I would say Brian DePalma's remake is 'of this time,' because it is so loved. Since the corrupt, incestuous murderer played by Al Pacino keeps winning over admirers from generation after generation, the film must belong to the 'times' -- or even possibly be timeless.

I feel DePalma's film is becoming just as much an artifact for fans of film as the original one is.

Does anybody know what 'mech' did to get banned?

"Banned?"

I tried to tell him that the language making light of the Holocaust was in poor taste and offensive.

@BaronOfHair said:

Timeless or 'of its time'?

Scarface still remains watchable though, on account of Pacino's powerhouse performance and De Palma's masterful direction.

The film is so unbelievably gaudy to watch now, though. I mean, Tony's suits... the mountain of coke on his desk... wow.

@bratface said:

Does anybody know what 'mech' did to get banned?

The big problem is that he posted so many messages that now that they're all gone the rest of us are going to look like we've all been talking to ourselves. We'll look crazy, lol.

@CelluloidFan said:

I would say Brian DePalma's remake is 'of this time,' because it is so loved. Since the corrupt, incestuous murderer played by Al Pacino keeps winning over admirers from generation after generation, the film must belong to the 'times' -- or even possibly be timeless.

It's a sign of the times -- as vindictive and corrupting as they are. Take this site, for example. 'Sometimey' posters save their most vicious, hatemongering, abusive language to talk down to others here whom they cannot even see. They want to abuse folks as extensively as they please, and they might not even have 4 good deeds that they've done for others who can never repay them!!

I feel DePalma's film is becoming just as much an artifact for fans of film as the original one is.

Yeah. I don't think much of the remake, but being over the top with violence and language it's still very current and likely to engage a certain type of modern viewer. With the original I can imagine it being captivating at the time but now it's like something from another planet.

@Fergoose said:

The acting is variable, the humour is leaden and, well, I've never seen a woman try to seduce a man by tap dancing for him!

• The art of tap dancing

@Fergoose said:

@CelluloidFan said:

I would say Brian DePalma's remake is 'of this time,' because it is so loved. Since the corrupt, incestuous murderer played by Al Pacino keeps winning over admirers from generation after generation, the film must belong to the 'times' -- or even possibly be timeless.

It's a sign of the times -- as vindictive and corrupting as they are. Take this site, for example. 'Sometimey' posters save their most vicious, hatemongering, abusive language to talk down to others here whom they cannot even see. They want to abuse folks as extensively as they please, and they might not even have 4 good deeds that they've done for others who can never repay them!!

I feel DePalma's film is becoming just as much an artifact for fans of film as the original one is.

Yeah. I don't think much of the remake, but being over the top with violence and language it's still very current and likely to engage a certain type of modern viewer. With the original I can imagine it being captivating at the time but now it's like something from another planet.

I viewed Hawks' film years back and don't recall a ton about it. I remember feeling it's a good film--not as memorable as the 1983 remake with all of the garish excess and extreme graphic violence. I seem to remember Hawks' film having a nice, suspenseful last act... always a good thing.