Scarface (1932) 4K UHD Review | Does This Feel More Like VHS Than 4K?

Come check out my latest 4K Review for this classic 30s gangster film "Scarface” and find out if this release from the Criterion Collection is worth your time and money.
.
.
Scarface 4K - amzn.to/49a6x3m
Scarface Blu-ray - amzn.to/3OsYsgH
.
.
Send Mail To⬇️
Kenny Vetter
PO Box 91973
Louisville KY, 40291
.
.
SUBSCRIBE TO MARRIED WITH MEDIA!⬇️
/ @marriedwithmedia
.
.
Ways to Support Channel⬇️
Pay Pal Me - www.paypal.com...
.
.
Instagram➡️ / midlevelmoviereviews
/ midlevelmedia
Twitter➡️
/ midlevelreviews
LETTERBOX➡️letterboxd.com...
.
.
#scarface4k #criterion #4Kreview

[@brunomachado7279]

Sometimes the blu ray is enough, indeed.

[@Garemandude]

“Scarface” was directed by Howard Hawks, whose career covered virtually every film genre and included many that you know and have enjoyed. Check out the great Paul Muni (MYOO-nee) in “I was a Fugitive from a Chain Gang” 😉

[@michaelpitts7584]

I prefer this movie of the Al Pacino film. This is one of best gangster movie of its time and one of best films of the 30s. Howard Hawks was a great director.

[@DeliveryServiceFan06]

Fun Fact: in the Brian De Pama version of Scarface it was dedicated to the director of the original Scarface Howard Hawks in the end credits which is a great because he directed the original Scarface from 1932 and it's great for 1983's Scarface to honor the director of the original Scarface from 1932 which is a great tribute to the original Scarface from 1932.

[@Stratmanable]

Wow. Punctuation, dude.

[@roachman1412]

I think it looks better then the dvd that came with al Pacino blu-ray scarface years ago

[@ouroborosproductions]

When they announced it I thought the cover looked kinda bad but seeing a copy of it feels like an old movie poster it really works

[@jeffbelval2075]

I picked up the 4k. I never seen this film but I always wanted to since the Al Pacino Scarface is one of my favorite films of all time. I thought the picture quality didnt look that great, the camera seems to be out of focus in a lot of scenes. I also had to keep turning the volume up because the dialog was pretty hard to hear and understand. Even with all the negatives, I thought the actual movie was great and will definitely be watched again. I’m happy to own this.

[@flrpitflrp1965]

I like this version way more then the DePalma one.

[@lancehilton3984]

Check out Hader in the Criterion closet. He’s my favorite guest in those videos. Great review!

[@midlevelmedia]

I actually think I have seen his segment. lol… I’m all for him doing more features though. Thanks for watching!

[@adp217]

Both versions are good, the 30s film hold up incredibly well. Some of the filmmaking craft is amazing - the Valentine’s Day massacre scene with smoke and shadows is incredible. Have to disagree with your characterisation of the Pacino character in the dePalma version though: in my opinion Montana doesn’t start off as hugely sympathetic and is fairly irredeemable by the end.

[@letstalkcriterion]

They didnt use the original camera negative for this film so this was restored from a print hence the lower quality. But it is HDR10

[@midlevelmedia]

HDR was not used.

[@Hof79905]

Please review the newly released Criterion edition of Paper Moon.

[@Pssybart]

One thing I've really noticed in these pre-code films is that many of them use absolutely no ambient music. Music is usually reserved to just the title cards, As a result, you can always hear a soft hiss in the soundtrack. The same goes for the Universal monster movies like Dracula. It's not until King Kong that movies really start having an elaborate soundtrack. Does anyone know if there is a technical reason behind this? Like maybe it was harder too sync several audio tracks? Or was it simply because sound was such a novelty at the time, so film makers figured they didn't need music. Walt Disney didn't seem to have any trouble in adding music to his early cartoons. This is not really a criticism, just something I've noticed. I'm also really getting into pre-code films right now.

[@EverettDudgeon138]

The mindset was that music through the film was too much like the silent period and they wanted to distance themselves from that period and not have people get distracted by music when they should be focusing on the recorded sound.

[@georgeharris9873]

This original will always beat the remake. Great job on this review.

[@Stratmanable]

Um. No. Not in this case.

[@randyacuna5643]

​@Stratmanable absolutely not ! The original is a masterpiece, the remake is a boring mess. Just talk and more talk . The ending was so over the top , this became a joke. Muni's performance is blistering. Arguably the greatest gangster movie ever.

[@georgeharris9873]

@@randyacuna5643 Thank you.

[@metal4gemini]

Im gonna have to get that one, never seen it before.

[@reyluna9332]

Could you put together a list of pre-code film recommendations?

[@midlevelmedia]

Might be a good idea to

[@ADAM-z9c]

This movie was made by caddo company with funding/producing from howard hughes. Howard hughes wasnt really liked by the mainstream hollywood people and often had to use subpar cameras. as the better ones were all owned by the bigger companies at the time. They had first pick on the newer cameras essentially. United artists/mgm distributed the film.

[@Stratmanable]

The problem with higher definition formats is that they make films shot in lower definition formats, like classic films from the silent Era into early technicolor, look like badly shot video.

[@LaughMuBai]

OK, added it to my wish list...

[@TheTerryGene]

You really must check out Muni in “I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang” from the same year this film was released (1932). It is one of the greatest Pre-Code social commentaries of all time and Muni is terrific in it. It is a true story based on the book “I am a Fugitive from a GEORGIA Chain Gang.” At the time of its release, the author of the original book, Robert E. Burns, was still a fugitive and would remain so for quite some time.

[@midlevelmedia]

@@TheTerryGene I’m putting it on the list! Sounds great!

[@TheTerryGene]

I’m kind of surprised that you didn’t note the significance of the letter “X” in the film, including the shape of his scar.

[@midlevelmedia]

Sorry, can’t talk forever. People get upset. Lol

[@bacarandii]

Yes, Howard Hawks' original gangster picture is a WAY better (and more inventive and influential and important and complex) movie than DePalma's extravagantly over-the-top 3-hour 1983 Miami/Cuban mob version -- as DePalma himself is the first to admit. You can see in the astonishing opening shot, from the streetlamp to the first killing, the kind of kinetic cinematic touches that would excite and inspire DePalma. It's a shot as complex and thrilling as the much more famous opening of Orson Welles' "Touch of Evil" -- 17 years later. But the only things the two "Scarfaces" have in common are the basic character concepts (sociopathic mobster has an unhealthy obsession with his sister) and the skeleton of a plot. But they're so different that there's plenty of room for both of them.

[@MottTheHagan]

Howard Hawkes is great, but I feel like Scarface is his least memorable. The Pacino version will always be the most rewatchable of the two.

[@themtgdude486]

Agreed.

[@EverettDudgeon138]

I think the remake is a bit too cartoony for me and over the top so I always prefer the original which is more low key and mean spirited.

[@VonWenk]

I prefer the Paul Muni version. There's nothing in the remake comparable to the "X" foreshadowing death in the original.

[@robertfaulkner1824]

It’s a wonderful life was another good one from the 30s

[@midlevelmedia]

Yes it was.

[@martianbrainsqueeze]

It’s A Wonderful Life came out in 1946…

[@metal4gemini]

Is it 4K or 4K UHD?

[@leonricci1993]

Hey "Goof"...Haward Hughes?...In 16 min you might have given him a mention!

[@midlevelmedia]

@@leonricci1993 Hawks directed. I don’t usually mention producers in my reviews.

[@reyluna9332]

Paul Muni was a chameleon.

[@jeffcarlin5866]

I have the Blu-ray...and YES, the Blu-ray is enough. The movie is very soft -- almost out of focus. The old Blu-ray looks great. I'm sick of updating movies to 4K and shrugging.... "It looks the same."

[@JaketheSnakePlissken]

🙋‍♂️ I was the one that said it looks VHS quality on your Instagram post Ken lol. I was very much into the film but the transfer just kept distracting me. Especially choosing to purchase the 4K over the blu ray u can’t help but notice. Doesn’t even pass for a blu ray this didn’t look anything remotely like an HD transfer to me at all. DVD quality at best and that’s being generous. I feel like there was no point for Criterion to release a 4K of this film. But that’s just me.

[@JaketheSnakePlissken]

Overall this would’ve been such a perfect film to have a great transfer for and I’m just disappointed is all. As Ken stated we’ve seen incredible transfers done on films of this era.

[@Chrisratata]

I hear ya... It'd be interesting to see another label do it to compare. Not all film prints of the era are going to be in the same great condition to scan from, especially if all they could track down was a duplicate that may or may not be first gen....that may not've been preserved the best. If a bunch of scenes looked blurry and low contrast then it was likely a source print issue. But you may be right that if all of that is the case then it could've been better off being a bluray only release. I haven't seen it for myself tho

[@wil89098]

Paris Texas is not much better as well. Criterion worse boutique label this year? Its getting close to it.

[@alley123bleach]

1st