You hear it all the time.Scarface is "ultraviolent"
The chainsaw scene was "pure horror"
Tony clearly has "incestuos feelings"for his sister,
And everything in between. But come on,is all this information truly accurate? Sure the film is violent,but Scarface came out in 1983,when violence to such extent was not really seen before.By that time, every one was so shocked about seeing something new,that they condured up things in their mind that they didn't really see.
Like the chiansaw scene.Clearly that was bloody,but that is all that was shown.Blood.No severd arms or legs, no fingers on the floor no Freddy Kruger like slashing affects like people would have you beleive.Just blood on the guy's face,blood on the shower curtain.OK. Scary thing to invision,but it sertainly didn't keep me up all night.And the whole middle part of the movie was chainsaw free.Tony goes to see his mother,Tony tries to court Elvira,Tony shoots people.Ohhh,this is the most violent film on the planet!Please.And what about the whole insest thing? People swear he wanted to do his sister,even Roger Ebert seens to believe that crap.I watched the movie 100 times,and I saw no insest hints or anything. What I did see was a man who was fatally overprotective of his sister, nothing more. So what do you think? Think everything in Scarface is blown out of proportion like me? That being said I think this is an amazing film.

BB,
I admire your passion and desire for Scarface. I too believe it is a great film, much more deserving than the 2 stars it got.
As per the violence aspect, I believe that, at the time, it was considered gory and too violent. But by today's standards, with all the new technology available for horror films, Scarface should be rated PG. So I think it is all a matter of the age the film was released.
And as far as insest goes, no way. He was just being way too over-protective. As Manny said, Gina was the only thig "pure" in Tony's life, and Tony wanted Gina to stay "pure" and not get caught up living with someone who is in Tony's business. Now, realistically and off-topically, Manny probably would have been a good husband for Gina. From what I saw of Manny's character, he would have been the best match out of all the people Tony knew.

As we agree, Scarface is a classic that was judged pre-maturely.

I would like to see at least one critic that agrees with us,and doesn't see Scarface as some bloody gore fest!!!

I think that you hit the nail right on the head. It was a matter of the time that the movie came out and the times in general. Back then it probably was the most violently graphic of movies ever released. Had Scarface been released today, I don't think that it would have gotten the negative press that it did back then due to it's violent content. For pete's sake, the video games today are more violent and graphic than the Scarface movie ever was.

Scarface is one of the great cult classics of our time. What do the movie critics know anyway.

Critics, moovie guyz, I dunt truss dem!


Don Cardi

Added to your point is the fact that most of those elements (minus the chainsaw) were already present in the original version of Scarface, which came out in 1932. It was actually filmed in 1931 but release was delayed one year, and some scenes added or reshot, because it was considered too violent! In fact the Paul Muni Scarface was the Hollywood benchmark for many years for movies that were censored because of violent and moral content. It seems that the 1983 version not only inherited the original movie plot, but also the unwanted attention of the censors!

And Tony Montana. Somtimes referd to as a "murderous incestuos phcycopath. Refer to my next post !

Honestly though it was probably the reality-based way it was portrayed, by the time Scarface was made you already had movies like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Friday the 13th, Halloween, etc. They are all equally shocking, but they really aren't in a "real" enviornment, or at least not to the point of Scarface.

I think you're a bit to close to the film to be free of bias.

For all of its cinematic value (if any), Scarface is a bloody, violent film of a drug-running killer. It features the aforementioned chain-saw scene, the point-black killing of the Columbian drug dealer, the Uzi scene in the club, the final solution with Mel and Frank, the murder of Sosa's right hand man during the failed assassination, and the end where Tony's guts get blown all over the nice carpet.

I think it deserves the praise it gets, but it also is an extremely violent movie, even for its time, in my humble opinion. Most of the problems with Scarface today is that it has been adopted by the ghetto-gangsta-thug rappers as some sort of self-appointed autobiography and ideal.

Please, most of those so-called "getto boys" wouldn't know a real gangster if one made sweet love to them.

If they ever met a guy like Tony, they would probably pee themselves. I think its safe to say this film has been adopted by a bunch o' posers. I do agree that it was very violent for its time but now that the 80's are over, lets get some 21st century takes on Scarface.

Yes I agree that critics do just see the movie as these things... and I do see the movie as a really well done movie. But are you saying that these scenes aren't ultra-violent? Severed limbs are not... the chainsaw scene is still violent with horror.

Yes it is a very violent scene I won't deny that, but what I mean is that it did not make me lose sleep at night. It is horribal to be chopped up into peices, but Scarface is not a horror film. And to say that the scenes were "horror" instead of just violent is to me, inaccurate. There weren't even that many violent scenes in the film.

Frankly, I disagree. As the brief list (aforementioned) shows, there are quite a few scenes that are extremely violent and display graphic, bloody scenarios which are, even by today's liberal standards, excessive.

Scarface itself is a decent movie, but I wouldn't compare it to the Godfather by any means. I think that it deserves much of both the acclaim and criticism it receives, since it is a particularly violent movie, in my humble opinion. We haven't even discussed the (obviously) rampant drug use and other themes which also influence the way the movie is interpreted.

Scarface is violent, even by today's standards. I'm not sure if "overrated" is the correct term, though certainly it has been immortalized and idolized by the ghetto thug generation.

The Getto thugs, like most film critics look at this film in a shallow way. Scince movies like The Devil's Rejects, Resivoar Dogs, and the like have emurged to exceed the violence, profanity, and druguse of Scarface, I just think so much focas shouldn't be put this movie alone.

I think this is was does it for me. I agree there are so many other movies out there before and after that show more gore, but for some reason when I watch Scarface I feel a little disturbed and I think it's because of the way the movie was filmed. It seems very real. Most movies seems like movies, but scarface doesn't feel that way to me. I'm not even sure I could tell you what it is that makes it "more real" than other movies, but that's just how I feel when I watch it.

But the focus of Scarface IS illicit drug use, narcotics dealing, profanity, and bloody violence...

I agree. Scarface is incredibly violent.

Wikipedia defines violence as this...
"Violence is any act of aggression and abuse which causes or intends to cause injury"

Therefore the drug abuse adds to the normal gore and blood violence. Because the drug abuse can cause injury it is violent in its own sense.

yeah i saw scarface when i was really young and everyone was saying oh that movie is so violent it shouldn't be within access of kids .. i was like its not that violent its just some blood nothing to cry about ,im sure whoever said scarface was "too violent" probably still lives with their mom and cries whenever he sees something violent...
btw i don't know if this is a coincidence or not but Santino Brigante is my name and i was alive before those movies came out(made a mistake on age part not really 13)and yes im serious thats my real name

You must keep in mind that for the time it was released, 1983, that was considered a violent movie. Now compared to 2007's standards and ratings of movies, if not for the extensive cursing, there is a good chance that Scarface, if released in this day and age, may have only been rated a PG13.

But 24 years ago, there was no where near the bloody violence in movies that there is today. Extensive violence in movies has almost become acceptable, and the norm.


Don Cardi

Yet today many folks still talk about it like it's filled with gore or whatever. A lot of people have seen it the first time, and then remember it worse than it really is.

Guys and gals, look at the original TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE from the 1970s.

People still say its gory...yet I've seen episodes of QUINCY that were more bloody and violent.

P.S. - The TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE remake from producer Michael Bay was bollocks. Anyone that likes that crap should be like the Detroit Lions: Irrelevant and ignored.

There is one thing i dont get. This PG13 rating thing.. what is that, and how does it works?? Keep in mind that i´m not from the states...

Well, a "PG 13" is kinda like, in between a "PG" and an "R," or it's got slightly more subject matter than PG,ie laguage maybe some partial nudity(butts is some cases) more suggestive or sexual dialoge, more violence, and things like that. But nowadays, they are even pushing the boundaries of what is considerd "PG 13." They seem to be saying "fuck" alot more often in PG 13 rated movies at least once or twice. And some of them even seem more "R" than "PG 13" and vice versa. Things are changing and shifting now, and pretty soon we'll have to rethink what we view as an "R" or "PG 13" movie.

I have only watched the movie Scarface and not read up a whole on this topic other than what's posted on here. Scarface is one of my favorite movies and I have watched it several times. I see brothers' being protective of their sisters' all the time but not because of incest. I think Tony did not want his sister with a guy who did not respect her and he overreacted when he killed Manny, because he knew Manny was like him in ways. I think Gina was mad because he was trying to control her life so much, which is why she decided to shoot him, plus she probably wanted to anyway after he killed her husband. The chainsaw scene and all that is typical of the lives people lead when they sell drugs. If anything, I think the movie was not as violent as it could been. Where did you read all this stuff about Scarface from?

Thanx for the answear Brwn Byte.

The first time I watched Scarface, I was 12. I didn't really understand every aspect of the movie at the time, but I thought it was a very good movie nonetheless. Now, I'm 15, it's one of my favorite movies (Top 5: The Godfather, Scarface, Donnie Brasco, Casino, and Goodfellas...not necessarily in that order, but...)I understand the acpects of that movie so well now. It's so easy to fall in love (NOT in a gay way) with Tony Montana and his personality. And another thing! He did NOT have sexual feelings for Gina. It was brother/sister feelings. She was the only thing he really had (like Manny said) that was pure.

Yes, I agree and that is a more realistic way to describe things about Scarface.

I have heard a lot of exaggerated descriptions of Scarface from many sources. Leneord Maltin described the film like this: "Wallows in excess and unpleasantness." While I cannot completely disagree with the fact that it does contain excess and unpleasantness, I can say that to describe it as "wallowing" like a pig in mud or something,is not comepletely true. There are plenty of plesant moments in Scarface, and Tony strikes me as a person with a well-meaning (if crude) sense of humer at points in the movie. That serves as a tention breaker.

Many critics and people criticize how Scarface is violent. But that truly makes no sense, because this is a film about drugs and gangsters, so how can you not make it violent? You certainly can't remove all the violent parts and hope that it will translate. The filmakers wanted to make it true to life, and they did.

So, to me you can't criticize a film for being high on excess and unpleasantness, when that film is about gangsters,who lived exactly that way.