About two months ago, I did a complete 180 on my stance of that movie, and Pacino's performance within even.

While it might be unfair to hold Hawkes's work to modern standards, because of pressures from censors and the limitation of movies back then, Paul Muni and company themselves come of as one-dimensional and over-the-top and prove generally grating to watch. Sure, the on-screen depiction of violence still sparks--and must have been revolutionary at the time--but the story is told in a rather flimsy and uncompelling if not laughable manner that is simply not worthwhile for the audience. Maybe it was a true originator once and everyone simply copied for decades following, thus limiting its initial power, but it really seems now more of a parody of gangsters and gangster films. (However, something like Public Enemy still holds up relatively well today, so I'm not gonna give Hawkes that much of a pass.)

On the other hand, while De Palma's version--his most satisfying film--may also be dated in some areas, by its early 80's soundtrack and montages, and though the grip on its ending is not so air tight, its ever-quotable dialogue, appropriately operatic lead performance, horrifying violence, consistent suspense, and well-researched story hardly waste a minute of film.

I know it's rather easy to blame Tony for his influence, especially with as uninspiring and myopic as those copy-cats have been, but I say without hesitation that 1983's Scarface is the infinitely more entertaining and better made film.

Now I just have to see Sternberg's Underworld somehow.