I just finished watching the original 1932 Scarface film for the first time ever. I was pleasantly surprised at how good it was. Howard Hawk's direction was exceptional and Paul Muni's performance was really good considering the time period. But what REALLY got me was how much the film made me appreciate DePalma's 1983 remake even more.

I couldn't help but grin from ear to ear upon discovering how DePalma took certain situations from the original and modernized them for current times. You also have to appreciate the liberties DePalma and Stone took that brought a new and refreshing twist to the story and screenplay. They actually took the theme of a man corrupted with greed and power, and amplified it 10fold with the Montana character. Making the film based around situations involving cocaine drug trafficking and changing the Tony character from Italian to Cuban was a fantastic change.

After watching them back to back, I can honestly say I have much MUCH respect for Armitage Trail for creating the story, and even more respect for Ben Hecht and Howard Hawks for turning it into a film. But I still consider De Palma, Stone, and Martin Bregman geniuses for the life they were able to breath into such an ancient classic. Not to mention Pacino's remarkable performance, which I consider one of the greatest in film history.

So....what are your thoughts? Which version of Scarface do you personally prefer and why?

Oh and on a somewhat unrelated note, I'm curious...has Robert Deniro ever made any public comments on Scarface(either version)? What did he have to say, and what do you think he thinks of Pacino's performance?

You're a funny guy...

Even Steven Baur admits the '32 version is better...

Don't you find it odd that even though Hector had all intentions of killing Tony and his friends and NOT giving him the drugs, he had the yay-yo in a suitcase right there in the room on a dresser? :lol

I mean, if my intentions were to take the money and kill the other dealers, why the hell would I keep the drugs in plain site on a dresser and not hidden? rofl

Which one is the better movie, or which one do you personally like better?

Howard Hawks version - masterpiece

Brian DePalma "version" - piece of shit

The 1983 version is over two hours long and R-rated. What's the debate?

I'm sure the newer version will win this poll, mostly from people who haven't seen the original, which is indeed a masterpiece.

Agreed!

I wouldn't go so far as to call the De Palma version a piece of shit, but I think it is definitely extremely overrated.

I've probably seen the '83 version about 3-4 times but after seeing the '32 version only once, I definitely thought the '32 version was a much better film.

I wasn't impressed with the 1932 film. The "X" marks the spot thing was so obvious, it was funny rather than 'symbolic' and 'deep'. I also hated when the film stopped a couple times to have someone preaching to the audience about how bad crime is and "what are you going to do about it?".

Neither version is perfect, but the original is certainly no 'masterpiece' from what I saw!

"You got tits...You need a bra...They got hair on 'em."

Need I say more?

"c'mere give me a kiss.... ey EY EY FUCK YOU MAN"

Ahem.

"Where'd you get the beauty scar, tough guy? Eatin' pussy?"
"How'm I gonna get a scar like that eating pussy?"

Everyone in the film department at my college hated the film (they also all hated DePalma). For that, I like it.

Using that logic, Hudson Hawk is a better movie than Citizen Kane.

How can anyone hate the 1983 version? Man, I still watch it to this day and fully enjoy it.

Meh. I like the '32 version as well, but I don't consider the '83 version a remake.

I prefer '83; I used to look forward to that rare Saturday where TNT would play it all night long.

It would have been awesome if they kept in some scenes in the script like the nuns smuggling coke in carriages or the regional drug wars.

The 1932 version is a film of its time and still holds up.

The 1983 version is a mess of a film of its time and barely holds up.

All comments relating to film length and rating as barometers of quality are jokes at the expense of chris_sc77.

The 1932 version is a film of its time and still holds up.

The 1983 version is a film of its time and still holds up.

Given the choice I'd watch 1983.

I've only seen the '83 version, though I really do want to see the '32 original. I like the '83 version though. It's a great showcase for the '80s for sure. It's great pop entertainment. I don't think it's a film that'll be extensively remembered for technical specs and art form but it's a great popcorn flick.

It's fucking big, it's fucking loud, it's a fucking diffrent take on the original. With fucking Al Pacino playing a egocentric Cuban that's going to go to the top with many many laws broken. And Fuck you, Man! Fuck You!
THIS is the difference essentially...

I'm sure the old one is better. Until I see a version with features I'll never own it..but I guess I could stream it.

The 1983 version is a campy piece of s***.

The 1932 version has Boris Karloff. Oh, and it's a MASTERPIECE.

Well the 32 is a great film. But I love 83, I mean I never can get enough of it. It might be that I live in Miami and my Cuban background, but its so much fun.

32 is a far better film, quite possibly one of the best of the early genre.

83 however, is much more enjoyable when it comes to pure entertainment value.

The 1932 version is a remarkable film. Decades ahead of it's time in many ways.

The 1983 version has a few good moments, but is so ridiculously over the top that it becomes almost silly. Putting in shocking things just for shock value doesn't make for a better movie. The script for the 1983 version is just so ludicrous in parts that I can't take the movie seriously. And that's a shame, because if they had continued with the tone and realism of the detention camp scenes the 1983 movie could have been up there with The Godfather and Goodfellas as a modern gangster classic instead of the cheese-fest that it devolves into.

This is no contest at all.