Since you want to debate the worth of Scarface, I gladly will:
Scarface
My nomination, AND my pick. Nobody is swaying me here. This movie is shit, and yet people all over swear it's a top crime film. It's bloody awful.
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. You might want to find some new reasons for holding this opinion, though, as I will now show you why they are, collectively, a very flimsy basis.
I pulled this excerpt off the net which speaks to my opinion wonderfully:
There is not a single character in this movie you can really care about. Al Pacino’s performance mostly consists of using a terrible, fake Cuban accent and shouting “fuck” every other word. This movie marks Pacino’s first real foray into loud over-acting. And while Pacino’s performances in the Godfather films, Serpico, and Glengarry Glen Ross are rich and complex, in this film, he deliver little more than a loud, two-hour Cuban caricature.
While it's nice to have a sympathetic protagonist in a film, it is not necessary for a film to be great. No one (I repeat NO ONE) is supposed to care about Tony Montana and the people who surround him. Scarface is a fictionalized yet authentic depiction of the Marielitos (i.e., the ne'er-do-wells, mental patients, and convicted felons that Fidel Castro decided to ship off to the United States in the early 80s) and their involvement in the flourishing drug trade in 1980s Miami. If you want Scarface's depiction of 1980s Miami corroborated, I highly suggest checking out the documentary
Cocaine Cowboys (title is linked to imdb page).
Scarface's greatness derives from both this aforementioned authenticity and the way in which it unfolds. Tony Montana may be one of the most unlikable characters in film history, but I'll be damned if anyone can tell me that they weren't riveted by his story. It's obvious after the first 30 minutes of Scarface that Montana has all the makings to rise fast and fall hard in Miami's criminal underworld. And, even though we know how it will all end, we're still stuck in our chairs, eyes glued to the screen, under a state of hypnosis that only ends when the credits start to roll.
The worst part of this film is Michelle Pfeiffer. She's awful. No passion, no depth. I have rarely been less interested in a love-interest in a crime film. Goodfellas got Lorainne Bracco. Casino got Sharon Stone. Godfather got Diane Keaton and a solid performance from Talia Shire. Hell, Bronx Tale added depth with that black girl "C" meets. Pfeiffer acts as disinterested ad this film actually makes me.
Think about this for a minute, IC, just think about this. Michelle Pfeiffer plays a character in her middle-20s who is first involved with a middle-aged car dealer/part-time drug runner and then involved with a violent, stupid, and ill-tempered kingpin who personally killed her first lover. None of these men really hold her interest, and she wouldn't give them the time of the day if they didn't have what her character cares about most in this world: money.
Elvira Hancock is the type of woman that many ultra-rich men attract: gorgeous but vain, shallow, and jaded. Pfeiffer plays this part to a tee. That you find Pfeiffer so passionless, boring, and slightly despicable shows that she gave an exceptional performance.
You have every right to think of the world that Scarface depicts as uninteresting and detestable but that doesn't mean it's unfaithful to its source material. Scarface is meticulous in its faithfulness to its source material. Tony Montana, Manny Ribera, Elvira Hancock...you would have encountered all of these people had you lived in early 1980s Miami and enjoyed its night life and partying hard; the only difference would be their names.