realism.

[spdowling · 3/10 · 8 February 2011]

Scarface(1932) falls victim to its filmmakers mixed motivations. On one hand the film's stated goal was to reveal the scourge of organized crime to the American audience and encourage further government action against gangsters. The other goal was to produce an exciting and entertaining film that would be commercially successful. In this reviewer's opinion the film totally fails in both respects.

First, the film fails in its goal to bring the harsh realities of organized crime to the audience as there is nothing about the film that feels real or genuine. Aside from a strong performance by George Raft as Little Boy, there isn't a single believable character in the film, only caricatures. Paul Muni's Tony seemed to drift in and out of a bizarre Italian accent throughout the film. Clearly the character was meant to be a psychopath, perhaps his inability to decide if he had an accent or not was a symptom of his psychosis? The sniveling and weaselly mob boss Lovo had absolutely no credibility making it impossible to believe that any mobster would respect or fear him enough to work under him for any period of time. Ann Dvorak's Cesca character has emotions and motives that seem to have little basis in the real world, we could see the trouble was going to cause coming from a mile away. Vince Barnett's Angelo was also unbelievable but at least the character was at times genuinely funny. But, again, the lack of subtlety hurts the comedy as the audience is hammered over the head with Angelo's antics. The very strong, unnatural looking lighting style of the films also adds to the unnatural feeling of the film and the cartoon violence of indiscriminate gun fire and one-punch knockouts cement the fact that no one could mistake this film for real life.

The film also failed in being a pure entertainment piece as the judgmental tone and the sense of Tony's impending comeuppance weighed heavily throughout the film. The through-line of the story was so clear and the ending was so telegraphed that I found it impossible to get lost in the enjoyment of the action and the occasional comedy.

If Scarface had attempted to just be a cautionary tale about the dangers of organized crime or just a cartoonishly violent and over-the-top depiction of mobster life it may well have worked. But because it attempted to be both, it totally failed.