Scarface what were Montanas biggest shortcomings

* There was an element of satire about of my approval of cocaine as a recreational drug london. While I wouldn't turn down a line at a party, I haven't bought coke for years. Fact is I smoke a little weed and I enjoy the odd glass of red wine on occasion, but I am, for the most part, an extremely sober, focused and serious individual - with a sense of humor. I am not a big fan of of the moral majority, but I am a humanist and an open minded individual with plenty of empathy and compassion.

* While the cocaine comment in a previous post was certainly a veiled snipe at that aforementioned moral majority, the place it comes from is the thoughless negativity on this thread (mainly from arch conservative Pinky) towards Brian De Palma's scintillating and sizzling neon-tinged, technically breathtaking 1983 version of SCARFACE. I have seen and enjoyed both the Howard Hawks-directed, Paul Muni-starring 1932 version of SCARFACE (my rating: 9/10) and De Palma's Al Pacino-starring 1983 flick (8/10). Both are excellent films which have stood the test of time.  

On one thread I see a series of crude, hideously dated and utterly mediocre lowbrow comedies being celebrated simply because they were made during the so-called classic era, and on this thread I see a particularly fine and fascinating 1983 film made by one of the best American directors of the post World War 11 era being dissed by a poster (who may not even have watched the film) who lacks the ability to see beyond the film's profanity and explicit bloodshed and look into its brutally honest and perceptive core. Sorry, I'm human and sometimes my heart gets in the way of my head, so I reacted.      

The 1932 version of SCARFACE may lack the visible blood, the gruesome detail and the near constant profanity of the 1983 version, but it is an equally vicious and shockingly violent film. And anyone who cannot see that was wearing rose tinted spectacles and not paying attention when they watched it.    

PS. I realize you calling me "a raging drug fiend" was humorous and tongue-in-cheek, but many posters here do - as they did on the IMDB's notoriously conservative and old-fashioned, now defunct, Classic Board - see me as one. I guess it helps them cope with someone who doesn't fit into any of boxes they understand.

In the classic 1969 film about the counterculture, EASY RIDER, Jack Nicholson's George Hanson tells Dennis Hopper's Billy that Wyatt and Billy represent "freedom" to the moral majority. Billy  replies by asking "what the hell is wrong with freedom" because "that's what it's all about."

And George says: "Oh, yeah, that's right. That's what's it's all about, all right. But talkin' about it and bein' it, that's two different things. I mean, it's real hard to be free when you are bought and sold in the marketplace. Of course, don't ever tell anybody that they're not free, 'cause then they're gonna get real busy killin' and maimin' to prove to you that they are. Oh, yeah, they're gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom. But they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em."

In the age of Trump and Brexit what has really changed?