Roger Ebert is absolutely correct here: Scarface is a masterpiece. If you read his four-star review of the film, it’s even more on point. He realized the violence was not gratuitous, but it was designed to show Tony Montana’s “self-destruction.”
Ebert is much more open-minded, scholarly and has a sense for how movies will be perceived in the future, and that's why he was dead-on correct with "Scarface". He had some missteps along the way with "Full Metal Jacket" (which he did not like), but then also had the humility and willingness to change his mind (as with "Alien"), which he panned the first time and later considered a masterpiece. Gene was good, but stuffy. Miss them both.
Full Metal Jacket isn't that great of a film. It tried to do what Saving Private Ryan did better, and failed at the other aspects of realism, like with whole Private Pyle sequence.
@@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017 SPR imho is a worse movie than FMJ. SPR has ONE great part... the beaches. The rest is the usual same ol' fair, with dem good ol' american boys meeting... enemies who are so fucking stupidly written... Random MG nest, "Expert sniper" who doesn't change positions... Tiger drives in alone and so on... it's empty pathos. A really great War Movie is Das Boot.
Ebert was absolutely 100% correct here. Scarface is a masterpiece. He was one of the few critics at the time to realize it. If you read his written review (where he gave the film 4 out of 4 stars), it is even more spot on. He realized that the film’s violence wasn’t gratuitous, but rather, it was intended on showing Tony Montana’s ultimate self-destruction.
It was the infamous "chainsaw" scene in the film that had to be heavily trimmed down to avoid an X-rating. That scene, however, is now tame by today's standards. Similarly, "The Exorcist" almost received an X-rating back in 1973, due to its equally infamous "crucifix" scene, but that scene STILL manages to shock and horrify even today.
Gene might not have been aware that the version we got is the fully uncut version. At the time that the movie finally got its R-rating there was a presumption that the most trimmed version would be the one released. No one really knew yet that the director went ahead and released his original version under the logic that "All the versions submitted had gotten the same X rating, so what difference does it make if we put out the first (least trimmed) version, and not the last (most trimmed) version?"
I totally agreed with Roger. I absolutely enjoyed "Scarface" a lot. I thought it was incredibly awesome. Al Pacino was really damn good as Tony Montana. His performance was so phenomenal. I also agreed what Roger said about the rating board. They wanted to rate this movie X for the violence, but totally lost. So it's R rating. It was very tough, and rough, and definitely not appropriate for younger audiences, including me. But it's a very good movie. Now initial critical reception was negative due to excessive violence, profanity, and graphic drug usage. Some Cuban expatriates in Miami objected to the film's portrayal of Cubans as criminals and drug traffickers. In the years that followed, however, critics have reappraised it, and it is now considered by some to be one of the best films in the crime genre, and one of the greatest remakes ever. I know most people who mostly did not this film at all by giving it generally negatives except others who quite liked it a little bit. But to me still, it was terrific. I enjoyed the original 1932 classic film, but I really loved this remake more. Thumbs way up for me on "Scarface". Scarface (1983) 4/4 👍👍👍👍
Both of these men forgot about the scene where Tony kills Alberto because Sosa ordered them to blow up a car with a Mother and children inside. The movie's issue might be it's run time but that scene shows you that this "boring" and "bad throughout" character with a violent and drugged up lifestyle still has morals. Tony's one redeeming quality is the reason he gets killed at the end.
ahh..no....totally wrong....he wasnt killed because he has morals....you forget that selling drugs kills 1000's of kids every year and tony was a drug dealer if you have forgot........he was killed because he went back on his word and prevented his agreed to victim from being killed..sosa didnt order him to blow up a car with a mother and her kids inside....he made a deal to help tony for his help in killing a man he wanted killed...if you forgot ...tony WAS NOT..the guy throwing the switch...he was just a driver,,,,,,sosa killed him for the reason he told him he would on their first meeting "dont ever fuck me tony"....or maybe you forgot that too....
@@jadezee6316 I admit I could've worded my comment better, my apologies for any possible confusion. I only brought up the "morals" part in response to Siskel's notion of Tony being a boring character. Of course his death had to do with betraying Sosa. Not going on with killing the journalist because the wife and kids joined him in the car is still a redeeming quality for Tony. The beginning of that scene indicates the journalist's family never join him in the same car until THAT day, making Tony feel more guilty about the mission. There was no prior knowledge of the wife and kids going to be in that car but Sosa's men were still willing to continue his orders, whereas Tony was not. Even criminals have their limits.
@@funnynerd1 lol it was perfectly clear what you meant and you're right, that's a key scene to understanding that for however lousy he was he still didn't want to stoop to the lowest of the low, which makes him different than most of the complete and total psychos he was working with.
Scarface couldn't effectively be evaluated upon its release but only appreciated decades later due to the cultural impact this movie had. It ranges from the portrayal of the excess of the 1980's to highlighting the new breed of American mafia/gangsters that would dominate the American drug scene for years to come. Scarface offers deep insight to the personal insecurities, emptiness, legal and family problems that ensued from all the baggage derived from that kind of dark money and power. It' s a profound movie but one that goes beyond Siskel & Ebert's scope of appreciation at that time. For me it's one of the greatest movies ever made with the cast delivering top notch performances. It only gets better with every watch.
@@michellelekas211 ......and? If you take a 5-lb dump on something and somebody else takes a 25-lb dump on it, how does that make your 5-pounder smell like freshly baked banana bread?
@@kennethlatham3133 Many people actually enjoy reading and following film criticism. If you analogize it to taking a dump, you must think that watching a film is like eating and talking about film critically is akin to ingesting laxatives maybe? It is possible to enjoy and actually THINK about cinema critically: this does not mean "dumping on" film but really taking it seriously.Usually, films that no one disagrees about at the time of their release fade away (i.e. maybe you remember the Oscar winners DANCING WITH WOLVES, THE GREEN BOOK, ORDINARY PEOPLE?) Who is watching these even recent films today? Ah, but CITIZEN KANE was reviled, BONNIE AND CLYDE was considered ridiculous by many critics (excepting Pauline Kael), SEVEN SAMURAI was considered absurdly long, as was APOCALYPSE NOW, some critics found THE WIZARD OF OZ headache-inducing.....even IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE did not earn wonderful reviews. And people are still watching... If you only want agreement, then that is what you will get: you will never have an interesting conversation or relation that yields anything beyond the sad enjoyment of trying to make cute comments on You Tube. It's your call.
Siskel would've hated Citizen Kane if he had reviewed it when it came out. Dude gets nearly everything wrong. lol Tony Montana totally uninteresting? Tell that to half the world that goes around quoting him 40 years later. lol Why did this dude ever have a job?
time cementing Scarface as a classic would certainly make it seem so. I don’t think he’s wrong in his opinion that Tony lacks substance as a character, but that’s not what many of the fans of the movie wanted out of it. Part of the fun of watching these guys is their shining examples of the subjectivity of art
jesus, some of your guys takes in the comments are pure cringe. get off your high horse and stop overthinking. scarface is a visceral, violent classic with one of the most iconic performances ever. just enjoy the ride and dont break your balls or your word for no one.
Not entirely. It’s gets way too mired in melodrama and we don’t get to see much of the nuts and bolts of Tony’s trade. If there had been more sequences in the film as tense and lurid as the drug deal gone wrong in that South Beach motel, then it might’ve been a true classic. Instead, it’s more of a cult classic. I happen to be quite fond of the film, but its artistic merits are hardly bullet proof.
One of the all time great films. It's sad these two never made a retrospective titled "The Movies We got Completely Wrong"! Unfortunately, Gene Siskel would dominate the category. He panned Silence of the Lambs, Taxi Driver, Casino among a dozen other film classics. I couldn't stand Roger Ebert's ego and the way he overwhelmed Gene with words when they disagreed but maybe he had a point. More often than not, Roger Ebert came in with a thumbs up for the great, groundbreaking classics.
@@Bot23 he does have a point tho, Roger was occasionally wrong (for instance with blue velvet and home alone) but for the most part he was the first reviewer to thumbs up now classic films, that at that time people didn’t like (for instance the shining)
Both these guys used to piss me off but I was always interested in hearing how they approached each film and their ultimate opinions and reasons for them. Miss them. Television just SUCKS now! Got rid of my TV 6 yrs ago and never even missed it. Lol
When it comes to Al Pacino's gangster films, I do not think "Scarface" (1983) is as good as the first two "The Godfather" movies (1972, 1974). But I do think "Scarface" is better then "The Godfather: Part III" (1990).
I’m amazed at the people like myself who are still watching these two review movies from years ago - Now. I have always found myself in agreement with Ebert.
I agree with you, it’s almost like a time capsule to that era. It also teaches you how to move as a drug dealer and what kind of mindset to have. One of my all time favorite movies
Why does Siskel think the obvious comparison is to compare Tony’s character to the Godfather? Just because it’s played by the same actor? Man was he off with this review.
Siskel often betrayed a pretty lousy understanding of movies and an almost weirdly ignorant sense of characters, especially in his comparisons. He was also a BIG moralist, so to him, every "gangster" was just a "gangster". If you watch a lot of the show, you see how he would VERY often give a film a negative review just because he "didn't want to see people doing bad things". Ebert also did that, too, sometimes giving a film a bad review because it made him "feel bad" or because he didn't like seeing violence (he famously gave Lynch's "Blue Velvet" a thumbs down simply because of the scene with Hopper and Rossellini - weirdly suggesting that somehow Rossellini *herself* was being abused in the scene, as if she wasn't acting lol). They were often hypocritical and often very mistaken. In fact, after a deep dive I did a few years ago, watching almost every episode that's available to watch (I grew up with them in the 80's, but just watched them all again), I would say that S&E were WRONG about movies much more than they were right. Another thing about the SHOW that people forget is that their WRITTEN reviews - especially Ebert's - were a LOT more nuanced than what they said on the show. This is why a lot of filmmakers despised Siskel & Ebert, because the whole "thumbs up, thumbs down" thing basically killed serious, nuanced film criticism - and they had the power to kill a film's box office chances. People forget: these guys, at a certain point, could literally cause a film to be a success or a failure because SO many people watched and trusted them. Roger Ebert went on "The Tonight Show" when Chevy Chase was a guest on the Friday that "Three Amigos" was opening, for example - and he said it was the worst film of the year - and the film bombed. Today, everyone loves it as a classic.
@@redadamearth In his Terminator review he mentioned the Terminator coming from another planet… It’s like the entire story went completely over his head. He also was saying he was more interested in the love story between Connor and Reese. Dude’s a sap.
Now l know why l always liked Ebert better than Siskel. How could anyone say that Al Pacino's character was boring in this move. Pacino's character jumped off the page. This was a legendary performance by a great actor.
I can't believe no one ever talks about Montana's mother's rejection, his weird obsession with his sister, Gina and how he basically bought his wife, Elvira. He is potentially sexually inadequate which may be what drives his violent and reckless side to self destruction. That's a big part of the movie/ character and it's ignored.
the mothers rejection and obsession with siter's purity and even the dancing scene where scarface gets angry to see his sister there are all taken direction from the 1930's film and are part of the scarface character in that film as well. just an interesting fact people should watch the first film which was a fictionalized version with political underpinnings to create a tough on crime movement with a character sort of based on Al Capone. The real Alphonse Gabriel Capone, sometimes known by the nickname "Scarface", was an American gangster and businessman who attained notoriety during the Prohibition era as the co-founder and boss of the Chicago Outfit."
Yes Tony had alot of issues but we don't talk about the incestuous nature he has. Pacino and his Tony Montana character was crazy and brilliant. He bared the cross of being the black sheep but Tony's example was his father, to his mother he was a bad seed and it needed to be purged.
Totally boring guy. Gets into fights with creepy drug dealers in motels with chainsaws, takes over a drug empire in Miami with nothing to his name but determination and a bad accent, gets laid in a hot tub surrounded by cocaine sand dunes, takes trips to see the cartel hang people from helicopter. So boring, Gene does all of this before 9am than most scarfaces do in a lifetime.
Elmer Kilred Yeah, if you’re a Michael Bay Transformers fanboy, maybe this film and the character Scarface would be boring to you. Maybe you stick to your crappy action films, this movie is a great piece of cinema. Get your garbage opinions and tastes out of this comment section.
He (Siskel) only draws comparison to the godfather because pacino was in both. But they are 2 totally different films. Godfather was a mafia family saga, and scarface was life and times of one character. His rise and fall. Tony was an interesting guy regardless of his "boringness". His life is relatable in the sense that we all want the world... and everything in it😊
I thought this movie was shocking when i saw it as a teen in the 80s. It was playing at the walk in theatre as a double feature with "Dawn of the dead" That one was shocking then too
Saying Al Pacino’s Scarface is a boring character is baffling. The man had morals, grit, passion, anger, violence, wit, jealousy, and power just to name a few attributes.
Gene Siskel could be such a stuffed shirt at times. He totally missed what Al Pacino was capable of doing in this movie. He portrays a Cuban Refugee, that comes to America, and, without any formal training, leapfrogs his way to the top...even though it's as a Drug Dealer. This movie has long-since attained a type of cult status...and ol' stuffy-boy Gene missed the mark terribly on this one! Ebert, on the other hand, got the analysis of this movie right! It ended up being on of the better movie releases of 1983.
Gene Siskel gave a thumbs down to Silence of the Lambs?!? He must've had a double-dose of dumb before he came to the show that day. Either that, or maybe the Wife didn't give him any nooky before he went to work that morning. Not being able to get some from the Wife can really set some guys off. Something must've pushed his dumb button that day, that's for sure! Silence of the Lambs was one of the top draws of 1991, along with T-2: Judgement Day! I hope that he didn't give that one a thumbs down, too! Personally, I loved both of those movies, along with City Slickers, The Hand that Rocks The Cradle, Sleeping With the Enemy, and more! 1991 ruled!!!
Likewise for Taxi Driver and The Terminator. If he personally disliked the character then to him it was a bad film. That's pretty short sighted. Especially for a film reviewer.
I still like him as a critic and he mad a great duo with Roger but I have the impression that he had a certain dislike for violence and violent characters and that that bias sometimes made him dislike movies that later became classics. Maybe it wasn't the violence per se but that he sometimes couldn't recognize anything beyond the violence.
I read this in a review somewhere of this movie -- watching Tony Montana become a drug lord through the course of the story is like watching a cockroach get bigger and bigger and bigger.
Siskel didn't even like Brian De Palma's masterpiece Carlito's Way either! I feel so bad for all of those folks that took his word and missed out on so many great films.
@@Orlando_Steve But it's fine to use violence to get your own way, so long as you only attack adults... who might be the parents of children? That's the mob mentality.
TBH. I didn’t like it at first either. Now it’s one of my faves. Watched it a million times. Godfather is not the obvious comparison Gene. It’s Scarface. 1932
I think it’s a phenomenal film. The idea of this refugee in America trying to prove himself as more than an uncultured petty criminal. They way they pass judgement at him in the early scenes based on his race and class, which is a complex for him throughout the film. And he realises power and money ultimately doesn’t count for much when all you want is a family and a life of purpose. Surprised so many people sniffed at this movie (no pun intended).
Siskel missed the mark on this one, its reputation that it’s built over time proved that Siskel was on the wrong side of history. This film is an amazing classic!
Siskel seems to review movies according to what he wishes they were rather than what they are. Even when that would involve it being a completely different film.
Ebert had the foresight here in predicting that there's a lot of people who'll identify with Pacino's Tony Montana. His review was on the money here...
I always tend to agree with Ebert and not Siskel on most of the movies they reviewed. Siskel completely missed the boat on this one imo. Pacino created a truly memorable character with Tony Montana, maybe a little over the top sometimes, but very original.
I usually agreed more with Siskel than Ebert in their reviews, but I think he's flat wrong here. The film is a hard watch, and it is as grim as it is gruesome, but the story of Tony Montana is not boring, rather tragically predictable. In the drug trade and certainly once drug abuse enters the picture, only darkness follows...with violence rarely far away...
One scene I don't like is the scene where Sosa sends him an assassin to kill & a reporter, who's talking too much about Sosa's organization on TV. He says "no kids", and he's fine with murdering everybody else who gets in his way or wrongs him including his best friend, but the wife & kids are when he decides to have some morals, like a road to Damascus conversion
@@davebrayfbWhat? That's practically his only redeemable moment in the entire movie and a great scene at that. Despite being who he is he still cherishes innocence which gives his character some depth and complexity. Also, Tony doesn't kill Manny because he is in his way, Tony kills him because he is coked-up out of his mind, stressed out and pissed as all hell. Combined that with the overall bad timing of his heated argument with Sosa and Manny sleeping with his sister and Tony just snaps. Having said that Tony does regret killing Manny later tho.
@@Peer165 that's what I mean, it feels like the scene was just thrown in their at the last second because he didn't feel sympathetic enough and it would be the only reason people would root more for him, despite him being a murdering scumbag who kills like 30 people in the movie. Manny was in the way of him getting closer to his own sister, his sister even knows that he wants her for himself and no other man.
@@davebrayfbI kinda disagree with the notion of Tony wanting to get closer to his sister, in that way. Sure, that is her final perception of the situation but when she implies him wanting her his reaction is pure confusion. He definitely is very overprotective of her to a disturbing degree but there is no real indication of any incestus attraction.
I've seen siskel dislike so many iconic films. He likes a lot of forgettable movies. He got silence of the lambs the lambs so wrong. He thought foster was just ok & hopkins was over the top. He also thought hannibal's introduction was over the top. He said why would demme do such a bad film. He must have felt silly when it swept the Oscars.
I think - whether we agree with them or not - critics at their best review the films *they’ve* seen. They could care less how many awards a film ends up winning or whether it’s popular. Ultimately, this is a good thing. One’s opinion should root it’s strength in logic, not in numbers. By extension, the best way to strengthen that logic is to listen to someone who disagrees with you. I suppose that’s a tall order for anyone in the United States, however.
I think you are wrong here. There were just as many occasions where Ebert was strange in his reviews. And i followed them since the beginning. In the end they were just movie critics. It would be very boring if everyone thought the same about every movie don´t you think?
I binged watched some of these S&E reviews. Siskel really laid some turkeys giving thumbs down to movies like - Jurassic Park, Terminator, Silence of the Lambs, Scarface and other classics.
I think the whole point of movie is to show how ruthless you have to be to get to the top of the drug world. When Montana refuses to blow up the family in the car and shows some bastion of empathy is when his ultimate downfall begins.
Because he went completely against Sosa’s orders to prevent the guy (I forgot his name) to speak against Sosa’s band of criminals at the UN. Sosa warned him at their first meeting to not fuck with him and Montana did just that. Sosa stopped his protection and allowed the drug militia to invade Montana’s mansion and ultimately wasting him.
Another one siskel gets wrong. The man hated silence of the lambs & ROCKY!!! Ok rocky. The most inspirational original idea of all time. Both won best picture. Unbelievable. Siskel compares movies to often
I definitely enjoyed Scarface more than The Godfather. Roger seems to be more in tune with the audience on most of his reviews and the future than Siskel. Although i definitely disagree with both of them on Speed 2. I disagree with Roger on Gladiator and Daredevil.
You can tell it’s a Brian DePalma production it’s got Carrie written all over it it’s a classic it was berated in the day but it took pop culture by storm like the godfather
Scarface is easily an 8.2/10 movie, one of the better gangster movies in history. I wouldn't put it up there with Godfather or Goodfellas but it's close. Tony Montana is one of the more exciting "bad guy" movie characters ever developed, I cannot believe Siskel can say he is boring. His take really reeks of a conservative grandpa who doesn't like violent movies or things over the top.
I like both Siskel and Ebert as reviewers, but I think Siskel got this one wrong. Saying that a movie is not as good or as interesting as The Godfather is not a scathing criticism that merits a thumbs down. I know that's not the extent of his criticism, but it was a major theme. I saw this movie when I was 17 and I found it terrifying and gripping. I found Tony Montana mercurial, harder and harder to sympathize with, yet complex and believable. It is a different kind of gangster movie from The Godfather, and I agree with Siskel it's not quite as good. But it's still very effective.
I never thought Scarface was on the level of Godfather 1 or 2 but it was absolutely entertaining and amusing although somewhat over the top. What do I watch a movie for? To be entertained and not feel that I wasted my time or money. Scarface supplied the goods. I like Gene but at times he can be namby pamby. Roger too but not as often. Still love these guys almost as much as the movies they reviewed. Often more than the movies.
Disagree with Siskel. Tony Montana shows his humanity by not blowing up the car with the kids inside. Btw, this came up on my feed and it’s funny cuz I remember watching this Siskel &Ebert review on a Sunday in 1983. I was 12.
Having gone on a S&E review binge in the past few days, I've found myself agreeing with Roger Ebert a lot more than I ever thought I would. Gene seems to really hate violent films, which is fine. However, he seems to almost always unfairly critique some really great classics based on the fact that he feels them unnecessarily violent or exploitive. I think his review here of Scarface shows that. He makes it a point to compliment the "choreography" of the shootouts while at the same time calling the character "boring"? How is the unpredictable, ruthless nature of Pacino's character here "boring"? He's anything but boring. I think the film itself tends to drag on in some parts, which could seem boring to some modern audiences, but this is a classic masterpiece, and I think Gene changed his vote about Scarface years later, looking back on it. I could be wrong about that, but I know these guys have changed their opinion on several classic films years after the fact.
I've seen this movie many times, and yet, I won't call it a great movie... I think some people call it a classic, but why, you never see how Pacino, in a truly awful Cuban Accent, gets to the top, you don't see any of it, you get the obligatory music video scene on money coming in, but never showing how, it's very visceral, but it's all style over substance. Supporting Cast is solid, but SO OVERRATED, it is an empty movie, I'd give it 2 stars out of 4 , it's just gruesome but nothing comes of it, Watch the original, that 1933 film is So much Better
@@kdohertygizbur Ok, I'm glad you're being honest about why you don't like it. However, the reasons you state as to why you didn't like it, I can also point to as reasons why I did. I don't believe we needed to see "how" he made it to the top. The reality is that we see enough about him to understand how he made it. We know he is brutal, cutthroat, and loyal. All the traits you need to be a cocaine kingpin in the early 80s. Style over "substance" is a very subjective observation, because they are portraying a lifestyle that is indeed style over substance at the core. That's what the drug lifestyle is, especially cocaine in the 70s and 80s. The acting is superb. It was exactly what it portrayed, nothing more nothing less. That's what makes the movie great. Also the message in the end screams exactly that... brutal death is the result of this lifestyle. Some people miss that message, but it's as clear as can be.
I find I agree with Ebert more often than Siskel. It’s unfortunate Siskel passed away so early. I’m curious what he would think about Scarface and other movies over time. There are many instances that I don’t care as much for a film, or any work of art, and it changes over time. Although I loved Scarface from the beginning.
I liked it when they would revisit some of their old reviews. Roger seemed to do that more often, and even wrote a book on that subject, I think. But I was glad Gene didn't like this movie for the reasons he did. I will say, however, that I really liked it from the start. And then over time, I still like it, but a little less. I think I'm like you on the whole, in that I agree with Roger a little more often.
@@jackkitchen737 for sure. I find myself liking some more as time goes on, or the opposite. It’s interesting how that changes over time. I like Roger’s retake on Blade Runner. He didn’t like it originally but grew to love it. Although a lot of that had to do with them taking out the voiceovers and tweaking other things. Thanks for the response!
Saw scarface in a movie theater when it originally came out in 1983. Saw it with my then best friend. We were 14 years old and a couple of fanatics about the movies. We talked, read, ate, drank, and slept the movies and went to the movies together once a week, every week for a lot of years from the 1970s-1980s (and yes, watched siskel and ebert together on his living room tv) My friend chose the movies we went to see. I didnt mind. I loved the moviegoing experience in itself. We tried to see every new movie that came out regardless of plot, genre (he loved horror. I preferred comedy), critics reviews, who starred in it, etc. So there was no particular reason why he chose Scarface for us to go see. It just happened to be one of many new movies that just came out. My friend LOVED the movie from his very first viewing. While I could see how it was a good, entertaining crowd pleaser of a movie, I on the other hand didn't like it because of all the graphic violence (though I still watch it occasionally these days when it pops up on tv). Being raised in an abusive, dysfunctional home, I had enough violence and drama going on in my real life. So, I didn't need violence and drama going on the movie screen where I was trying to escape. Still, going to the movies every week with my best friend is among my most fondest, happiest memories of my entire life.
@Charles Hall it was rated R. But the theater employees of every movie theater i went to just didn't care about underage kids seeing R rated movies in their theaters. I learned that the year before in 1982 and was 13 years old when I went to see the movie Fast Times At Ridgemont High.
Siskel is off base comparing the Godfather to Scarface. They are TOTALLY different characters! Pacino as Michael was a guy smart enough to take over his family business. Pacino in Scarface is a guy who is more or less a nothing with no family, and by utter brutal hustle, BRIEFLY makes it to the top of the organization he's targeting. In fact, he's SO effective, he starts killing DEA agents, and brings down not just the other dealers, but the entire US government down on him. THAT is the point of the movie. Siskel is totally off base criticizing whether he likes the character vs whether the film is good, and Ebert calls him out. I agree that the people who worship this character are bozos themselves and prob ignorant boring people, but even the educated and disadvantaged need exceptional heros, and in a weird way, that's what Scarface became. Regardless, De Palma's direction was incredible, and the movie is beyond beautiful to go with the constant ugliness in it.
I love these 2 they launched a million yt movie review channels. Gene gets a lot wrong on in time classics. Where he goes wrong is he bases the movie he is reviewing against another film. I.e. this against the godfather. He hated silence of the lambs which was a commercial & critical phenomenon. He kept comparing it to " henry: portrait of a serial killer. He should really look at a film on it's own merit.
Nearly 30yrs later, the street value of coke and crack is unchanged, while the price of tickets, crackerjacks, and popcorn rises even higher out of sight.
Meth as dropped incredibly. 100 bucks a gram around 2010. And in 202O I heard it's 300 bucks an ounce. Still sounds impossible to me so I'm not sure. Weed prices have dropped for sure
@@chicovoylez3216 I actually liked Halloween 3 and think it’s an underrated gem (I know), but Scarface is my 2nd favorite movie of all time with Aliens being my #1 favorite. I love the pacing, its storytelling is superb, some of my favorite lines of dialogue of all time, the action sequences are fantastic, and plus Al Pacino steals the show, so hey, meet someone who has a good taste in film and doesn’t let their love of shit movies affect their taste and knowledge of film.
I’ll never understand how Scarface didn’t rack up Oscar noms. I know it wasn’t well-received at the time it came out but it’s such a gem. I think it could’ve been nominated for Best Picture (not much going on that year besides Terms of Endearment), Best Director, Best Actor for Pacino, Best Supporting Actress for Mastrantonio, Best Adapted Screenplay, at the very least.
@@stonegasman3866Scarface was definitely better than Right Stuff and Psycho 2. 1983 had much better movies than those 2 imho. ET, Risky Business, National lampoon’s Vacation, The Big Chill, Wargames were all more memorable and better films in my opinion.
Everyone is bitching about this review in the comments, but they're both right. The film is so ridiculous and cartoonish and OTT that it's both bad and great at the same time.
Gene Siskel is wrong here, but usually I disagree with Ebert, who didn't like The Thing or Hellraiser from the 80's. Gene Siskel also didn't like Aliens from the 80's.
i don't think comparing this movie to the Godfather is a good comparison. They are focusing on two different parts of a "gangster" movie. The Godfather is specifically about the mob, and filmed beautifully about the lives of the older mob bosses and people around them. This movie is very much about the modern times, and how the young don't care about what the old timers did. They want the money and fame, they don't care about the other aspects. I will agree Siskel, 10-15 minutes are pretty boring but not the majority of the movie. It needs to stop being compared to The Godfather, probably nothing will ever touch that movie. What Brian De Palma did was make a modern movie about the under world, and not sugar coat it, especially since the subject matter was only a couple years old.
Ebert always had an eye for recognizing iconic films.
Not always: Die Hard, A Clockwork Orange, Fight Club, The Usual Suspects, Batman, etc...
He got it very right with dark city.
jp3813 also Gladiator
Search here Full Metal Jacket
Honest Person no
Roger Ebert is absolutely correct here: Scarface is a masterpiece. If you read his four-star review of the film, it’s even more on point. He realized the violence was not gratuitous, but it was designed to show Tony Montana’s “self-destruction.”
Ebert is much more open-minded, scholarly and has a sense for how movies will be perceived in the future, and that's why he was dead-on correct with "Scarface". He had some missteps along the way with "Full Metal Jacket" (which he did not like), but then also had the humility and willingness to change his mind (as with "Alien"), which he panned the first time and later considered a masterpiece. Gene was good, but stuffy. Miss them both.
Full Metal Jacket isn't that great of a film. It tried to do what Saving Private Ryan did better, and failed at the other aspects of realism, like with whole Private Pyle sequence.
@@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017 SPR imho is a worse movie than FMJ. SPR has ONE great part... the beaches. The rest is the usual same ol' fair, with dem good ol' american boys meeting... enemies who are so fucking stupidly written... Random MG nest, "Expert sniper" who doesn't change positions... Tiger drives in alone and so on... it's empty pathos.
A really great War Movie is Das Boot.
He liked Alien from the get-go. The video is here on YT, its 1979 review at Sneak Preview.
Does it still count as "changing your mind" when you only flip the script once said film becomes critically & culturally praised?
He loved alien the first time. Him and siskel gave it thumbs up
Ebert was absolutely 100% correct here. Scarface is a masterpiece. He was one of the few critics at the time to realize it. If you read his written review (where he gave the film 4 out of 4 stars), it is even more spot on. He realized that the film’s violence wasn’t gratuitous, but rather, it was intended on showing Tony Montana’s ultimate self-destruction.
Siskel was wrong about the violence being removed from Scarface. After they got the R rating, all the original violence was put back in.
It was the infamous "chainsaw" scene in the film that had to be heavily trimmed down to avoid an X-rating. That scene, however, is now tame by today's standards. Similarly, "The Exorcist" almost received an X-rating back in 1973, due to its equally infamous "crucifix" scene, but that scene STILL manages to shock and horrify even today.
Gene might not have been aware that the version we got is the fully uncut version. At the time that the movie finally got its R-rating there was a presumption that the most trimmed version would be the one released. No one really knew yet that the director went ahead and released his original version under the logic that "All the versions submitted had gotten the same X rating, so what difference does it make if we put out the first (least trimmed) version, and not the last (most trimmed) version?"
I totally agreed with Roger. I absolutely enjoyed "Scarface" a lot. I thought it was incredibly awesome. Al Pacino was really damn good as Tony Montana. His performance was so phenomenal. I also agreed what Roger said about the rating board. They wanted to rate this movie X for the violence, but totally lost. So it's R rating. It was very tough, and rough, and definitely not appropriate for younger audiences, including me. But it's a very good movie. Now initial critical reception was negative due to excessive violence, profanity, and graphic drug usage. Some Cuban expatriates in Miami objected to the film's portrayal of Cubans as criminals and drug traffickers. In the years that followed, however, critics have reappraised it, and it is now considered by some to be one of the best films in the crime genre, and one of the greatest remakes ever. I know most people who mostly did not this film at all by giving it generally negatives except others who quite liked it a little bit. But to me still, it was terrific. I enjoyed the original 1932 classic film, but I really loved this remake more. Thumbs way up for me on "Scarface".
Scarface (1983) 4/4 👍👍👍👍
I agree. Scarface is a classic.
Both of these men forgot about the scene where Tony kills Alberto because Sosa ordered them to blow up a car with a Mother and children inside. The movie's issue might be it's run time but that scene shows you that this "boring" and "bad throughout" character with a violent and drugged up lifestyle still has morals. Tony's one redeeming quality is the reason he gets killed at the end.
somebody give this guy a raise 👍
ahh..no....totally wrong....he wasnt killed because he has morals....you forget that selling drugs kills 1000's of kids every year and tony was a drug dealer if you have forgot........he was killed because he went back on his word and prevented his agreed to victim from being killed..sosa didnt order him to blow up a car with a mother and her kids inside....he made a deal to help tony for his help in killing a man he wanted killed...if you forgot ...tony WAS NOT..the guy throwing the switch...he was just a driver,,,,,,sosa killed him for the reason he told him he would on their first meeting "dont ever fuck me tony"....or maybe you forgot that too....
@@jadezee6316 I admit I could've worded my comment better, my apologies for any possible confusion. I only brought up the "morals" part in response to Siskel's notion of Tony being a boring character. Of course his death had to do with betraying Sosa. Not going on with killing the journalist because the wife and kids joined him in the car is still a redeeming quality for Tony. The beginning of that scene indicates the journalist's family never join him in the same car until THAT day, making Tony feel more guilty about the mission. There was no prior knowledge of the wife and kids going to be in that car but Sosa's men were still willing to continue his orders, whereas Tony was not. Even criminals have their limits.
@@funnynerd1 lol it was perfectly clear what you meant and you're right, that's a key scene to understanding that for however lousy he was he still didn't want to stoop to the lowest of the low, which makes him different than most of the complete and total psychos he was working with.
@@gabbyh3979 I'm still surprised Ebert didn't reference that scene, Siskel would've had no further argument.
A movie the critics were so wrong about when it hit it's now considered one of the best movies of the 80s.
Scarface couldn't effectively be evaluated upon its release but only appreciated decades later due to the cultural impact this movie had. It ranges from the portrayal of the excess of the 1980's to highlighting the new breed of American mafia/gangsters that would dominate the American drug scene for years to come. Scarface offers deep insight to the personal insecurities, emptiness, legal and family problems that ensued from all the baggage derived from that kind of dark money and power. It' s a profound movie but one that goes beyond Siskel & Ebert's scope of appreciation at that time. For me it's one of the greatest movies ever made with the cast delivering top notch performances. It only gets better with every watch.
“Scarface,” a classic, was really only liked by Roger Ebert when it first came out.
Siskel could look at a rainbow and shrug, "Phlufph; it's only HALF a circle".
LMAO
😂😂😂
Look man: these two were honestly always throwing softballs compared to the rough critics...
@@michellelekas211 ......and? If you take a 5-lb dump on something and somebody else takes a 25-lb dump on it, how does that make your 5-pounder smell like freshly baked banana bread?
@@kennethlatham3133 Many people actually enjoy reading and following film criticism. If you analogize it to taking a dump, you must think that watching a film is like eating and talking about film critically is akin to ingesting laxatives maybe? It is possible to enjoy and actually THINK about cinema critically: this does not mean "dumping on" film but really taking it seriously.Usually, films that no one disagrees about at the time of their release fade away (i.e. maybe you remember the Oscar winners DANCING WITH WOLVES, THE GREEN BOOK, ORDINARY PEOPLE?) Who is watching these even recent films today? Ah, but CITIZEN KANE was reviled, BONNIE AND CLYDE was considered ridiculous by many critics (excepting Pauline Kael), SEVEN SAMURAI was considered absurdly long, as was APOCALYPSE NOW, some critics found THE WIZARD OF OZ headache-inducing.....even IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE did not earn wonderful reviews. And people are still watching... If you only want agreement, then that is what you will get: you will never have an interesting conversation or relation that yields anything beyond the sad enjoyment of trying to make cute comments on You Tube. It's your call.
Siskel would've hated Citizen Kane if he had reviewed it when it came out. Dude gets nearly everything wrong. lol Tony Montana totally uninteresting? Tell that to half the world that goes around quoting him 40 years later. lol Why did this dude ever have a job?
Siskel got it right more often than Ebert. Scarface was dog shit anyway.
@@LumpyAdams Spoken like a true Euronymous fan. Euronymous's Mayhem stunk. Dead and Varg were the best things to ever happen to that awful band.
Randy Bobandy You’re wrong. Scarface was and still is a great film, go back to your crappy Adam Sandler comedies.
Looking back on these reviews, it never fails to amaze me how wrong-headed Siskel could be.
Both of them I think. Ebert gave a thumbs down to - Die Hard, A few Good Men, Dead Poets Society, and The Untouchables - to name a few bad calls.
time cementing Scarface as a classic would certainly make it seem so. I don’t think he’s wrong in his opinion that Tony lacks substance as a character, but that’s not what many of the fans of the movie wanted out of it. Part of the fun of watching these guys is their shining examples of the subjectivity of art
Siskel did like Blue Velvet while Ebert didn't though, so that's something.
Ebert too.
Can't believe that people don't respect the opinions of other people.
jesus, some of your guys takes in the comments are pure cringe. get off your high horse and stop overthinking. scarface is a visceral, violent classic with one of the most iconic performances ever. just enjoy the ride and dont break your balls or your word for no one.
I agree. It’s not perfect nor supposed to be a masterpiece, it’s a re-telling of a 1930s gangster classic. Enjoy it for what it is
Can someone tell me how people can salvage these ebert and siskel reviews please?
Siskel way off on this one. Scarface is a masterpiece.
I find it way over the top in such a way that it becomes a comedy.
@@alanrogs3990 Oh for sure. It almost feels like a mix between a Latin-American/Italian novela and an American crime film. Wildly over the top.
Not entirely. It’s gets way too mired in melodrama and we don’t get to see much of the nuts and bolts of Tony’s trade.
If there had been more sequences in the film as tense and lurid as the drug deal gone wrong in that South Beach motel, then it might’ve been a true classic.
Instead, it’s more of a cult classic.
I happen to be quite fond of the film, but its artistic merits are hardly bullet proof.
One of the all time great films. It's sad these two never made a retrospective titled "The Movies We got Completely Wrong"! Unfortunately, Gene Siskel would dominate the category. He panned Silence of the Lambs, Taxi Driver, Casino among a dozen other film classics. I couldn't stand Roger Ebert's ego and the way he overwhelmed Gene with words when they disagreed but maybe he had a point. More often than not, Roger Ebert came in with a thumbs up for the great, groundbreaking classics.
@@Bot23 he does have a point tho, Roger was occasionally wrong (for instance with blue velvet and home alone) but for the most part he was the first reviewer to thumbs up now classic films, that at that time people didn’t like (for instance the shining)
Both these guys used to piss me off but I was always interested in hearing how they approached each film and their ultimate opinions and reasons for them. Miss them. Television just SUCKS now! Got rid of my TV 6 yrs ago and never even missed it. Lol
When it comes to Al Pacino's gangster films, I do not think "Scarface" (1983) is as good as the first two "The Godfather" movies (1972, 1974). But I do think "Scarface" is better then "The Godfather: Part III" (1990).
I’m amazed at the people like myself who are still watching these two review movies from years ago - Now. I have always found myself in agreement with Ebert.
Would be kind of interesting experiencing this movie when it came out, rather than decades later where you can enjoy it even more for its 80s charm.
I agree with you, it’s almost like a time capsule to that era. It also teaches you how to move as a drug dealer and what kind of mindset to have. One of my all time favorite movies
Siskel's comments sure didn't age well.
Why does Siskel think the obvious comparison is to compare Tony’s character to the Godfather? Just because it’s played by the same actor? Man was he off with this review.
Siskel often betrayed a pretty lousy understanding of movies and an almost weirdly ignorant sense of characters, especially in his comparisons. He was also a BIG moralist, so to him, every "gangster" was just a "gangster". If you watch a lot of the show, you see how he would VERY often give a film a negative review just because he "didn't want to see people doing bad things". Ebert also did that, too, sometimes giving a film a bad review because it made him "feel bad" or because he didn't like seeing violence (he famously gave Lynch's "Blue Velvet" a thumbs down simply because of the scene with Hopper and Rossellini - weirdly suggesting that somehow Rossellini *herself* was being abused in the scene, as if she wasn't acting lol). They were often hypocritical and often very mistaken. In fact, after a deep dive I did a few years ago, watching almost every episode that's available to watch (I grew up with them in the 80's, but just watched them all again), I would say that S&E were WRONG about movies much more than they were right. Another thing about the SHOW that people forget is that their WRITTEN reviews - especially Ebert's - were a LOT more nuanced than what they said on the show. This is why a lot of filmmakers despised Siskel & Ebert, because the whole "thumbs up, thumbs down" thing basically killed serious, nuanced film criticism - and they had the power to kill a film's box office chances. People forget: these guys, at a certain point, could literally cause a film to be a success or a failure because SO many people watched and trusted them. Roger Ebert went on "The Tonight Show" when Chevy Chase was a guest on the Friday that "Three Amigos" was opening, for example - and he said it was the worst film of the year - and the film bombed. Today, everyone loves it as a classic.
@@redadamearth In his Terminator review he mentioned the Terminator coming from another planet… It’s like the entire story went completely over his head. He also was saying he was more interested in the love story between Connor and Reese. Dude’s a sap.
@@redadamearth Three Amigos holds a special place in my heart. What a douche.
He was off on most reviews, he was a MORON!
Now l know why l always liked Ebert better than Siskel. How could anyone say that Al Pacino's character was boring in this move.
Pacino's character jumped off the page. This was a legendary performance by a great actor.
At the time it was a shocking movie turned into a classic
Yes.
I can't believe no one ever talks about Montana's mother's rejection, his weird obsession with his sister, Gina and how he basically bought his wife, Elvira. He is potentially sexually inadequate which may be what drives his violent and reckless side to self destruction. That's a big part of the movie/ character and it's ignored.
Good point.
the mothers rejection and obsession with siter's purity and even the dancing scene where scarface gets angry to see his sister there are all taken direction from the 1930's film and are part of the scarface character in that film as well. just an interesting fact people should watch the first film which was a fictionalized version with political underpinnings to create a tough on crime movement with a character sort of based on Al Capone. The real Alphonse Gabriel Capone, sometimes known by the nickname "Scarface", was an American gangster and businessman who attained notoriety during the Prohibition era as the co-founder and boss of the Chicago Outfit."
Thank oliver stone for that?
Yes Tony had alot of issues but we don't talk about the incestuous nature he has. Pacino and his Tony Montana character was crazy and brilliant. He bared the cross of being the black sheep but Tony's example was his father, to his mother he was a bad seed and it needed to be purged.
@@jesp999 Yes, you are right. The Howard Hawk's SCARFACE lays the whole story out.
Looking back now , we know now who was the better critic. RIP movie guys
For sure. Go watch Ebert's review of A Few Good Men.
@@toddgaak422 his review of The Devil Wears Prada is legendary
@@mitchellhughes5180 that was one of his last reviews before he left At the Movies in Summer 2006
Gene was a contrarian before anyone heard the term
I agree with Ebert here.
Ebert schooling Siskel on the 10 Crack Commandments 😂
Underrated comment
The character Scarface “boring”? 🙄 Siskel got this movie all wrong.
Totally boring guy. Gets into fights with creepy drug dealers in motels with chainsaws, takes over a drug empire in Miami with nothing to his name but determination and a bad accent, gets laid in a hot tub surrounded by cocaine sand dunes, takes trips to see the cartel hang people from helicopter. So boring, Gene does all of this before 9am than most scarfaces do in a lifetime.
@@elmerkilred159 Yeah you also didn't get it.
Elmer Kilred Yeah, if you’re a Michael Bay Transformers fanboy, maybe this film and the character Scarface would be boring to you. Maybe you stick to your crappy action films, this movie is a great piece of cinema. Get your garbage opinions and tastes out of this comment section.
Man, Siskel was talking out of his ass a lot (same with The Big Lebowski, for example)
He seemed to find one thing he didn’t like and make his overall view of the film reflective of that.
He (Siskel) only draws comparison to the godfather because pacino was in both. But they are 2 totally different films. Godfather was a mafia family saga, and scarface was life and times of one character. His rise and fall. Tony was an interesting guy regardless of his "boringness". His life is relatable in the sense that we all want the world... and everything in it😊
"we all want the world... and everything in it"? I don't think so. That is the mentality of a capitalist, and look where that has got us.
This movie is so watchable. The violence is nothing compared to now
You got that right, and the same with the profanity!
I thought this movie was shocking when i saw it as a teen in the 80s. It was playing at the walk in theatre as a double feature with "Dawn of the dead" That one was shocking then too
holy moly, you must have walked out of the theatre a bit traumatised after watching those two as a teen
Al Pacino, De Palma should have won the Oscar for Scarface. Classic film
Saying Al Pacino’s Scarface is a boring character is baffling. The man had morals, grit, passion, anger, violence, wit, jealousy, and power just to name a few attributes.
Agreed. Al Pacino is magnetic as Tony Montana.
hes def not too boring. if anything, hes too un-boring. hes more exaggerated than boring
Morals? He uses extreme violence to get his own way. Like the State of Israel.
Always remember that Gene Siskel gave a thumbs down to Silence of the Lambs!
Nah!!! You're kidding right???
Gene Siskel could be such a stuffed shirt at times. He totally missed what Al Pacino was capable of doing in this movie. He portrays a Cuban Refugee, that comes to America, and, without any formal training, leapfrogs his way to the top...even though it's as a Drug Dealer. This movie has long-since attained a type of cult status...and ol' stuffy-boy Gene missed the mark terribly on this one! Ebert, on the other hand, got the analysis of this movie right! It ended up being on of the better movie releases of 1983.
Gene Siskel gave a thumbs down to Silence of the Lambs?!? He must've had a double-dose of dumb before he came to the show that day. Either that, or maybe the Wife didn't give him any nooky before he went to work that morning. Not being able to get some from the Wife can really set some guys off. Something must've pushed his dumb button that day, that's for sure! Silence of the Lambs was one of the top draws of 1991, along with T-2: Judgement Day! I hope that he didn't give that one a thumbs down, too! Personally, I loved both of those movies, along with City Slickers, The Hand that Rocks The Cradle, Sleeping With the Enemy, and more! 1991 ruled!!!
Likewise for Taxi Driver and The Terminator. If he personally disliked the character then to him it was a bad film. That's pretty short sighted. Especially for a film reviewer.
I still like him as a critic and he mad a great duo with Roger but I have the impression that he had a certain dislike for violence and violent characters and that that bias sometimes made him dislike movies that later became classics. Maybe it wasn't the violence per se but that he sometimes couldn't recognize anything beyond the violence.
I read this in a review somewhere of this movie -- watching Tony Montana become a drug lord through the course of the story is like watching a cockroach get bigger and bigger and bigger.
Siskel didn't even like Brian De Palma's masterpiece Carlito's Way either! I feel so bad for all of those folks that took his word and missed out on so many great films.
Carlito's Way is a great film but it's not De Palma's best. Femme Fatale is De Palma's finest.
how is it Tony Montana a boring character? lol
Tony Montana portrayed by Al Pacino is _boring_ ?
Tony was more complex than both these guys gave him credit for. His downfall was that he refused to kill innocent kids.
@@Orlando_Steve But it's fine to use violence to get your own way, so long as you only attack adults... who might be the parents of children? That's the mob mentality.
I honestly don't think Siskel even paid attention to half of the films he watched.
Ebert was 150% accurate on this one. Come on Gene….
TBH. I didn’t like it at first either. Now it’s one of my faves. Watched it a million times. Godfather is not the obvious comparison Gene. It’s Scarface. 1932
I think it’s a phenomenal film. The idea of this refugee in America trying to prove himself as more than an uncultured petty criminal. They way they pass judgement at him in the early scenes based on his race and class, which is a complex for him throughout the film. And he realises power and money ultimately doesn’t count for much when all you want is a family and a life of purpose. Surprised so many people sniffed at this movie (no pun intended).
Siskel missed the mark on this one, its reputation that it’s built over time proved that Siskel was on the wrong side of history. This film is an amazing classic!
Well, Ebert was absolutely right!!!!
Siskel seems to review movies according to what he wishes they were rather than what they are. Even when that would involve it being a completely different film.
Ebert had the foresight here in predicting that there's a lot of people who'll identify with Pacino's Tony Montana.
His review was on the money here...
I always tend to agree with Ebert and not Siskel on most of the movies they reviewed. Siskel completely missed the boat on this one imo. Pacino created a truly memorable character with Tony Montana, maybe a little over the top sometimes, but very original.
I think Gene missed the Mark on this one, Scarface and The Godfather are no where near the same. Totally different stories.
I am on team Ebert for this one. Scarface is a movie that stays with me after I watch it.
I think Scarface is such a bad movie that it borders on camp.
I usually agreed more with Siskel than Ebert in their reviews, but I think he's flat wrong here. The film is a hard watch, and it is as grim as it is gruesome, but the story of Tony Montana is not boring, rather tragically predictable. In the drug trade and certainly once drug abuse enters the picture, only darkness follows...with violence rarely far away...
One scene I don't like is the scene where Sosa sends him an assassin to kill & a reporter, who's talking too much about Sosa's organization on TV. He says "no kids", and he's fine with murdering everybody else who gets in his way or wrongs him including his best friend, but the wife & kids are when he decides to have some morals, like a road to Damascus conversion
@@davebrayfbWhat? That's practically his only redeemable moment in the entire movie and a great scene at that. Despite being who he is he still cherishes innocence which gives his character some depth and complexity. Also, Tony doesn't kill Manny because he is in his way, Tony kills him because he is coked-up out of his mind, stressed out and pissed as all hell. Combined that with the overall bad timing of his heated argument with Sosa and Manny sleeping with his sister and Tony just snaps. Having said that Tony does regret killing Manny later tho.
@@Peer165 that's what I mean, it feels like the scene was just thrown in their at the last second because he didn't feel sympathetic enough and it would be the only reason people would root more for him, despite him being a murdering scumbag who kills like 30 people in the movie. Manny was in the way of him getting closer to his own sister, his sister even knows that he wants her for himself and no other man.
@@davebrayfbI kinda disagree with the notion of Tony wanting to get closer to his sister, in that way. Sure, that is her final perception of the situation but when she implies him wanting her his reaction is pure confusion. He definitely is very overprotective of her to a disturbing degree but there is no real indication of any incestus attraction.
Always agreed more with Ebert on movie reviews.
I've seen siskel dislike so many iconic films. He likes a lot of forgettable movies. He got silence of the lambs the lambs so wrong. He thought foster was just ok & hopkins was over the top. He also thought hannibal's introduction was over the top. He said why would demme do such a bad film. He must have felt silly when it swept the Oscars.
Plus Hopkins received such a standing ovation when he won because he became one of the best movie villains in cinema history
He also gave thumbs down to Apocalypse Now. Needless to say I was shocked and chagrined.
I think - whether we agree with them or not - critics at their best review the films *they’ve* seen. They could care less how many awards a film ends up winning or whether it’s popular. Ultimately, this is a good thing. One’s opinion should root it’s strength in logic, not in numbers. By extension, the best way to strengthen that logic is to listen to someone who disagrees with you. I suppose that’s a tall order for anyone in the United States, however.
I think you are wrong here. There were just as many occasions where Ebert was strange in his reviews. And i followed them since the beginning. In the end they were just movie critics. It would be very boring if everyone thought the same about every movie don´t you think?
I binged watched some of these S&E reviews. Siskel really laid some turkeys giving thumbs down to movies like - Jurassic Park, Terminator, Silence of the Lambs, Scarface and other classics.
Gene loved Jurassic Park...he gave it a ⭐⭐⭐1/2 star review...
Yeah siskel often disagreed with the most popular opinion... so what?
Frank Lopez thinks Gene gets high on his own supply.
Siskel would have not liked “Kill Bill v1” or “The Passion of The Christ”
He'd have been right about those as well.
This movie is one of my all time favorites
SIskel is how I felt when I first saw the movie and Ebert is how I feel about it now lol
I think the whole point of movie is to show how ruthless you have to be to get to the top of the drug world. When Montana refuses to blow up the family in the car and shows some bastion of empathy is when his ultimate downfall begins.
Because he went completely against Sosa’s orders to prevent the guy (I forgot his name) to speak against Sosa’s band of criminals at the UN. Sosa warned him at their first meeting to not fuck with him and Montana did just that. Sosa stopped his protection and allowed the drug militia to invade Montana’s mansion and ultimately wasting him.
Another one siskel gets wrong. The man hated silence of the lambs & ROCKY!!! Ok rocky. The most inspirational original idea of all time. Both won best picture. Unbelievable. Siskel compares movies to often
I definitely enjoyed Scarface more than The Godfather. Roger seems to be more in tune with the audience on most of his reviews and the future than Siskel. Although i definitely disagree with both of them on Speed 2. I disagree with Roger on Gladiator and Daredevil.
Speed 2 was Awful.
I actually walked out of the theatre, after almost an hour, that's rare for me.
Horrible.
This film is a certified classic. It's one of those flawless Masterpieces that only come every few years.
it isn't a flawless masterpice
@@cesarzpontu8886 Did you hear of the word Opinion? Clearly not.
@@Feoktistovs but opinion can't decide about callling something a classic.
@@cesarzpontu8886 *facepalm*
You can tell it’s a Brian DePalma production it’s got Carrie written all over it it’s a classic it was berated in the day but it took pop culture by storm like the godfather
Both right. Movie lacks a lot. Pacino and Pfeiffer were largely wasted in both senses.
They're supposed to be shallow, plastic characters, and that's the way they played those characters.
Pfieiffer did good In her role , everyone was memorable but still Pacino overdid It with that accent.
Gene just took reviewing too personally. Like all movies needed to have his taste in mind.
Scarface is easily an 8.2/10 movie, one of the better gangster movies in history. I wouldn't put it up there with Godfather or Goodfellas but it's close. Tony Montana is one of the more exciting "bad guy" movie characters ever developed, I cannot believe Siskel can say he is boring. His take really reeks of a conservative grandpa who doesn't like violent movies or things over the top.
I like both Siskel and Ebert as reviewers, but I think Siskel got this one wrong. Saying that a movie is not as good or as interesting as The Godfather is not a scathing criticism that merits a thumbs down. I know that's not the extent of his criticism, but it was a major theme.
I saw this movie when I was 17 and I found it terrifying and gripping. I found Tony Montana mercurial, harder and harder to sympathize with, yet complex and believable. It is a different kind of gangster movie from The Godfather, and I agree with Siskel it's not quite as good. But it's still very effective.
I never thought Scarface was on the level of Godfather 1 or 2 but it was absolutely entertaining and amusing although somewhat over the top. What do I watch a movie for? To be entertained and not feel that I wasted my time or money. Scarface supplied the goods. I like Gene but at times he can be namby pamby. Roger too but not as often. Still love these guys almost as much as the movies they reviewed. Often more than the movies.
The best review show ever - Ebert was brilliant!!
Later in Carlitos Way Gene complained that Pacino wasn't believable trying to be good lol
Gene Siskel could never tell good movies from bad movies.
Pacino...one of the greats....Scent of a woman is amazing
Don't forget the godfather Trilogy, Serpico, Carlito's way, heat & Donnie brasco
John Baxter and Glenn Gary
@@Jbaxter85 love Carlitos way
Disagree with Siskel. Tony Montana shows his humanity by not blowing up the car with the kids inside.
Btw, this came up on my feed and it’s funny cuz I remember watching this Siskel &Ebert review on a Sunday in 1983. I was 12.
I remember watching it too
Having gone on a S&E review binge in the past few days, I've found myself agreeing with Roger Ebert a lot more than I ever thought I would. Gene seems to really hate violent films, which is fine. However, he seems to almost always unfairly critique some really great classics based on the fact that he feels them unnecessarily violent or exploitive. I think his review here of Scarface shows that. He makes it a point to compliment the "choreography" of the shootouts while at the same time calling the character "boring"? How is the unpredictable, ruthless nature of Pacino's character here "boring"? He's anything but boring. I think the film itself tends to drag on in some parts, which could seem boring to some modern audiences, but this is a classic masterpiece, and I think Gene changed his vote about Scarface years later, looking back on it. I could be wrong about that, but I know these guys have changed their opinion on several classic films years after the fact.
I've seen this movie many times, and yet, I won't call it a great movie... I think some people call it a classic, but why, you never see how Pacino, in a truly awful Cuban Accent, gets to the top, you don't see any of it, you get the obligatory music video scene on money coming in, but never showing how, it's very visceral, but it's all style over substance. Supporting Cast is solid, but SO OVERRATED, it is an empty movie, I'd give it 2 stars out of 4 , it's just gruesome but nothing comes of it, Watch the original, that 1933 film is So much Better
@@kdohertygizbur Ok, I'm glad you're being honest about why you don't like it. However, the reasons you state as to why you didn't like it, I can also point to as reasons why I did. I don't believe we needed to see "how" he made it to the top. The reality is that we see enough about him to understand how he made it. We know he is brutal, cutthroat, and loyal. All the traits you need to be a cocaine kingpin in the early 80s. Style over "substance" is a very subjective observation, because they are portraying a lifestyle that is indeed style over substance at the core. That's what the drug lifestyle is, especially cocaine in the 70s and 80s. The acting is superb. It was exactly what it portrayed, nothing more nothing less. That's what makes the movie great. Also the message in the end screams exactly that... brutal death is the result of this lifestyle. Some people miss that message, but it's as clear as can be.
I find I agree with Ebert more often than Siskel. It’s unfortunate Siskel passed away so early. I’m curious what he would think about Scarface and other movies over time. There are many instances that I don’t care as much for a film, or any work of art, and it changes over time. Although I loved Scarface from the beginning.
I liked it when they would revisit some of their old reviews. Roger seemed to do that more often, and even wrote a book on that subject, I think. But I was glad Gene didn't like this movie for the reasons he did. I will say, however, that I really liked it from the start. And then over time, I still like it, but a little less. I think I'm like you on the whole, in that I agree with Roger a little more often.
@@jackkitchen737 for sure. I find myself liking some more as time goes on, or the opposite. It’s interesting how that changes over time. I like Roger’s retake on Blade Runner. He didn’t like it originally but grew to love it. Although a lot of that had to do with them taking out the voiceovers and tweaking other things. Thanks for the response!
I nearly always agree wikth Ebert. It seems that Siskel has preconceptions of movies and ignores greatness if the movie doesn't match up to it.
Saw scarface in a movie theater when it originally came out in 1983. Saw it with my then best friend. We were 14 years old and a couple of fanatics about the movies. We talked, read, ate, drank, and slept the movies and went to the movies together once a week, every week for a lot of years from the 1970s-1980s (and yes, watched siskel and ebert together on his living room tv)
My friend chose the movies we went to see. I didnt mind. I loved the moviegoing experience in itself. We tried to see every new movie that came out regardless of plot, genre (he loved horror. I preferred comedy), critics reviews, who starred in it, etc. So there was no particular reason why he chose Scarface for us to go see. It just happened to be one of many new movies that just came out.
My friend LOVED the movie from his very first viewing. While I could see how it was a good, entertaining crowd pleaser of a movie, I on the other hand didn't like it because of all the graphic violence (though I still watch it occasionally these days when it pops up on tv). Being raised in an abusive, dysfunctional home, I had enough violence and drama going on in my real life. So, I didn't need violence and drama going on the movie screen where I was trying to escape.
Still, going to the movies every week with my best friend is among my most fondest, happiest memories of my entire life.
The theater let two 14-year-olds in to see this movie I thought it was rated R
@Charles Hall it was rated R. But the theater employees of every movie theater i went to just didn't care about underage kids seeing R rated movies in their theaters. I learned that the year before in 1982 and was 13 years old when I went to see the movie Fast Times At Ridgemont High.
When I went to see this movie in the theater I was 23 years old I had to show my driver's license
Siskel had to be out of his mind to think this movie/Pacino character is boring.
Siskel seemed to hate violence in films.
It's so boring, and so predictable, like honestly 80s kids... grow up
“Make lots of money and marry this blonde...”. Seeing that the “blonde” in question was Michelle Pfeifer, that is not a bad life goal to have!
Blech! I prefer brunettes.
@@maskandvaccinefreeandproud2110 Of course. To each his own.
@@abcun17 Cheers
If you like your blondes addicted to coke, booze, and cigarettes, sure, why not?
@@mikehunt4986 I was actually talking about Michelle Pfeifer...not he character in the movie...
Siskel is off base comparing the Godfather to Scarface. They are TOTALLY different characters! Pacino as Michael was a guy smart enough to take over his family business. Pacino in Scarface is a guy who is more or less a nothing with no family, and by utter brutal hustle, BRIEFLY makes it to the top of the organization he's targeting. In fact, he's SO effective, he starts killing DEA agents, and brings down not just the other dealers, but the entire US government down on him. THAT is the point of the movie.
Siskel is totally off base criticizing whether he likes the character vs whether the film is good, and Ebert calls him out.
I agree that the people who worship this character are bozos themselves and prob ignorant boring people, but even the educated and disadvantaged need exceptional heros, and in a weird way, that's what Scarface became. Regardless, De Palma's direction was incredible, and the movie is beyond beautiful to go with the constant ugliness in it.
I love these 2 they launched a million yt movie review channels. Gene gets a lot wrong on in time classics. Where he goes wrong is he bases the movie he is reviewing against another film. I.e. this against the godfather. He hated silence of the lambs which was a commercial & critical phenomenon. He kept comparing it to " henry: portrait of a serial killer. He should really look at a film on it's own merit.
"Scarface" is an excellent film. Powerful tragedy. One of the few times where Siskel got it wrong --- way wrong!
Ebert really tore Siskel a new asshole here never seen him get this aggressive in a review before this was funny.
Ebert's right. I thought the movie was fascinating. Would I want to spend time with Tony? No. But, who cares?
One of the greatest movies of all time
Tony Montana, boring?!?!
Nearly 30yrs later, the street value of coke and crack is unchanged, while the price of tickets, crackerjacks, and popcorn rises even higher out of sight.
Meth as dropped incredibly. 100 bucks a gram around 2010. And in 202O I heard it's 300 bucks an ounce. Still sounds impossible to me so I'm not sure. Weed prices have dropped for sure
Did Gene Siskel ever like ANYTHING? I mean, rest his soul and all that, but the man was such a prude when it came to films.
He liked HALLOWEEN 3.
@@chicovoylez3216 how strange
Can you imagine his movie collection blahhhhhhh
He liked two things especially: Disney movies of the '90s and Kathleen Turner
@@chicovoylez3216 I actually liked Halloween 3 and think it’s an underrated gem (I know), but Scarface is my 2nd favorite movie of all time with Aliens being my #1 favorite. I love the pacing, its storytelling is superb, some of my favorite lines of dialogue of all time, the action sequences are fantastic, and plus Al Pacino steals the show, so hey, meet someone who has a good taste in film and doesn’t let their love of shit movies affect their taste and knowledge of film.
"wat da fck is wrong wth ju, Siskel" "What da fck are ju high or something?" - Tony Montana
I’ll never understand how Scarface didn’t rack up Oscar noms. I know it wasn’t well-received at the time it came out but it’s such a gem. I think it could’ve been nominated for Best Picture (not much going on that year besides Terms of Endearment), Best Director, Best Actor for Pacino, Best Supporting Actress for Mastrantonio, Best Adapted Screenplay, at the very least.
Because it was considered too violent for the time and Hollywood praised family friendly bs films.
@@stonegasman3866Scarface was definitely better than Right Stuff and Psycho 2. 1983 had much better movies than those 2 imho. ET, Risky Business, National lampoon’s Vacation, The Big Chill, Wargames were all more memorable and better films in my opinion.
Siskel once said he didn’t like the movie Se7en because of the violence when it actually didn’t show any until the very end
@@koolmaaan again you don’t actually see any violence to the victims
Siskel liked Se7en fine, he just felt the violence could have been toned down.
Everyone is bitching about this review in the comments, but they're both right. The film is so ridiculous and cartoonish and OTT that it's both bad and great at the same time.
Gene Siskel is wrong here, but usually I disagree with Ebert, who didn't like The Thing or Hellraiser from the 80's. Gene Siskel also didn't like Aliens from the 80's.
Both of them didn’t like Aliens which is unbelievable.
Ebert gave 3.5 stars to Aliens. He said it made him uncomfortable however for it being so intense
www.rogerebert.com/reviews/aliens-1986
Scarface inspired one of the greatest games of all time vice city
Scarface was Pacino's best performance since both godfather movies then.
Carlitos way was another good one with Penn but the ending was bad at the train
Scent of a Woman. The best speech in movie history.
@@SeaJayAudit And Justice for All was better
i don't think comparing this movie to the Godfather is a good comparison. They are focusing on two different parts of a "gangster" movie. The Godfather is specifically about the mob, and filmed beautifully about the lives of the older mob bosses and people around them. This movie is very much about the modern times, and how the young don't care about what the old timers did. They want the money and fame, they don't care about the other aspects. I will agree Siskel, 10-15 minutes are pretty boring but not the majority of the movie. It needs to stop being compared to The Godfather, probably nothing will ever touch that movie. What Brian De Palma did was make a modern movie about the under world, and not sugar coat it, especially since the subject matter was only a couple years old.
I'm glad we got to watch it after the 80s. Us who saw it after the 90s never coupled it with the godfather. At least I didn't.
True , but Godfather Part II > Godfather Part 1 imo.
Siskel, that's like saying Godfather 2 is boring because he starts off bad and ends worse!
And I know you wouldn't agree with that view of the film.
Absolute classic of a film!
I LOVED Scarface. Almost as much or better than even the Godfather despite any of its so-called flaws.